Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible

What went wrong?

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from Click on “PDF” just above the abstract.

The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 C°. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 C° warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.

The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.

When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models:


Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN’s climate panel predicted with “substantial confidence” that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.


clip_image004 The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4 C° per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.

The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.

Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –

  • The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.
  • The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.
  • Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 C° of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 C° – about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.
  • Though the complex models say there is 0.6 C° manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come.
  • There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 Cº global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 Cº but 1 Cº or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 C° warming would result.

Lord Monckton, the paper’s lead author, created the new model on the basis of earlier research by him published in journals such as Physics and Society, UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, and Energy & Environment. He said: “Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggerations in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks. For instance, take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”

Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: “Our work suggests that Man’s influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view.”

Dr David Legates, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and formerly the State Climatologist, said: “This simple model is an invaluable teaching aid. Our paper is, in effect, the manual for the model, discussing appropriate values for the input parameters and demonstrating by examples how the model works.”

Dr Matt Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of global warming simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is.”


newest oldest most voted
Notify of


That’s probably why Will Steffen and others yesterday veered into hyping the breach of nitrogen-phosphorus boundary due to human activity.
All of K-12 education and governments at all levels via the UN and OECD are shifting us to Marx’s Human Development Model. Facts must not be allowed to get in the way.

That link also explains why Food Equity is now bring pushed as a human right globally. Only enforceable in the West where there is a surplus.


Do you know what Socialists call facts that clash with their ideology?…… They call them Hate-Facts.
They even manage to get laws passed where you cannot use these facts in your argument because they cause insult or offence or contribute to a discriminatory behaviour. Though they may be facts, they are Hate Facts.
Try wading into race, religion or indigenous history using facts…. and you’ll quickly find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit…. Especially in Australia.

One should always start with a pocket calculator model first, before one can even think about flow charts and code ! i believe this based on black body radiation with no green houses 255K vs current and layering each green house gas as one one goes forward using the specific heat of each. I could not load this here, but I remember a paper on this at this website.

M Courtney

So the new paper points out that the feedbacks may not be positive – or only positive feedbacks exist.
It points out that the GCMs don’t accept that.
Thus it gives a lower climate sensitivity figure.
Which is in line with observations. And so more likely to be right.
That’s not new.
What is remarkable is that it got published. And in the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences? that’s a political blow for any Parisiennes beanfests.
But the link to the downloadable paper doesn’t work.


the url you can read is correct, the pdf is called “why” for some reason

Monckton of Brenchley

To download the paper if all else fails, just go to and click on “Current issue”, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Sorry for the problems with the link: technologically speaking I’m still steaming resolutely into the first quarter of the 19th century.

The Bill

Most likely a result of the filename for the PDF containing a space by extracting from,t eh title, then failing to “escape” it for use on a filesystem or in a URL.
[Reply: I can see how that could happen. ~mod.]


It is indeed remarkable that it got published. It shows the degree of smarts and endurance required to publish academic/scientific papers that fall outside prevalent fashions. It is a process that can be partly justified even when, at times, it is completely abused.
I would like to thank Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs for their efforts.

Many thanks for your very kind words.

Monckton of Brenchley

In response to Mr Courtney, what is new is the demonstration that one can use a very simple model and, using honest and physically-appropriate values for its parameters, obtain less absurd and exaggerated estimates of climate sensitivity than the general-circulation models. Also, what is new is that for the first time the principal elements in the determination of climate sensitivity are made publicly available in a very short compass, and yet with full discussion of the individual equations and parameters and of the interactions between them. It has never been done this clearly or this concisely before. We have done our level best to make the notion of climate sensitivity and of the uncertainties in its determination as widely accessible as possible.
And one can access the paper by going to, clicking on Current Issue and then finding our paper, Why models run hot? Results from an irreducibly simple climate model.

Very good

Monckton of Brenchley

Very kind


Thanks PaulC it worked. I do not think the model is useful. I realise that Monckton wants to follow the IPCC method so that it could get some acceptance from so-called climate scientists but there are some fundamental errors. 1/ a gas such as CO2 can do no forcing -it is the wrong units. – he should do dimensional analyses. 2/ The Stefan-Boltzmann equation was formulated for surfaces in a vacuum. 3/ radiation is only one aspect of heat transfer. 4/ beside heat transfer there are also energy considerations in mass and momentum transfer etc

1, An increased concentration of CO2 can cause a forcing, and the units are correctly given in the paper – which was scrupulously peer-reviewed – as Watts per square meter.
2. The SB equation operates correctly at the Earth’s characteristic-emission altitude, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere.
3. When we are considering the influence of CO2 on temperature, we are concerned only with the radiative transports, and with consequent temperature feedbacks.
4. There are many factors not specifically considered in the simple model, but it is effective nonetheless because it encompasses their effects. It is valuable as a way to expose some of the errors in the more complex general-circulation models.

Janice Moore

Dear Christopher, Lord Monckton,
Congratulations on successfully running the gauntlet!
Regarding, “1. An increased concentration of CO2 can cause a forcing… :”
(you at 9:10am, today)
please forgive me if this is addressed in your paper (I have not read it yet — replying to me, here, nevertheless, may be wise, for there are many readers of this thread who will not read the paper at all…),
it appears that you are assuming, ad argumentum, that CO2 (outside a highly controlled laboratory, i.e., in the context of the entire earth climate system) drives temperature.
Thus, I ask:
Do you disagree with Dr. Murry Salby (and others) who conclude from ice core proxy analysis that temperature drives CO2 emission on earth? (See Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg lecture (April, 2013) on youtube)
Perhaps, when I read your paper I will find an explicit statement to the effect that you and your colleagues assumed CO2 drives temperature on earth only ad argumentum. It would prevent your unintentionally “chant{ing} the AGW mantra” {AGW troll today, below on this thread} to state that here, too, however. So far, the AGW crowd has produced no evidence that the case is otherwise (again, outside highly controlled laboratory conditions which have never come close to replicating the earth’s climate system).
I realize it is, if you are at home, quite late (about 10pm, I think), now. I’ll look forward to reading your response when you have the time.
Yours sincerely,
Janice Moore
Two other sources supporting Monckton, et. al, (2015):
2. Bob Tisdale’s e book: Climate Models Fail

David Socrates

When can we expect Salby to publish ?

Seems he has a problem with the mass balance argument.


I have checked the units of all of the terms in the equation. There are no dimensional errors. One does not have to believe that the equation represents realistic climate change; only that it serves as a check on models that rely on the same descriptors and feedback mechanisms. That is the way that it has been used here.

Janice Moore

Thanks, Bones, for your thoughtful response (of 6:51pm today)!


Viscount Monckton,
your mealy mouthed response to “cementafriend” says: “I am a squealing AGW apologist”
Let’s review –
1,An increased concentration of CO2 can cause a forcing, and the units are correctly given in the paper – which was scrupulously peer-reviewed – as Watts per square meter.
Oh please! Adding radiative gasses to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability?
2. The SB equation operates correctly at the Earth’s characteristic-emission altitude, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere.
Bullshit. Go outside with your $100 IR detector. Measure the sky. Strongest IR emission is from cloud, average attitude well below 5 Km. Oh, and here’s a hint, where’s centre of density? How does 7.25 km compare with your 5 km assumption? You fail, forever.
When we are considering the influence of CO2 on temperature, we are concerned only with the radiative transports, and with consequent temperature feedbacks.
What bit of radiative subsidence skipped your understanding? Change the concentration of radiative gasses and you change the speed of tropospheric circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells. Who’s a snivelling moron? Not me….
There are many factors not specifically considered in the simple model, but it is effective nonetheless because it encompasses their effects. It is valuable as a way to expose some of the errors in the more complex general-circulation model
Who cares about “specific factors”? You got it wrong, bitch. The net effect of radiative gases is atmospheric cooling above all concentrations above o.o ppm.
You talk about speaking the truth softly, Viscount Monckton. I say you can stuff your “Realpolitik” up your ass. After all 72 hour dead man codes,, butterfly wing encryption, and I am incapable of “nice”. I don’t play fair….
Wanna play on warmist?


David Socrates
You say

When can we expect Salby to publish ?

Seems he has a problem with the mass balance argument.

Everybody who considers it “has a problem with the mass balance argument”; i.e. “the mass balance argument” is circular nonsense and, therefore, is irrelevant to sensible discussion.


You say

I am incapable of “nice”. I don’t play fair….

That was obvious so you did not need to state it.
You are merely another disruptive troll throwing abuse from behind the cowards’ shield of anonymity.
Please desist from wasting space on threads with your unpleasant nonsense.


“unpleasant nonsense”?
Unpleasant, yes. Nonsense, no.
Viscount Monckton has just written another “CO2 causes warming, but less than we thought” paper. Little different to those being rushed to publication by climastrologists frantic about the “Pause”.
His mistakes are as bad as theirs. He assumes radiative gases cause warming. The problem is they don’t. 71% of our planets surface is an extreme SW selective surface. Climastrologists and sadly Viscount Monckton assumed “near blackbody”. This is utterly incorrect, as is the claim of average surface temp of -18C without DWLWIR. The sun alone would drive the oceans to Tmax of ~80C if it were not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
Viscount Monckton has also tried playing the “ERL” card, essentially claiming that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. This is ridiculous.
The “basic physics” of climate on Planet Ocean are simple –
The sun heats the oceans.
The atmosphere cools the oceans.
Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
Viscount Moncktons “physics”has the atmosphere warming the oceans. I’m not sure it’s possible to be more wrong.
Unpleasant I may be, but that does not stop me from being right.
[Note: at least Monckton puts his name to his words. Your claim of being “right” is valueless without your name to stand behind it – Anthony]

In reply to Konrad, at no point in courteous reply to cements friend did I use of him or anyone the discourteous phrase maliciously attributed to me in quotation marks. A higher standard of integrity is expected of contributors here,

Lord Monckton,
W/m2 does not have the units of force which is a Newton
I respect your knowledge of mathematics but it seems that you do not understand thermodynamics and Heat+mass transfer. Have you looked at the work of Prof Hoyt Hottel whose data, formulation and writings have been read and peer reviewed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of chemical and mechanical engineers over at least 6 decades.
I will in time put a more detailed post in reply to your comments on my blog ( but it maybe of interest to look at the post on Thermodynamics and the one on methane (which is not a greenhouse gas from my knowledge and experience)

In response to Janice Moore, I am impressed by Professor Salby and disappointed by his university’s loutish treatment of him. However, our approach in writing the paper was to adhere as far as possible to the official position, so as not divert attention from the central point that even if that position is as far as possible accepted there is no basis for assuming high climate sensitivity.


