# How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

What Evidence,” asks Ronald Bailey’s headline (www.reason.com, April 3, 2015), “Would Convince You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

The answer: a rational, scientific case rooted in established theory and data would convince me that manmade climate change is a problem. That it is real is not in doubt, for every creature that breathes out emits CO2 and thus affects the climate.

The true scientific question, then, is not the fatuous question whether “Man-Made Climate Change Is Real” but how much global warming our sins of emission may cause, and whether that warming might be more a bad thing than a good thing.

However, Mr Bailey advances no rational case. What, then, are the elements of a rational, scientific case that our influence on the climate will prove dangerous unless the West completes its current self-shutdown?

Here is the mountain the tax-gobbling classes who tend to favor profitable alarmism must climb before they can make out a rational, scientific case for doing anything about our greenhouse-gas emissions.

The tax-gobblers’ mighty mountain

 Step 10. Would the benefit outweigh the cost? Step 9. Can we afford the cost of CO2 mitigation? Step 8. Will any realistic measures avert the danger? Step 7. Will warmer worldwide weather be dangerous? Step 6. Will temperature feedbacks amplify that warming? Step 5. Will greenhouse-gas emissions cause much warming? Step 4. Are humankind raising CO2 concentration substantially? Step 3. Are humankind increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration? Step 2. Is a consensus among climate experts compatible with science? Step 1. Has any climate warming beyond natural variability taken place?

If the answer to the question at any Step from 1 to 10 on the stony path up the tax-gobblers’ mighty mountain is “No”, there is no rational, scientific basis for climbing any further. Unless one can legitimately reach the top by answering Yes to all ten questions, there is no credible justification for any investment of taxpayers’ funds in trying to make global warming go away.

The mountain that the tax-gobblers have to climb is tall, steep, and difficult. Every policy-maker must climb that mighty mountain, and none can justify shelling out a single red cent on thwarting Thermageddon until he shall have demonstrated, at each step, that there is rational, scientific justification for climbing above that step. Gird your loins, sharpen your crampons, and grip your cromach. Let us climb.

Step 1. Is global warming exceeding natural climate variability?

No.

Step 2. Is consensus among climate experts scientific?

No. And there isn’t one anyway. A recent paper by paid propagandists trying to prove that there was a consensus inadvertently proved that there was not. Cook et al. (2013) claimed that 97.1% of 11,944 papers on “global climate change” endorsed the consensus, which they defined in their introduction as the “scientific consensus” that “most current warming” is anthropogenic. However, setting aside the fact that there has been no “current warming” for getting on for two embarrassing decades, the authors’ own data file shows that they had marked only 64 papers out of 11,944, a dizzying 0.5%, as endorsing the “consensus”.

Step 3. Are we all guilty of increasing CO2 concentration?

No, not necessarily. True, our emissions of CO2 and its atmospheric concentration are rising, but anthropogenic CO2 represents only 3% of the total free CO2 in the Earth-atmosphere system. But in logic – it cannot be repeated often enough – mere correlation does not necessary imply causation.

Professor Murry Salby, late of Macquarie University, Australia, has established that it is the time-integral of temperature changes that causes changes in CO2 concentration, leaving little or no room for any detectable anthropogenic contribution. He is not alone in his findings. If he is right, there is no need to posit any role for CO2 or other anthropogenic influences. On that analysis, climate sensitivity may well be zero.

Cross-correlations by Professor Salby between CO2 change and temperature change. He has found by detailed inspection that the observed record shows CO2 concentration change lagging temperature change by about 8-10 months, approximately the lag that would be expected on the basis of an atmospheric residence time of about 5 years. It is a settled principle of logic that that which occurs second cannot have caused that which occurred first.

Step 4. Is CO2 concentration rising to dangerous new levels?

No. Mr Bailey says CO2 concentration is 30% higher than the 800,000-year peak. So what?

Step 5. Will greenhouse-gas emissions cause much warming?