“Note: at least Monckton puts his name to his words. Your claim of being “right” is valueless without your name to stand behind it – Anthony”
Are memories short Mr. Watts? We have met. We shook hands. My name, as you would well know from my honest email I use, is Konrad Hartmann.
Perhaps a photo to put a name to a face would jog your memory?
No! Not the impossibly cute one you fool! That’s “Rugby”, wolf film actor from “Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” and “true blood”. The other one…
But watts in a name? Let alone a photo….Perhaps my work should count?
Does landing a mobile art gallery on top of a HK skyscraper count. Sorting the Olympic rings for Vancouver matter? (let alone the attendant nose loader cargo 747). Do the engineering awards matter? The exhibitions in technology museums?
None of it counts. None of it matters regarding the AGW hoax.
All that matters is this –
FFS it’s painfully simple Anthony. Either you “get it” or you don’t. I follow the scientific method. I does not matter that I have more experience then the “mythbusters”combined. (although this is why I am doing all the primary steel design for POTC5 & 6 and they are not).
You are an empiricist Anthony. That’s why I respect you. Do the experiment. Learn. Illuminate those test blocks for 3 hours of IR at 1000 w/m2, both respond the same. Try it with 1000 w/m2 of SW. Now block A runs 20C hotter. Now do you understand why I get to use the most filthy language against Viscount Monckton now until the heat death of the universe? He claimed to be a sceptic. But he treated the oceans as a near blackbody. There can be no forgiveness.

Mr Hartmann has continued to fail to read the replies to his scientifically inadequate postings. The Stefan Boltzmann equation does not, repeate not, apply at the surface of the Earth (which is where the ocean surface is, for instance). It applies at the characteristic-emission altitude, some miles up from the Earth’s surface (higher in the tropics than at the equator). And that surface, whether Mr Hartmann knows it or not, and whether he likes it or not, is very, very nearly a blackbody with respect to the long-wave infrared radiation with which we are concerned when we consider the greenhouse effect.
I have at no point suggested that the ocean surface has an emissivity of unity; though, with respect to the long-wave infrared radiation we are concerned with, I recall that its emissivity is about 0.96, which is quite close to unity. Be that as it may, it is not the emissivity of the ocean surface that is relevant to the Earth’s effective temperature. It is the emissivity of the characteristic-emission altitude that is relevant. Until Mr Hartmann understands that distinction, he is deluding himself – and he owes me an apology for excoriating me as ignorant when it is he who has been insufficiently schooled in elementary climatological physics.
Admittedly, I have had the advantage of having sat for many dazzling hours at the feet of Professor Richard Lindzen, who knows more about the foibles of the climate object than anyone. it was he who explained to me the importance of what he has described as the “characteristic-emission altitude”, which is that altitude, varying with latitude, at which incoming and outgoing radiation are equal. That altitude, one optical depth (tau) into the atmosphere as seen from space, is the altitude from which satellites see outbound radiation as emanating. The temperature at that altitude may be directly determined from the known influx of solar radiation by the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The calculation to determine the Planck parameter must be carried out painstakingly, latitude by latitude, so as to overcome the Hoelder inequality. What is interesting, on performing the calculation, is that the Hoelder inequality is quite small as applied to the characteristic-emission altitude. The true value of the Planck parameter, after allowing for that inequality, is just one-sixth higher than the Earthwide first approximation based on the mean global effective temperature of 254.9 K.
The math behind all this is actually quite carefully explained in the paper in Science Bulletin, which Mr Hartmann, like so many other trolls here, has failed to read with the attention it deserves. It is admittedly somewhat compressed, for we are rather breathlessly trying to provide in just 14 action-packed pages a much-simplified but nevertheless reasonable description of the entire climate system. But – and this applies to other commenters here – you do not add anything useful to the discussion if you have not bothered to read slowly, and think about, the paper you are so willing to sneer, carp and whine about.
We welcome genuine scientific criticism, but it will not be genuine if the critic has not had the common sense to read the paper. Please read it, carefully, and do not shoot your mouth off until you have made sure you understand what it says.

David Socrates

” It applies at the characteristic-emission altitude, some miles up from the Earth’s surface (higher in the tropics than at the equator) ”
“and he owes me an apology for excoriating me as ignorant ”
Uh……last time I looked, most of the “tropics” were at the equator.

That should be “higher up at the tropics than at the poles”.


Monckton of Brenchley says: January 19, 2015 at 4:06 pm
”Mr Hartmann has continued to fail to read the replies to his scientifically inadequate postings.”
Viscount Monckton, I have read your replies, and I can assure you the scientific inadequacy is not on my part.
You have written another “warming but less than we thought paper” based on the assumption of a net radiative atmospheric GHE.
There are two arguments typically used to promote the idea that adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will reduce the radiative cooling ability of the planet.
The first is the old “two shell”argument. I note here that while you avoided this, it fails on several counts. First the two stream approximation of radiative physics cannot be used within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere as the apparent emissivity of materials will always appear higher than their effective emissivity. Secondly incident LWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool, so 71% of one shell is out of that game.
The second is the “ERL” or effective radiating level or as you call it “characteristic-emission altitude”. This also fails on two counts. First, the 5 km claim. This is a mathematical assumption, it is not measured. Satellites do not measure the altitude of emission. But you can, with a simple $100 IR instrument. Clouds are the strongest emitters in our atmosphere, and due to their average altitude and radiation being a function of the fourth power of temperature, the 5k km claim collapses. Secondly we are dealing with materials, be they gas, liquid or solid, that are UV/SW/SWIR translucent and largely IR opaque. S-B equations cannot be used here, yet this is just what you are attempting.
The experiment I show in my comment above “shredded lukewarm turkey in Boltzmannic vinegar” is a clear demonstration of the problem. S-B equations alone cannot explain the temperature differential between LWIR illumination of the targets and SW illumination.
You have also claimed on this thread that non-radiative transports can be ignored in the calculation of “radiative forcing”. This is exactly what Sir George Simpson warned against in 1939. The primary energy transports away from the surface of our planet are non radiative. Critically vertical circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar circulation cells depends on “radiative subsidence” for continued circulation. This established meteorology is something climastrologists have been desperate to replace with “immaculate convection” to parametise their failed GCMs. If you don’t model non-radiative transports increasing in speed for increased radiative gas concentration, then you can’t be right.
You have further claimed that surface properties were not needed to determine radiative forcing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simplest way to determine the net effect of all atmospheric processes is to eliminate the atmosphere from the equation, and determine the average temperature for surface without atmosphere. Climastrologists have falsely claimed 255K.
Allow me to demonstrate how surface properties matter for planets without atmosphere illuminated with SW –
1. Planet White Titanium Oxide – average temp 167 K for 240 w/m2 SW
2. Planet Blackbody – average temp 255 K for 240 w/m2 SW
3. Planet Polished aluminium – average temp 450 K for 240 w/m2 SW
4. Planet Ocean, our planet – average temp 312 K for 240 w/m2 (remember that the oceans are an extreme SW selective surface)
What would adding a radiative atmosphere like ours to each of those planets do? Surface properties matter.
We know that our near surface average temperature our planet is 288 K, far lower than 312 K. Therefore we know that the net effect of our radiative atmosphere. Cooling. A non-radiative atmosphere could not provide such surface cooling as it would have no effective way to cool itself.
There is no net radiative atmospheric GHE on planet Ocean. This is why “warming but less than we thought” papers, despite short term political value, are a scientific dead end.

Rhoda R

Thanks PaulC. Interesting article and I’m glad for a chance to read it…. so thanks also to the Heartland Institute.


I know in in building enterprise business systems, the mantra we had was “Complexity is common, simplicity takes genius.” In software develpment that basicall meant the more complex a system the more could go wrong and the more it would coast to maintain.
In climate models, complexity hides any kind of rigorous thinking in relation to assumptions, or simply put, a lack of common sense.

To be fair, complexity itself is not bad. It becomes bad when a developer can’t explain it to anyone else, or when no one else can figure it out. I certainly hope climate science is not like this, where researchers scribble complex systems but can’t explain every last detail in simple terms a year later.
It does bring a smile to my face when I see articles like this, because I just know someone somewhere said, while thinking about modern climate research, “Why the hell is there so much complexity?!”


Is anyone else having trouble with the link to the paper?


Yes, getting
Error-Code: 403

Monckton of Brenchley

To download the paper, go to, then click Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. Sorry for the messed-up link (though if you cut and paste it into the address field of your browser it will find the paper).

Krishna Gans

@Jor Born
Donload the file and rename it xxx.pdf


Thanks for the tip, but I get the same result as Alx: there’s no file to download.


Thanks, Stephen, that worked.
We read in the Conclusion:
Actual global warming from all sources is:
…no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.
That includes human and natural, and it completely falsifies the IPCC’s erroneous models.
There is no emergency. What we are observing is the normal ebb and flow of planetary temperatures. The IPCC can now say, “Mission Accomplished”, and MovOn to another way of fleecing Western taxpayers.
Ah, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, there are still lots of moles left to whack…

Mike M.

Thanks, Stephen. That link worked.


two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.

Well there’s two idiots that could not even peer review a grocery bill never mind a scientific paper. In peer review the methodology, accuracy, and justification for the conclusions are reviewed. Whether the conclusions agree with the reviewers view or any other organizations view is irrelevant. In fact the purpose of research is to both reproduce if possible and disprove if possible results from other research. This kind of behavior is simply pathetic.


Unless it’s a religious document. Then the reviewers have the moral responsibility to insure that the contents of the document will not harm the faith of believers or contradict Canon Law.

Rhoda R

You used the /s symbol, but to some climatologists it IS a religion and it IS their duty to make sure that no document will harm the faith of believers. See some of the early e-mails from the climategate files.


Roda R,
That was my point, exactly. But my comment should be tagged as sarcasm because we really don’t expect SciBull to publish under a religious license. Do we?

Mike the Morlock

Alx, please look at the quote again “at first”. There is nothing wrong with starting off with a jaudiced eye to reviewing something. But it apears that they came around. To put it simply, the paper and model was sent throught the wringer, that is a good thing. Hence the review proccess is more robust and not merely rubber stamped

Monckton of Brenchley

Mike the Morlock is right. We welcomed the challenge to convince two initially skeptical reviewers that the paper was worthy of publication, in that it correctly criticized the erroneous climate-sensitivity methodologies of the IPCC and the general-circulation models. The reviewers took a great deal of trouble over our paper. One of them, in particular, proof-read it meticulously and greatly improved its precision and clarity. We were very fortunate in our reviewers, and in our editors, who fast-tracked the publication because they wanted it to appear in the first edition of the newly-rebranded Science Bulletin (it was formerly the Chinese Science Bulletin). They were efficient and courteous throughout, and shepherded the paper through to what has been a very successful publication (3000 downloads at the last time I looked).
Frankly, this is how peer review ought to work: the reviewers ought to be – as ours were – ready to put aside any preconceptions they might have had and to look with a clear and untainted eye at the scientific argument that we had actually presented. Our reviewers did exactly that, and did not allow their initial distaste for the notion of questioning the holy books of IPeCaC to stand in the way of their giving us a fair review. For our part, we took a great deal of trouble to reply carefully and fully to all of their questions, one of which required us to carry out a comprehensive review of a very large segment of the literature on climate. The reviewers expressed their gratitude that we had taken all their points and dealt with them carefully.
A shame that it is the Orient where true science is now properly reviewed and published, while in the Occident political “correctness” takes precedence over the dispassionate reviewing and publication of scientific results. Full marks to the Science Bulletin, and may the new journal become as successful and respected internationally as its editors would wish.

Climate change is now a religious belief on which the devout base their entire philosophy, which makes them immune to scientific argument. We wil never convert the “true believer” but we might just be able to cut off their lower-level support, and let them spin off into the great intellectual void along with the Hollow Earthers.


Flydlbee, if, like me, you’re fed up with being tarnished ‘Skeptic’ or ‘Denier’ (with their religious connotations), here’s some alternatives (been at it all day).
Apart from Climate ‘Disputant’, ‘Detractor’, ‘Opposer’ and ‘Mollyfier’ – all non-religious, my favourite three are . . . .
(Skeptics – followed by Warmist’s title including definitions)
Litigant (pursue a case & engage in dispute): Claimant (person who makes a claim).
Guerrilla (motivated to combat stronger forces): Mercenary (motivated to take part in hostilities by the desire for private gain).
Challenger (engage, question, object to & dispute other’s ideas): Collaborator (colludes, works & cooperates willingly to a cause without questioning the motive).
If anyone wants the full list of all 28 alternatives to ‘Skeptic’ (with their opposite ‘warmist’ name), then I’ll happily post them later. Gotta rush now.
(above posted earlier on WUWT ‘Status & last chance for Josh’s Calender).


Rationalist works for me. Another favorite: non-gullible.

Rhoda R

Ding, ding, ding! I think jorgekafkazar has the thread winner.


Like ‘Climate Rationalist’ jorgekafkazar. . . . so it goes in the pot.
Here’s another couple (Skeptic v’s Warmist):
4. Are you an ‘Aspirant’ or ‘Asperser’?
Climate Aspirant (eager for the truth) v’s Climate Asperser (spreads false rumours).
5. Are you an ‘Repealer’ or ‘Postulant ‘?
Climate Repealer (person who revokes or withdraws from a belief or religion) v’s Climate Postulant (requests admission into a religious institute or doctrine).



Gary Hladik

Personally I prefer to call CAGW skeptics “heretics”, as IIRC Willis Eschenbach suggests. It fully captures the religious nature of the alarmists’ beliefs.
What would be the antonym of “heretic”? Dogmatist, maybe? Zealot? True believer? Disciple?

I was able to get to the page main page by typing the URL text into my browser. You can download the paper by using the pdf download link.


Thanks, that looked as though it would work. Unfortunately, I got a “Site Adviser” warning that the page exhibits “risky behavior,” so I’ll, regretfully, pass. Too bad; it looked as though it would be one the more interesting posts we’ve seen here recently.

Alan McIntire

I went directly to William Briggs’ blog, linked in the “Skeptical Views” here, and got a working link there.


Alan McIntire: Thanks, that worked.

Joe – My Mac browser security settings must be set low, because I got no warnings using either Safari or FireFox. The URL: “” opens the Springer “Science Bulletin/Science China Press” page for the paper’s abstract along with download links. Possibly your browser security is wary of links to Chinese sites?


DanMet’al: Thanks. As you can see upthread, I finally got it.

Monckton of Brenchley

Anyone having difficulty downloading the paper should go to, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.

Here is further proof that man’s CO2 has little (or NO) effect on climate:
Here is a NASA graph that shows that 1920-1940 was warmer than now in the Arctic:
The graph also shows that the rate of warming was faster in the 1920-30s than recently. 1920 had far less of man’s CO2 than recently, which suggests that CO2 actually has NO effect on climate.
Phil Jones told the BBC:
“the warming rates from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
But man’s CO2 emissions during those three warm periods were dramatically different ranging from 91 MT(1) to 4596 MT(1)
Therefore increased emission of CO2 DID NOT increase the warming rate since all three were statistically the same. Again this suggests that CO2 has little/no effect on climate.
The earth warmed for about 22 years, from 1975, then dramatically slowed after 1998. But man’s CO2 was higher since 1998 than in 1975. This implies that man’s CO2 has NO effect on climate.

JP Miller

But, Jim, average temps are higher in the 1975-1998 period than in 1910-1940 and tems in that period higher on average than in 1860-1880. Not saying CO2 is the cause, but facts must be acknowledged.

Alan Robertson

But JP, physics tells us that CO2 could not have caused warming before 1950 and could only be responsible for up to 50% of any warming since then.
Facts must be acknowledged.

Gary Pearse

Everyone acknowledges that the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age and about 0.6C in the past 100 years. This by definition would make the near end a higher average than the far end. Moreover, the point is temperature has been rising for about 200years, three quarters of which time, Man’s CO2 emissions were small and could not have driven a significant rise prior to about 1950.
Beware of the spin which seems to have affected you and millions of others. If we have a 20 year plateau in significant warming (about equal to the amount of warming time IPCC has been hyping about), then it is easy to set a world record by having a temperature “spike” of a tenth of a degree above the plateau, even it the following year it dips back down again.


More facts to be acknowledged:
The warming trend circa1977-97 has been shown to be due to a decrease in cloudiness, globally, as determined by cloud data. This has resulted in as much as 5W/ sq. meter increase in insolation. This is several times the forcing needed to account for global warming since 1977, and as pointed out above, before 1950 man-made CO2 was too slight to induce any AGW prior to that date.
So, all warming is attributable to natural causes and none to AGW.
Note that climate sensitivity calculations are producing ever lower CS figures. In three or four years there will be papers showing NO effective CS for our planet. Here is the truth: warming will not resume and the AGW types will run out of suckers.

Rhoda R

JP, whose figures are you using? Remember the dancing GISS graphs as the older temps were adjusted lower with each publication and the newer temps adjusted higher.


Well. The clock stopped in 2001 in the Arctic?
10 years mean north of 65N 1940-50 (highest previous 10 year period) was 1,2 C LOWER than 2004-2014.
That is a lot.

Here is a more recent article. It goes up to 2010. If you have something more recent, please post it. Thanks.

With such comparisions you can proof, that there is no dangerous warming. But you cannot proof that increased CO2 has no influence on warming. There are simply so much other factors, that you cannot sort out which one has what influence.

Monckton of Brenchley

In reply to Herr Herbst, it is well established that increased CO2 concentration – all other things being equal – will cause some warming. However, it is not known whether all other things are equal, and it is not known how much warming rising CO2 concentration will cause. Our model suggests that around 1 K per doubling, or perhaps less, is the right ballpark, and that responses as high as 2-3 K per doubling are unphysical and accordingly improbable.

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]

Of course, but now they need to turn in their supercomputers. Surely can’t change their thinking and assumptions, but let them point an abacus at it instead.

I also find the assumption that if we could remove all “greenhouse” gasses from our atmosphere that our mean surface temperature would be equal to that of the moon (33C cooler). The vastly different albedo of the two worlds should show that to be nonsense to a child much less a scientist.


Actually, if you removed the greenhouse gasses, and if the Earth’s albedo somehow stayed the same*, then the Earth would be colder than the moon. Some of the Sun’s radiation would be reflected rather than being absorbed. Less absorbed radiation would result in a cooler planet.
*The albedo wouldn’t stay the same. It also matters that the Earth rotates once a day and the Moon rotates once a month.
BTW: Did you know that at its equator, the subsurface temperature of the Moon is a comfortable 23 degrees C? IMHO, the ‘greenhouse effect’ has as much to do with the thermal mass of the atmosphere, and with the distribution of heat by convection, as it does with blocking radiation.