No – and, on the evidence to date, certainly not as much as the IPCC predicted.

Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 303 months January 1990 to March 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

Step 6. Do temperature feedbacks amplify direct CO2 warming?

No. Measurements suggest feedbacks are negative, attenuating direct CO2 warming.

Furthermore, the range of mean global surface temperature change over the past 810,000 years was just 3.5 Cº either side of the long-run average – about the same as the range of temperatures permitted by an ordinary household thermostat. It is difficult to alter the Earth’s temperature, because the atmosphere is sandwiched between two vast heat-sinks: the oceans below and outer space above.

Global surface temperature change over the past 810,000 years, obtained by halving (to correct the result for polar amplification) the temperature anomalies inferred from atmospheric δ18O ratios in ice cores from Vostok station, Antarctica. Absolute global temperature has varied by little more than ±1%.

Step 7. Will warmer worldwide weather be dangerous?

No. A growing body of papers in the literature finds climate sensitivity low – about 1 Cº per CO2 doubling. That is not enough to be harmful.

Steps 8-10. Will any realistic measures avert the danger?

No. Whether mitigation measures should be attempted in any event is an economic question, answered by investment appraisal. The UK’s \$8333-per-auto subsidy for electric cars will serve as an example. The two initial conditions for the appraisal are the fraction of global CO2 emissions a mitigation measure is intended to abate, and the cost of the measure.

Going nowhere slowly: The Chevrolet Volt

Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.

CO2 emissions from domestic transport account for 24% of UK CO2 emissions, and cars, vans, and taxis represent 90% of road transport (DfT, 2013). Assuming 80% of fuel use is by these autos, they account for 19.2% of UK CO2 emissions. Conversion to electric power, 61% of which is generated by fossil fuels in the UK, would abate 39% of 19.2% (i.e. 7.5%) of UK CO2 emissions.

However, the battery-weight penalty would be 30% of 19.2% of 61%: i.e. 3.5% of UK CO2 emissions. The net saving from converting all UK cars, vans, and taxis to electricity, therefore, would be 4% of UK CO2 emissions, which are 1.72% of global CO2 emissions, abating 0.07% of global CO2 emissions of 2 μatm yr–1, or 0.00138 μatm. From eqn. (2), assuming 400 μatm concentration at year end on business as usual, forcing abated by the subsidy for converting all UK cars to electricity would be 5.35 ln[400/(400-0.00138)], or 0.00002 W m–2, which, multiplied by the Planck parameter λ0, gives 0.000006 K warming abated by the subsidy.

The cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidizing the 30,000 electric cars, vans, and taxis bought in 2012 was a flat-rate subsidy of \$8333 (£5000) for each vehicle and a further subsidy of about \$350 (£210) per year in vehicle excise tax remitted, a total of \$260.5 million. On that basis, the cost of subsidizing all 2,250,000 new autos sold each year (SMMT, 2013), would be \$19.54 bn.

Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, the advantage is more than canceled by the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years. No allowance for this extra cost is made. Likewise, the considerable cost of using renewable energy to bring down the UK’s fossil-fueled generation fraction from the global mean 67% to 61% is not taken into account, though, strictly speaking, an appropriate share of the cost of “renewable” electricity generation should be assigned to electric vehicles.

Dividing the \$19 bn annual cost by the warming abated gives a unit abatement cost of \$3400 tn K–1. Abating the 0.013 K projected warming by global methods of equivalent unit cost would thus cost \$45 tn, or approaching \$6500 a year per head of global population, or almost two-thirds of \$71 tn global GDP.

Stern (2006) wrote that the cost of allowing the then-projected 3 K warming to occur over the 21st century would be 0-3% of global GDP. IPCC (2013, WGII) puts the cost at 0.2-2% of GDP. Assuming that 1 K 20th-century global warming would cost as much as 0.5% of GDP (in fact so small a warming would cost nothing), global mitigation by methods of equivalent unit cost to the UK’s subsidy program for electric vehicles would be 128 times costlier than adaptation.