If there were no GHE, there would be no water and this planet would not be earth. GHE=water and CO2 is, by the evidence, of no account.
But some people reject evidence and stick to pure theory, like a fly sticks to flypaper.

In our paper there is no assumption that without ghgs our mean surface temperature would be equal to that of the Moon. Albedo is specifically handled in the equations presented in the paper.


Monckton of Brenchley says: January 16, 2015 at 9:12 am
In our paper there is no assumption that without ghgs our mean surface temperature would be equal to that of the Moon.
And that is why you fail.
You should have calculated surface temperature in absence of a radiatively cooled atmosphere.
Climastrologists (and you) claim 255K. But the correct answer is near 312K. After all 71% of the surface of our planet is an extreme SW selective surface, not a “near blackbody”
Viscount Monckton, your failings are as hideous as those of the warmulonians. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling, and you can’t even understand the basics.
Seriously, how hard can it be?
“Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling our solar heated oceans.”
Not hard at all is it? Well, Viscount Monckton, it may be hard for a mathematician, but not hard for the empiricist. Back to school. Try “Engineering”. Remember, maths can model the physical, but it can also model the physically impossible. And what did you just do?

Konrad fundamentally misunderstands atmospheric physics. At the characteristic emission altitude several km above the surface, at one optical depth within the atmosphere, where the 255 K mean emission temperature prevails, the emissivity with respect to the long-wave radiation we are concerned with is as near unity as makes no difference, At that altitude, the radiative characteristics of the ocean are all but irrelevant.

Bill Illis

Planetary Physics. A recent paper in Nature Geoscience comes very close to answering the questions you have raised. There are a few problems with the results in this paper which have not been addressed yet but it is quite insightful.
Simple outline.

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]


The full Robinson-Catling paper (including supplemental info) can be downloaded at the author’s website:
It is a very interesting notion, that a trace gas (ozone, ~10ppm) is responsible for the existence of the tropopause and stratosphere. In other words, the notion that, without this source of atmospheric heating, the thermodynamic lapse rate would decrease monotonically to the TOA. But, CO2 is not a player here because it cools, not warms, the stratosphere.
It is not really a new idea. It was clearly stated in Strong and Plass’ 1950 landmark paper on spectral line broadening:
Strong, J. and Plass, G.N., The effect of pressure broadening of spectral lines on atmospheric temperature. Astrophys. J. 112, No. 3 (1950).…112..365S


It’s bad day for making usable URL links. Let’s try that Strong&Plass link again with a more durable anchor:…112..365S


Hmm, still not usable.
Just Google the title and author. The Harvard adsabs should be in the first page returned.

Bill Illis

You obviously didn’t understand the implications of the paper. Common tropopause at 0.1 bar. Common lapse rate to the surface. How many kms from 0.1 bar to the surface times the comoon lapse rate equals surface temperature. No GHGs need to be involved in that at all, just a gaseous atmosphere. The exception is Mars because it does not get to 0.1 bar in its atmosphere.


“No GHGs need to be involved in that at all, “
I was referring to the stratosphere and the O3 heating that reverses the slope of the lapse rate, which pretty much characterizes what the stratosphere is and how it behaves (very stable, stops convection, hence anvil clouds etc). Also, for me, the “tropopause” embodies this change in atmospheric properties.

Dough Cotton is everywhere, even on DrRoySpencer. Have already wasted some time reading his outpourings and trials to sell his book.

Ted Clayton

I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider… – Anthony]

Mr. Watts;
I’ve only had a limited previous experience with this guy here, and another at JC’s, but I followed his link here (before you ID’d him & intervened) … and quickly found myself down Alice’s rabbit-hole in a maze of websites and domains and subdomains. I quit following the links, and just moused over them, marveling at the bizarreness.
… And gaping at this apparition, thought to self; <em"Is this "that guy""?
I make this comment to you, upon reading your remark about contacting his ISP …. because if he is hosting this maze of domains with one ISP (which is very possible, with some affordable hosting packages), it is possible that you could do the wider community a big favor, for relatively little effort.
Ted Clayton


Oops, something went wrong…
Error-Code: 403
Response from clicking on that link. Oh well…

The hyperlink in the OP is (at least now) bad. This works:
And here is a direct link to the PDF of the paper:

Monckton of Brenchley

If you have difficulty in downloading the paper, go to, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model. So sorry about the messed-up link in the head posting.

If the feedback in a Bode model is net positive the system “rails”. And we do see that. In the entry to and exit from ice ages. But between those railing events there is relative stability.

No, we don’t see the system heading either for the positive or for the negative rail. Instead, we see a remarkably perfect thermostasis throughout the past 810,000 years across an interval of only 6 or 7 K, which is well below what singularity in the Bode relation would predict.


M Simon
Regarding the starts and ends of interglacials, no need to involve radiative physics, or albedo, or ocean circulation, or Milankovich cycles. It’s ASLAN. He shows up, an interglacial follows – he goes, the ice returns.
The periodic arrival and departure of Aslan can be approximately modelled as an intermittent internally forced nonlinear oscillator.

Gold Rush Mark

Link works fine now. Please try again.

This could be the breakthrough that will put an end to the nonsense that is AGW. We should all be very grateful to the authors.
Alx you are quite right, modern science is not about objectivity, it is about formulating a hypothesis, publicising this hypothesis, getting public funding to prove it and then ignoring any experimental results that disprove or question it. The AGWer’s have gone one step further and treated us all like fools, by not only telling us things that defy the laws of nature,but defy common sense too, the prime examples being the “missing” heat disappearing into the ocean depths and their computer models are right, but reality is wrong.


Unfortunately I doubt it will be any such breakthrough. Results don’t matter – propaganda does. As long as people are making money of AGW it is going to continue to be a crisis.

Never ever assume that because the truth is not currently fashionable it should not currently be spoken. Never ever assume that if the truth continues quietly to be spoken it will not in the end prevail.


@ Monckton of Brenchley
January 16, 2015 at 9:25 am
You say:
“Never ever assume that because the truth is not currently fashionable it should not currently be spoken. Never ever assume that if the truth continues quietly to be spoken it will not in the end prevail.”
Very well spoken.
The truth I see when I read a paper like one of yours is that even you can’t escape the AGW mentality.
You too are a “slave” of it. Even to you AGW is a certainty, a 95% one, I would say.
According to the abstract of the paper you have published, you sipmply argue the extent and the degree of the AGW, whether is at 3.3 C per a doubling or at 1C per a doubling…… and in the same time accept the AGW as real.
And the main problem is the very considering of your pocket calcualter to be a climate model.
It is only a model for calculating and estimating the CS. Probably a very good one at it, but never the less it is not a climate model.
It does not compensate for climate variations and the CR as it should be according to the value of CS.
You see a climate model can not and will not ever project an AGW at 1C CS, and the GW will not ever pass above 1C no matter what CO2 emission scenarios. That is the very reason that IPCC keeps CS at an average value ~3C.
A climate model will compensate and adjust in accordance to the CS value.
You can’t have the same compensation-adjustments and the same CR for CS at 1C as in the case of the CS ~3C.
Figuratively dealing with a ~3C CS Climate (Atmosphere) will be like holding a kitten by the tail….and with a ~1C CS climate will be like holding by the tail a wild and vicious Tiger.
No matter how wrong is with the climatology, when it comes to AGW the IPCC does not make the guff of considering an AGW below a ~2.4C CS.
Please do forgive me for speaking my mind.
Your paper shows clearly the problem with the GCMs, as claimed, but also shows another very important and ignored problem.
The accuracy and the truth of the 97% consensus about the man-,made global warming.
Is not only a 97% consensus amongst scientists only, but is actually a 97% consensus amongs all concerned with climate change.
And the whole fight lately seems to be over the scale and the degree of that warming, while it will be benign or catasrophic,……….. whether the next new climate equilibrium will be a nice or a disastrous one, but nevertheless a new one due to man-made warming.
From my point of view the truth is simple, no one seems immune and appart from the AGW mentality.
While the AGWers deny the reality about climate……. the rest who do consider themselfs as non AGWers deny the fact that they too are AGW mentally orientated, and unable to consider the AGW as a probability and not as a certainty.

Mike the Morlock

Monckton of Brenchley (I am a New England Yankee) I have before me a copy of Winston S. Churchill’s “The Gathering Storm” Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1948. I think that says enough.


“modern science is not about objectivity, it is about formulating a hypothesis, publicising this hypothesis, getting public funding to prove it and then ignoring any experimental results that disprove or question it”
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable. Since CAGW isn’t testable, in this case there isn’t even a hypothesis.


Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC.

Philip Tetlock has done a lot of work on expert judgment. He’s the one who said that the average political expert was about as good at predicting things as a dart throwing chimp. His book “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” details his research. As far as I can tell, it’s pretty bullet proof.
Tetlock points out that experts, who modify their theories to account for new information, have some predictive success. Those who ‘stick to their guns’ have predictive success that is no better than random chance.
If the modellers have not adapted to the new data (the ‘pause’), that has to be very bad for their credibility.
p.s. Tetlock likes bayesians. Briggs would approve.


You’d better save that graph. They are very likely to remove it ASAP.

I coulda told you that– but I’m not a scientist so no one woulda listened.
Simply sticking your nose out the door would show that most of what we were being told by the “experts” was hooey. Real data that you, yourself could get would show the same thing. But, the AGW religion demands that Man has a lot more power to either wreck or save Earth’s climate than he actually does, so all the fictitious nonsense has to be fed into computer models to produce the debatable results.
Computers themselves are NOT infallible anyway. I remember being taught the GIGO principle way back when I was a young’n– (during the Nixon administration if I remember right) and GIGO tells us that no computer can generate an answer that is better than the data fed to it….. Garbage In, Garbage Out. People who are willing to adulterate the information they feed their computers will get the answer they want— not necessarily the correct answer, but the answer they want— so computer models are not “Tablets of Stone, written on by God Himself” even though the AGW community wants us to regard them that way.
Can we have a negative effect on environment? Beijing shows us that we can, at least locally. Can we have a positive effect? Again, locally yes we can. The problem comes in when we say we’re capable of warming or cooling the entire planet. We’re not anywhere near so powerful as we think we are.


Who’d a’ thunk it? 21st Century Mankind politically ruled by fear mongering about the weather…


How much did it cost , a few meals and some beers?

Nothing new in this. And it will not change the mind of any warmist scientist or the any member of the green blob. They are too committed to their beliefs, carbon taxes and alternative energy subsidies.
It has as much chance of changing warmist beliefs as Charlie Hebdo has of convincing an imam that it is OK to draw cartoons of Mohammed.

The Quoran tells Imans that it’s ok to ridicule the prophet. At least it tells all followers not to idolise the prophet, which getting ones knickers in a twist about a cartoon and making his image “sacred” is the antithesis of the meaning behind the instruction to not make images! It’s lifted straight from the 10 commandments “thou shalt not make graven images”, don’t make false idols, there is but one god and that is god, etc, etc.

Juan Slayton

Reference? Sura _____?

tom s

Unfortunately you’re right. However with James Inhofe now the head of the environmental committee we at least have a chance in the USA to turn this steamer around just a bit.

There are several new points in the paper. First, the point that a simple model is capable of determining climate sensitivity less unreliably than the complex models. Secondly, the point that the Bode feedback system gain relation is inapplicable to the climate. Thirdly, the point that the IPCC has reduced its estimate of the feedback sum but has not correspondingly reduced its estimate of climate sensitivity. Fourthly, the point that there is no scientific basis for the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario of the IPCC. Fifthly, there are several new equations presented in the paper, which facilitate an understanding of the determination of climate sensitivity. And so on. Read the paper first, then decide.

Matthew R Marler

Monckton of Brenchley, let me here thank you for your responses to the comments. My few comments on the paper are below.

Walt D.

Lord Monckton: Occam’s razor strikes again – the simple model out performs the more complex models.
As regards feedback, in chemistry, Le Chatelier’s Principle states that If a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium moves to counteract the change. I’m not sure whether this principle can be applied to climate systems.

If there had been nothing new in the idea of reducing the official methods of determining climate sensitivity to an irreducible simple and accessible form, the paper would not have passed peer review. There are in fact several new equations that greatly facilitate understanding of the interrelation between the key determinants of climate sensitivity. Many of the conclusions are also new.

looks like someone posted a link copied from an email program and the email redirect is in the link and characters are messed up
this is correct link to the webpage version
the pdf link is a mess there on site too, would not even bother messing with that as it involves renaming extensions and stuff.


I still can’t figure out why anyone who is aware of the swings in Earth’s climate over geologic time would ever presume there are positive feedback systems regarding temperature. If there were (in either direction), then the Earth would be either an ice ball or a hothouse. The fact that for the entire history of the Earth the global temperature has stayed within a + or – 4K range should have been evidence enough of that.

Parma John

LamesS, you must be an engineer.
What repulsed me from the get-go with CAGW is the inability of the scientists to look for, let alone explain, the negative feedbacks that obviously, demonstrably keep our planet confined in a very narrow band of temperatures. If there is no explanation of the stability in your models, then how can you ever expect to model the effect of perturbations to the system?
Pure insanity [from] an engineering POV.


I’m in the same boat.
Simple question … converging system or diverging system.
Follow up queston … why to try to model a converging system with a method of equations that lead to a diverging solution.
… there is really no reason to wait for a response to the follow up question.

Mike M.

All climate models are based on NET NEGATIVE FEEDBACK, which is all that jamesS’ observation “then the Earth would be either an ice ball or a hothouse” implies. The positive feedbacks just make the net feedback less negative than it otherwise would be.

Mike M is incorrect. The general circulation models, followed by the IPCC, assume that temperature feedbacks are strongly net-positive, at 1.5-2 watts per square meter per ºKelvin.

Mike M.

No, Monckton, you are wrong. Look at Figure 9.43 on page 819 of IPCC AR5. “ALL” is the range of roughly 1.0 to 2.5 W/m^2/K. Now look at the caption, it says that ALL is “sum of all feedbacks except Planck”. Now look back at the figure: Planck is about -3.2 W/m^2/K. Add them up and you get a total of -2.2 to -0.7 W/m^2/K. Net negative.

Well, this will be interesting. If the IPCC does say that negative forcings are a problem, they’ve got a lot of explaining to do.


Hockey shctick

Mike M has misunderstood matters, admittedly not helped by IPCC’s habit of making it appear that the Planck parameter is a temperature feedback. See Roe (2009) for a discussion of why the Planck parameter is not a feedback. And even IPCC does not pretend that the Planck parameter should be summed with the strongly net-positive feedbacks so as to make the feedback sum net-negative. It is precisely because IPCC treats feedbacks as strongly net-positive that it triples the small direct warming from CO2.

Monckton of Brenchley

James S is right. The climate has been spectacularly, near-perfectly thermostatic for at least the past 810,000 years, according to the Vostok ice cores. Altering a minuscule fraction of the atmospheric composition is not at all likely to alter that long-established pattern of temperature stability. That is one reason why we consider that appreciably net-negative temperature feedbacks are physically possible, while the strongly net-positive feedbacks imagined by the IPCC are unphysical.

To get our paper, go to, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducible simple climate model.


Let’s see how the paper holds up.

Let’s read the paper first.

And this is if you assume the underlying physics behind “back radiation” is sound! I don’t!


Nothing is more amusing than some theoretician mumbling about 349 W of DWIR.
What is the greenhouse effect?… it is moderation of temperature: higher minimums and lower maximums. This shown empirically, as in the Sahara compared to the humid tropics.

Alan McIntire

“Back radiation” is not just a theoreticaly abstraction. It can be measured directly.

The fact of back-radiation is readily observable here in Scotland in the winter, when cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.
However, the principal form of radiation from CO2 concentration changes is not back-radiation at all: this is one of the many nonsenses peddled by a certain extremist faction among skeptics. It is kinetic energy from the quantum resonance in the CO2 molecule when it interacts with an incoming or outgoing photon in one of CO2’s characteristic absorption wavebands. The effect of the interaction is like turning on a tiny radiator, as Chris Essex explains it. So the more CO2 molecules, the more radiators are turned on, the more warming of the atmosphere. The warming reaches the Earth either by direct thermal transfer or, more usually, by subsidence of air warmer than it would otherwise have been.
The fundamental physics of how greenhous gases cause warming is well understood. The far more complex question of how much warming will result from greenhouse-gas enrichment is far less well understood. Our paper is intended to illuminate that question.

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]

richard verney

“The fact of back-radiation is readily observable here in Scotland in the winter, when cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.”
Where I live (Mediterranean coast), cloudy nights are frequently cooler than clear sky nights especially in summer.
I am sceptical of the claims made with respect to clouds, and it may be that other factors are at play. First, clouds, frquently reduce convective flow which in turn reduces the rate at which the ground cools. This reduction in the rate of convection therefore causes night temperatures to hold up higher than would be the case if convection flows were unrestricted.
Second, there are humidity issues. It may be the case that on cloudy Scottish winter nights, the air is more humid than on winter clear sky nights, such that the atmosphere at say 6pm had more energy and therefore it takes longer to cool, such that night time temps are higher not because of the clouds, but rather because of the humidity and amount of energy in the atmosphere and the time taken for it to cool close to ground level.
Where I live (the town is on the coast, and I live in the foothills of the mountains less than 1km from the sea), In summer, day time temps are usually 33 to 37 degC. On clear summer nights at about 2am in the early hours of the morning a temperature of 32degC is not unusual. By contrast, if the day clouds over late in the day, say at 7 to 8pm, I would expect to see night time temps (say 2am early morning) more in the region of 25degC.
In the desert one gets clear skies and cold noights, where I live clear skies and warm nights. The difference is one of humidity, not the presence or absence of night time clouds.
I suspect that if one were to have very high altitude clouds one night in the desert, it would be just as cold as on a cloudless night if lowlevel humidity remained constant, notwithstanding that the high altitude clouds would be emitting DWLWIR.
It would not surprse me if the cloud issue is a correlation issue, where there has been an assumption that correlation is causation. It would not surprise me if the proper research has not been carried out, and that there are other factors at play that have resulted in (or at any rate substantially contributed to) higher nightime temperatures, not that passing clouds have warmed the surface by the emission of DWLWIR.

In reply to Planetary Physics, this is not the place to debate whether there is a greenhouse effect. Our paper is predicated on the assumption that there is one. If there is one, then for the reasons set out in the paper the models are exaggerating its warming effect. If there is none, then a fortified the models are exaggerating.

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]

Planetary Physics, I have found the following paper a good primer on the greenhouse gases :

Bill Illis

Planetary Physics. The Earth surface receives up to 1,200 W/m2 during the day-time so all your math is completely wrong. Venus receives 800 W/m2 for up to 100 days times 24 hours straight given its extremely low rotation rate, so, again, your math is completely wrong.

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]

Mr Verney may like to read Pinker (2005) on the influence of cloud cover on global temperature.


Could you remove the link redirect?

Monckton of Brenchley

If you have any problem downloading the paper, just go to, click on Current issue and then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.

OK, so CAGW didn’t work out. There’s another flag just laying there waiting for some of the ecologically tuned in to pick up, rally the troops with and storm the ramparts in the name of Gaia. CAOA, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification . . . Manmade CO2 destruction of the oceans. Oceanographers get those grant requests in. It’s going to kill us all I tell ya.


Sadly, the earlier comment about food inequality is probably closer to the mark.

Walt D.

They are probably going to go with the “Burning fossil fuels is destroying the ozone layer” – it is very difficult to prove or to disprove. It is very difficult to disprove something if you have no data. The ocean acidification is easy enough to shoot down. (I think a few articles here have already shot it down).


Where’s Stokes deploring this blasphemy?


Can I run it on my Raspberry pi ?

Of course you can! Just make sure it’s contained in fire-resistant box and that there’s a couple of fire extinguishers near by.

Monckton of Brenchley

Yes, Jono1066 can run our fruity model on a Raspberry pi, as long as it’s not a lemon of an Apple running Orange.

Mark Hladik

Greetings to all:
I would enjoy reading this paper, but [this person] says the link doesn’t work, and [that person] says do a .pdf conversion … … … et cetera
Perhaps one of you computer geniuses can load a copy that us non-geniuses can access easily (I’m not sure where, but there must be somewhere … ).
Karlock & Eliza, I’ve often said we need to archive data and other info that contradicts the CAGW meme. For a while, a website called globalwarmingart (dot) com (yes, it is operated by Wiki) was ‘missing in action’, and I started archiving the graphs and what-not from the Waybac machine; then it suddenly reappeared. Some data are now approaching obsolescence, but much of it is still useful.
If the gate-keepers at Wiki ever figure out that most of the data on Global Warming Art are in conflict with CAGW, they’ll deep-six the website and data in a New York nanosecond.
Mark H.


This was my experience : using Firefox and the link given by Paul C above I downloaded the abstract .
The Abstract has a tool bar with PDF (1.5Mb) and the usual citations, references etc .
Clicking on PDF gave a down load copy , but very slowly ( I think the problem is Science Bulletin server ) but eventually you get it . then if you click it , you have an option of Open or Save .
So I saved the file into a temporary folder then right-clicked to open , had a popup asking for which program to open with , including , thankfully Adobe Reader , and lo and behold the paper , clear and clean.
It was really no different from opening other free access papers and actually easier than some which only allow you to bookmark a copy rather than installing a copy on your own machine.

Monckton of Brenchley

If you are having difficulty downloading the paper, go to, click on Current issue, then find our paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.

Dave Day

Source code for the model, please?


I can’t access the paper via the link but if it is a simple deterministic equation then there is no need for code. You’ll be able to reproduce it – as stated – using a pocket calculator or standard spreadsheet application.

Read the paper and write your own code. The relevant equations are all present, and each parameter of importance is individually discussed.

Matthew R Marler

Monckton of Brenchley: Read the paper and write your own code
You ought to make the code, and the data used for the plots, available, as available as the paper itself. That is the standard (not always enforced) of the journal Science, and it is frequently advocated here. [The paper is just the advertisement for the program that supports it], a paraphrase of a statement by a statistician at Stanford, but I have forgotten which one.

In response to Me Marker, the full equations for the model are in the paper. Nothing more complex than a picket calculator is needed. Values of all relevant parameters are discussed. Read the paper, follow the worked examples in the tables and you can be determining climate sensitivity more reliably than the IOCC in minutes,

no code. Lord Mann

If Mr Mosher is incapable of operating a pocket calculator, which is all that is required to run our simple model, then this is not the place to teach him. He should call in at any kindergarten, where he will fit right in.

David Socrates

“He should call in at any kindergarten, where he will fit right in.”

Totally necessary Monckton. Could you please show respect for people ?

In answer to Mr Socrates, if he or others behave like children I shall not fear to say so. Grow up and see if you can make a scientific point.

Write your own source code. The paper is the manual for the model.


We need an App for this so we could figure out the climate on our iphones and droids.

I’d be delighted if Mr Mills were to write an app.


Why don’t we want nicer weather and more abundant crops again?


‘Cos then you’d have to be “warm” and everyone knows that being “warm” is bad.

Thai Rogue

steveta_uk: I’m a bad boy. I left Tasmania to be warm. Eventually I moved to Thailand. Now, it’s 20 deg C. Call that warm??? I better open that other beer and go on the porn sites–obviously I’m not bad enough to be warm /

Monckton of Brenchley

Come to Scotland. If global warming were going to be as bad as the absurd exaggerations of the IPCC and the climate models (except ours) suggest, Scotland is going to be one of the most pleasant places to live on the planet. Order your grass kilt now …

In answer to Tabnumlock, we’re getting more abundant crops and record yields, thanks in no small part to CO2 fertilisation.


This isn’t a first. There have been countless papers showing that statistical models do a better job than GCMs. I can’t access the paper but if they’ve only ran their model with existing data then they haven’t proved anything. They need to prove its predictive power first. Just another hypothesis I guess.


Any GCM that projects no AGW is verified by the data and conclusions derived E.M.P.I.R.I.C.A.L.L.Y. Hello? Is there a light switch anywhere? Hello?

Try reading the paper before presuming to comment.

In response to CD, our model is not a statistical model. It is a physical model.


LOL! The CAGW crowd has so little respect for their own learning curve, let alone anyone else’s, will this study make a difference? Will they tone down their climate hysteria in the face of new evidence? So many people have fully invested in the catastrophy meme, ie., media, academics, politicians, activists; can they now step back from the ledge? It’s scary to have so many people, with so much power, that are impervious to NEW INFORMATION and the problem isn’t them, it’s YOU, “denier”. They’re like a group of artic lemmings heading over the cliff and attempting to take our 1st world economy with them.

Monckton of Brenchley

One sympathizes with Mairon62’s exasperation with the true-believers in the New Religion, but in the end the only way we’re going to reintroduce reason is by getting our scientific arguments across, in and out of the reviewed journals. We must have the courage to go on telling the truth, even though we are vilified for it, and we must also encourage others to find the cojones to tell the truth, even though they will be fearful that they will be savaged as we who have already spoken out have been savaged. Great is truth, and mighty above all things.


We get the ¨scientific¨results for which we pay. When governments & foundations start rewarding researchers for finding realistic ECS estimates rather than wildly inflated ones, then science will begin to reflect physical reality rather than political expedience.

If modellers were paid in accordance with how close their predictions matched out turn, I’d be rich one day.

Coach Springer

Everybody knows the Chinese are in the pockets of Big Skepticism. (/s)
It is troubling enough that warmists haven’t tried to come up with new modeling concepts to fit reality, but they won’t even act like reality may have a point. That goes with going out on an activist limb, which is exactly what those warmist modelers did.

Jim Clarke

I think the purpose for creating this model was to counter the irrational claim of the warmests that skeptics needed to have a model of their own to have any say in the matter. They were saying: “if our models are so incorrect, where are your models that are correct? Don’t have one? Then shut-up already!”
So now we have a ‘model’ that fits the observations far better then the GCMs. Now the argument will be that it is too simple and cannot possibly be modelling the complex climate of the Earth. That argument may have some validity, but applies equally to the GCMs, since they are also far less complex than the actual climate.
The complexity of the model compared to the complexity of Earth’s climate is really irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is how well the model predicts the observations. This new model is proving to be far superior to the GCMs in predicting future results; the true test of any model!

Monckton of Brenchley

Mr Clarke is correct. The purpose of modeling is to be able to make predictions that are likely to prove reliable. It is by now entirely clear that the general-circulation models have failed in the basic task of predicting how much global warming will occur. I am hoping that our simple model, which is designed not to advance any particular view but merely to reflect the truth and hence to make physically-justifiable and respectable predictions, will prove to be closer to real-world outturn than the politicized general-circulation models.

Monckton et al looks like it tries to eliminate some of the main structural errors in the IPCC models – but basically stays with their general modeling approach.
The IPCC climate models and Monckton’s simple climate model are both built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. This approach is a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.
See Section 1 at
For further discussion of model inadequacies.
Section 2 shows that the earth is entering a cooling trend which will possibly last for 600 years.
See also
for what me might call “ peak heat “ of the millennial trend in about 2003.
The first link also provides forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling and suggests a noticeable
cooling in about 2017-18.

The model is designed to study the anthropogenic component in temperature change. PDO cycles and suchlike peruiosicities are thus largely irrelevant to our work.

Planetary Physics

[snip – more krap from Doug Cotton, acting as yet another sock puppet, who is so oblivious he doesn’t seem to understand that banned means BANNED. I guess I’m going to have to complain to your service provider, since you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this – Anthony]

Monckton Until you incorporate the millennial cycle peak into your work there is no possibility of calculating
any possible contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to climate change – see my original comment .You are simply arbitrarily assigning the temperature rise due to the natural solar activity cycle rise to its peak to CO2 – you just assign somewhat less than the IPCC.
Check the links in the original comment for a complete discussion.. Best Regards and thanks for your herculean efforts to stop the UNFCCC – IPCC circus.

Dr Page is not understanding that our model studies only the anthropogenic component in global warming. By all means feel free to add natural influences, but that is not what our model is for.

There a lots of natural cycles- and now they have overlapping summits. All at one time. Means it will go [downwards] with the cycles and the temperature. I fear we will need any help we can get from CO2.

Leo Morgan

I’m sceptical of models, even those that support ‘my side’.
No model should be trusted until it demonstrates its ability to predict correctly. Certainly it cannot prove its assumptions are correct, despite the claims above. Perhaps there’s more in the Paper that does provide proof, I’ll know more after reading it.
However it turns out, congratulations to Monkton et al. for creating a model that post-dicts temperatures more successfully than any predecessor model.
If it does correctly model the world, and its predictions are validated, and it establishes that there is no ‘thermaggeddon’, then that’s great news for all the world!
Time will tell.

Many thanks to Mr Morgan for his kind words. The proof of the pudding will indeed be in the ability of the model to produce less exaggerated predictions than the billion-dollar brains. Time will tell.

Leo Morgan

I suspect Monkton of Brenchley has misspoken here.
The test is not the size of predictions of the model, but the accuracy of its predictions.
I’m confident that he knows that, and meant to say just that. I am grateful for his response, and its courtesy. I feel churlish for quibbling, since we both know what he meant. I mention it simply because others will read our words.

From the Abstract “that global warming this century will be < 1 K"
Do i interpret this as 1K =1C from sciencey to novice?

M Courtney

Yes, 1 Kelvin= 1°C. They have the same magnitude – whatever that means for temperature.
The difference between the scales is that the zero in K is extrapolated down to absolute zero and not the freezing point of water.
Thus 0°C = 273.15K = the freezing point of water at sea level (ish).

David in Cal

Sadly, the warmists control the media, so this model will receive little attention. Still, every little bit helps. Congratulations to the authors.

Many thanks to David in Cal for his kind words.

Its not a climate model.
if it only models temperature, its a temperature model.


If the product of the GCM’s were only a temperature forecast, they would be 100% wrong.
As it now stands the GCM’s, with their various products, are….100% wrong!


Mosh: It[‘]s not a climate model.
It’s a very simple climate temperature model (temperature being the most “critical” climate parameter). Its simplicity is a deliberate feature of its design. There does not exist any single climate model, simple or complex, which models all feasible “climate” parameters.

Don’t quibble.

The remark Don’t quibble’ was directed. At Mr Mosher.

If it models various aspects of climate to determine temperature, it’s a climate model.

Elon Musk, all that money, all that brain, lives the CO2 lie, makes gold for his vault off the renewable energy scam, buddy with all the clan of the fake data world.

Gary Pearse

Don’t knock it. This was an astute businessman does. If it will make money for him (or his shareholders). Probably the inventor of Kool Aid actually drinks real juice himself, but hey, the customer is always right. To not do it, to not go for the grants to do renewable energy with the way the world has gone crazy destroying the economy, is to go extinct. If it’s legal and its what most want, it is almost immoral not to do it in a free enterprise world with normal business plans pre-empted.


But how good is it back to say 1880?

In response to lol, since there is no appreciable anthropogenic forcing till 1950, there is no point in running our model from 1880.

David Socrates

Didn’t choo-choo trains use coal?

David Socrates
January 16, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Didn’t choo-choo trains use coal?

A rather foolish retort. Man’s global carbon consumption even now is only 3% of total Co2 emitted from natural causes. Before 1950, total worldwide CO2 emissions were less than 3/4 of 1 percent of natural Co2 emissions each year. Are you going to explain why a natural worldwide climate change processes that forced the Roman Warming Period, the Dark Age, the Medieval Warming Period, and the Little Ice Age are going to be be controlled by 3/4 of 1 percent change in Co2 emissions?
Prior to 1960, a few areas were dirty: London, Paris, the Ruhr Valley, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles. Those few areas did NOT affect global albedo nor global energy absorption. Cleaning up those areas did NOT affect global albedo nor global energy absorption either.

David Socrates

Mr RACookPE1978
If you would take the time to do a mass balance calculation, you would find that humans emit twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. That means that “nature” is adsorbing about 50% of what humans are emitting.
So, go back and re-calculate what happens to a system that is in equilibrium prior to 1850, and is then upset with increased emsssions of CO2
Keep in mind that prior to 1850, no know biological organism was able to drill down 2 miles in solid rock to extract the hydrocarbons.
Yes, the data shows that prior to 1850, we have never had atmospheric CO2 at the 400 ppmv level.
Since you seem to know more than everyone else, please tell us what will be the effects of altering the chemistry of the Earth’s atmosphere in the coming centuries?

David Socrates

Since you seem to know more than everyone else, please tell us what will be the effects of altering the chemistry of the Earth’s atmosphere in the coming centuries?

More food.
More fodder.
More feed.
More farms.
More fuel.
Greener landscapes.
Greener forests.
Greener lawns.
Greener fields.
More growth. Better lives for all on earth.

D. Socrates,
That screed makes very little sense. From what I can see, it presumes that CO2 must be a Bad Thing. But of course, there is no evidence anywhere that more CO2 is a problem.
So, you’re wrong from the get-go: more CO2 is a net benefit. There is no known downside, and even at the most optimistic forecasts, we won’t do more than about double it. CO2 will still be a tiny trace gas. No problem — and the biosphere will be very happy.


Well, if you are a bit ‘creative’ with the qt it works.


So you are confirming through your claim that your model is a better AGW model than the IPCC AGW GCMs projections!
While the IPCC GCMs fail to prove that the plateua or the hiatus are man-made, your model does prove that and also by default proves that the last century GW (0.8C warming) is therefor proved to be man-made.
Gongratulations….you have succeded where the rest of climatology has thus far faild at on proving the AGW.
So the new meme of AGW has to run on the premise of the new climate equilibrium through a climatic thermostasis…translating as a new extended life support for the AGW.
Congratulations again Monckton…
Good job….much better than M. Mann’s job with his hockey stick on propagating the certanty of the AGW.


My above is a reply to
Monckton of Brenchley January 16, 2015 at 6:00 pm
“In response to lol, since there is no appreciable anthropogenic forcing till 1950, there is no point in running our model from 1880.”


David Socrates January 16, 2015 at 6:37 pm
¨Yes, the data shows that prior to 1850, we have never had atmospheric CO2 at the 400 ppmv level.¨
For most of the history of planet earth, CO2 has been far higher than 400 ppmv. The intervals below that level have been brief in terms of geological time.

David Socrates

Re-read the post.
It says, “….the data…”

Don’t forget that your claim of higher CO2 in the past is based on models not on data

There is a difference

Now…if you can show me data that proves otherwise, please post the link.


Are you thinking of GEOCARB? I´m talking about actual proxy data on past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata observations, isotopic composition of organic marine matter & alkenone in sediments. I could show you study after study but you can easily find them for yourself, if you´re actually interested in paleoclimatology. Even the most ardent CACA advocates admit that CO2 was much higher for most of earth´s history.

David Socrates

This the the oldest “real” data, and it only goes back 20 million years. (which is one of the links you posted)

Funny thing about it, it says that the levels we have today are pretty much the highest they’ve been in the past 20 million years.

Got any real data that shows levels were higher than today?

In response to “whiten”, our model does not seek to challenge the notion that greenhouse-gas enrichment cap causes warming. It demonstrates, however, that the warming will be small.


Lots & lots of good proxy data studies find past CO2 levels in the thousands of ppm. Had you ever studied even warmunista literature, you´d know that Snowball Earth hypothesizers assume levels around 90.000 ppm in order to explain how our planet got out of total glaciation scenarios.
But closer to our own time, here are data from the mid´Cretaceous showing about 1400 ppm, in line with if not lower than other findings:
Why do I have to do all your research for you, while you just embarrass yourself making ludicrous, baseless assertions?

David Socrates

“A mechanistic model for calculating past CO2 concentrations from bryophyte D13C (White et al., 1994) is extended and calibrated using our experimental results………..Our analysis and isotopic model yield mid-Cretaceous CO2 concentrations of 1000–1400 ppm, in general agreement with independent proxy data
and long-term carbon cycle models.”

You post a link to models?

Got real data instead of model output?


What part of ¨independent proxy data¨ do you not understand?
Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Their science sections cite & graph Berner 1997, showing Phanerozoic CO2 concentrations in the thousands of ppm.
Many of the proxy data studies I´ve already linked covering the Mesozoic & Paleozoic Eras found CO2 levels of up to 7000 ppm. Facts are stubborn things but apparently less so than your willful ignorance.
Earth´s second atmosphere was like those of Mars & Venus, rich in CO2. Along with geologic processes on a water planet, photosynthetic organisms helped lower these levels down to less than 10% CO2 by the Cambrian. Ice ages such as during the Carboniferous & now cause it to fall lower still, down to fractions of a percent, a dangerously low level for life on earth. Were it not for the evolution of C4 plants in response to this severe environmental challenge, life as we know it would not be possible.


Yes, 1K = 1C

Schrodinger's Cat

The IPCC continued with models designed to give strong amplification of warming even though observation showed that this was wrong. Two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
Wow. This is how climate science is conducted.
Well done, Monckton et al.

Many thanks to schroedinger’s cat. The reviewing process at the Science Bulletin was exemplary. Our reviewers came to accept that our argument was science-based, and they recommended the paper for publication. Science or Nature would not have done that, since the have a declared policy of not publishing any paper that in any way questions the climate-Communist party line. The Science Bulletin was, as a journal should be, open-minded.

Then show us the review reports.

Monckton of Brenchley

Don’t be silly. It is not normal to publish reviewers’ comments. If Mr Svalgaard has never before asked anyone who has published a peer-reviewed article to publish the review comments, but suddenly does so now, it is legitimate to infer that his intent is malevolent.

I ask it all the time. And I do myself as I ask of others, see my website where reviews are published along with the papers and all correspondence from editors and reviewers. Open review is the future. It shows the readers to what extent the reviewers did their job and prevents ‘friendly’ reviews from the ‘team’ and other gatekeepers.

David Socrates

“since the have a declared policy of not publishing any paper that in any way questions the climate-Communist party line. ”

Please post a link to where either Science or Nature has made such a declaration.

Do your own homework, Mr Socrates. The laziness of the trolls posting here beggars belief.

David Socrates

Ah….I get it….you deflect when you can’t answer the question.

Do your own homework, Mr Socrates. Don’t whine.

Ted Clayton

As noted above at least twice, the presentation requires source code in eg TI calculator script, or better yet in BASIC.
Nothing cuts through the baloney, like spelling it out in code.
All we have so far in this paper, is more ’round & round & round’.
Let’s have code and quit the fooling around.

The necessary equations are all in the paper. Code them yourself: then, and only then, will you be reasonably confident that the code is suitable. The paper is a devastating blow to the official position, though it will take some little time for some to realize that.

Ted Clayton

The necessary equations are all in the paper. Code them yourself

Did the authors of this paper translate it into a computer program, themselves?
Perhaps a cadre of professional friends of the authors were enlisted to whip out a few different versions of elementary executable … ‘to make sure’?
Maybe academics-associates at U volunteered to run it past their classes; offer some inducement to see what good students come up with for code?
Or is it an assumption that the math & logic of the paper will code-up fine & easy, without having tested it?

In response to Me Clayton below, the method by which the model was calibrated is well explained in the paper. Try reading it before commenting.

We ran the model on the pocket calculator on an iPhone so as to make sure that it was readily accessible to all diligent enquirers. Results are in the tables in the paper, so that users can familiarise themselves with the model by studying the worked examples. It is not my custom to use a ball-peen hammer to crack a nut.

Walt D.

Ted – here is Excel Code:
1 qt 0.83
2 k 5.35
3 Ct 400
4 C0 380
5 rt 1
6 lambda0 0.3125
7 ft 1.5
8 deltaT 0.19448556
The formula in B8 is =(1/B1)*B2*LN(B3/B4)*B5*B6/(1-B6*B7)

Ted Clayton

The formula in B8 is =(1/B1)*B2*LN(B3/B4)*B5*B6/(1-B6*B7)

Thanks Walt! I will go back through the paper and pair these cells up with their sections in the paper.
This is indeed very compact.

Walt D had made a nice attempt at a simple coding. However, it should be borne in mind that on occasion it is necessary to use array variables.


Sorry folks but having Monckton’s name on a scientific paper won’t cut it with the warmist crowd, even if it was peer reviewed. That is simply a fact, and this is not a slur on the Lord.

M Courtney

But it cut it with the Chinese crowd. And that’s important.

Amen to M Courtney’s comment. The Chinese are fascinated. They don’t care who I am, but they do care whether the equations and conclusions in the paper make sense. So far it is easily the most downloaded paper in the current issue of Science Bulletin. The climate Communists will not be convinced by any argument, however cogent, however well peer-reviewed, however prestigious the journal, and however trendy the authors. However, the rest of the world still has open minds capable of being convinced by a sound scientific argument. So Jim S should stop whining and read the paper.


Monckton of Brenchley: “The climate Communists will not be convinced by any argument, however cogent, however well peer-reviewed, however prestigious the journal, and however trendy the authors.”
Absolutely. We know from experience that they wouldn’t take the opinion even of a Nobel Prize winner if that opinion is not congenial to their world view (and grant stream).


This is actually addressed to Lord Monckton:
I was not whining, I was merely stating a fact. Once the warmists see your name on the paper, they won’t read it; but if they do read it, they will read it with an overly critical attitude. It would have been better for the paper to be published without your name on it. Your name is mud in the warmist camp – no whine – simply a fact.

Walt D.

I guarantee you that the Climate Change Establishment will go through this article with a fine tooth comb, looking for the slightest thing to nit-pick. Spin fog and waffle will be the angle of attack. Too bad they don’t devote the same energy to going through their own broken models and trying to fix them.
They will be looking for the splinter in Monckton’s eye, while completely ignoring the 2 by 4 in there own eye.

In response to Jim S, the climate Communists do not like me because I, a mere layman, have pointed out various large holes in the Party Line. The latest paper points out another very large hole – indeed, a fatal hole below the waterline. The truth will prevail whether They like me speaking it or not,

Ted Clayton

[H]aving Monckton’s name on a scientific paper won’t cut it

That’s (in part) why we need the source code; a little computer program in common programming environments.
All the fancy hieroglyphics and intellectual athleticism is fine & harmless … but SHOW US THE SCRIPT, and something might actually come of it.

Mr Clayton should not sneer. What he calls “fancy hieroglyphics” are quite simple equations. Let him write his own code – or, having familiarized himself with the essential equations, simply run the model on a pocket calculator. Nothing more complex is needed. This is what it says on the tin: an irreducibly simple model.

Ted Clayton

Mr Clayton should not sneer. What he calls “fancy hieroglyphics” are quite simple equations.

That’s not a sneer Mr Monckton. It’s the other half of the “intellectual athleticism” check which was accepted without protest. 😉
The paper and its authors lodge a formal claim as to the simplicity of their argument; and for its suitability to rudimentary computer programming. Demonstrating, ie proving such claims is the clear responsibility of the claimants.
Let’s put it another way. Either:
1.) The construct argued in the paper has indeed been codified in approximately the fashion claimed for it, but the program is not being provided … nor even acknowledged.
2.) Or, nobody has actually written any such simple little piece of software.
Is it the later?

In response to Mr Clayton, our assertion is that the model can be run on a pocket calcukator. We did not use computer code because it was unnecessary.

Matthew R Marler

JimS, I appreciate your comment, but with respect, I think that you are wrong. The paper is too good and too solidly based on respected science to be ignored. It will be critiqued, but anybody who dismisses it superficially without addressing its scientific points will, imho, lose credibility in the larger scientific world — of whom, incidentally, Chinese are a large part now.


I hope you are right, Matthew. We shall see what transpires.

Yes it is.


Mann’s influence on climate science is major!

The fantasy graph at the beginning of this post is Fig 6 in the paper. It appears that Monckton has added time travel to his resume and has posted the Hadcrut4 and RSS observations for 2050!


” It appears that Monckton has added time travel to his resume …”
No, he has simply extrapolated current observations using the “irreducibly simple” model as opposed to the “relentlessly exaggerated” IPCC models (i.e. it back-casts correctly):

9 How skillful is the model?
Remarkably, though the model is very simple, its output
proves to be broadly consistent with observation, while the
now-realized projections of the general-circulation models
have proven to be relentlessly exaggerated. If, for instance,
the observed temperature trend of recent decades were
extrapolated several decades into the future, the model’s
output would coincident with the observations thus
extrapolated (Fig. 6).

Sir Harry Flashman

Commentary on the commentary below from ?
” I’m not even sure I actually quite get it, since it is so chock full of stuff that doesn’t really make a great deal of sense.
I, however, think I’ve worked it out. According to their model, temperature T_t at time t after a change in forcing \Delta F_t is given by
\Delta T_t = q_t^{-1} \Delta F_t r_t \lambda_o (1 – g)^{-1},
where q_t is the fraction of the forcing due to CO2, r_t is the fraction of the equilibrium response attained by time t, \lambda_o is the no-feedback sensitivity, and g is the feedback factor, or closed-loop gain.
The fundamental figure is the figure to the right, which illustrates how the feedback factor, or closed-loop gain, would influence climate sensitivity. Now, as is clear from the figure, the maximum value for the closed-loop gain – or feedback factor g – allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions, is 0.1. Therefore, since no process engineer would possibly design our climate to have a feedback factor greater than this, feedbacks have to be small, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity has to be about 1K per doubling of CO2.
So, there you have it, we can’t warm much over the coming century because the designers wouldn’t have designed a system that would allow for this. Of course, I should be honest and admit that I may have misunderstood the paper, but that’s mostly because it’s gobbledygook. “


Could be the reason the paper was gobbledygook to you is because it did not chant the AGW mantra, flash man.

Brandon Gates

The paper does chant the AGW mantra, it just fills the gaps of observational uncertainty with intelligent design. That’s the gobbeldygook portion.


Above, at 9:33am, Monckton states that his study “is a devastating blow to the official position”
You need to correct him and explain that the study “chants the AGW mantra”.
And that the science is _settled_.
And that the Science Bulletin is not up to standards with your crowd.
And that the peer review process is inadequate and sneerworthy, by your lights.
And that ____________(fill in the blank).

David Socrates

And that mpainter is obsessed with Gates.

I like this game !!!!


Do not misunderstand me; Gates and you disgust me utterly, your science your persons, both.

Alan McIntire

The experiment has already been run. The sun was about 70% as luminous as it is now 4.6 billion years ago, and has been warming up ever since. The earth has had liquid oceans and life for at least 3.8 billion years. There have been no frozen solid oceans, and the oceans haven’t boiled away during that time, ergo feedbacks have been strongly negative.

On the (questionable) assumption that one who sneers from behind the pseudonym “Sir Harry Flashman” is interested in science rather than in sneering, there will be some interest in my forthcoming paper in another leading reviewed journal on the question of the manifest inapplicability of the Bode system-gain relation to the climate. “Flashman”, whoever it is, will then be able to understand the excellent point made by other commenters here, and also made in the present paper, namely that the very small changes in global temperature inferred from the ice-cores over the past 810,000 years are inconsistent with a closed-loop gain >>0.1

Sir Harry Flashman

I’m skeptical of skeptics, but this paper was by all evidence legitimately peer-reviewed and credit must be given where due. However, you’ll know there’s going to be much criticism and I look forward to the ongoing discussion.

Matthew R Marler

Sir Harry Flashman: I’m not even sure I actually quite get it, since it is so chock full of stuff that doesn’t really make a great deal of sense.
You need to read the paper some more then. The simple observation is that, over many millenia, the Earth temperature has remained within bounds, which it would not do if there were only positive feedbacks to temperature. It isn’t that “[the designers wouldn’t have allowed for it]”, it’s that the Earth doesn’t act that way.


I think the mistake made by And Then There’s Physics is that he doesn’t believe in a physical reality. He (or she) reifies an idealistic concept and then assumes that that is how things are. The name is apt.
So observations from outside his or her faith system can only be a heresy from another faith system – all intellectual constructs are equally valid if they are self-consistent. There is no other means of judging idealistic systems.
And Then There’s Physics may be right. But it is entirely unprovable if that is so. The source of this conception of reality is faith, not empiricism.
And if you aren’t of that faith then you can’t ignore reality in the required way.

Retired Engineer

It really does not matter how many nails go in to the AGW coffin, warmers still control things. Take a look at the news releases: Schools forced to comply with ‘accepted science’ of AGW, projects to sequester CO2, and a host of others. The old addage applies: “Follow the money”.