In general, the cost of mitigation is 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than that of adaptation (Monckton of Brenchley, 2012). Affordable measures are ineffective: effective measures are unaffordable. Too little mitigation is achieved at far too great a cost. Since the premium is 10-100 times the cost of the risk insured, the precaution of insurance is not recommended.

Mr Bailey’s evidence

With that background, let us look at the evidence Mr Bailey adduces. He concedes that the warming rate since 1979 is 0.12-0.16 Cº decade (RSS and UAH respectively). But that is half of the rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990. He asks how we can be sure that the rise in greenhouse-gas concentration just happens to coincide with an entirely natural increase in mean temperature. But that is not what skeptics say. For it is possible that CO2 has contributed to the slight warming of the past 260 years, but it is not likely that CO2 is the major cause of the warming. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, and the mismatch between the fluctuations in CO2 concentration change and temperature change demonstrates absence of correlation and hence of causation, at least in respect of the fluctuations.

Mr Bailey asks, “What about converging daytime and night-time temperatures?” That indicates two things: first, that there has been some warming, which is not denied; secondly, that the likelihood of severe storms outside the tropics is diminished, for it is temperature differentials, not absolute temperatures, that drive the intensity of storms. Sure enough, the IPCC admits in its 2013 report that there has been no increase in extra-tropical storminess (and none in tropical storminess, either).

Next, Mr Bailey cherry-picks a couple of months of the year and says that in those months northern-hemisphere snow cover is less by about a tenth than it was in the 1970s. Well, we had no means of measuring snow cover reliably till right at the end of the 70s; and besides, in the rest of the year there has been little, if any, decline in snow cover. Northern-hemisphere snow cover shows little change in the satellite era.

Next, Mr Bailey – who has certainly picked up all the talking-points – talks about Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but without noticing that neither the extent nor the trend of global sea ice has changed much in the entire 35-year satellite record.

Next talking-point: Greenland, where Mr Bailey excitedly tells us the ice mass has been melting at 215 billion tons a year. However, he somehow fails to point out that the summit of the Greenland ice sheet was 2.5 Cº warmer than today a few thousand years ago, and the ice did not melt; and that from 1992-2003 a vast study area on the Greenland ice-sheet showed the ice growing at a rate of 2 feet per decade; and that even if we could measure accurately how much Greenland is gaining or losing ice 215 billion tons a year would cause an annual increase in sea level 0f – wait for drum-roll – half a millimeter.

Next, Mr Bailey, still on message – just the wrong one – says “most of the world’s 130,000 mountain glaciers are also disappearing”. No, they’re not. Actually there are more than 160,000 of them and nearly all of them are in Antarctica, which has not warmed in the satellite era, so there is no particular reason for the glaciers to vanish, and they haven’t vanished. One of them is 40 miles wide and 250 miles long.

In those parts of the world where there has been some recession of mountain glaciers, such as the Alps, researchers are finding long-lost medieval forests, mountain passes and even an entire silver mine. Besides, the retreat of the mountain glaciers began in many places in 1880, long before we could have had any influence.

And there is evidence that all but the very highest peaks of the Cordillera de Merida in the Andes were ice-free thoughout most of the Holocene. They are not ice-free now.

Next, water vapor. Mr Bailey cites a couple of studies that say there has been some increase in column water vapor in the atmosphere since 1982. However, the ISCCP satellite data, probably the most accurate way of determining this tricky variable, do not show column water vapor increasing.

Mr Bailey has his science wrong here. He says, “As temperatures increase by 1 Celsius degree, global average water vapor in the atmosphere is expected to increase by around 7%. No, the carrying capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere for water vapour is expected to increase by 7% per Celsius degree, in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Just because the atmosphere can carry more water vapor, that does not mean it will. The atmosphere is not 100% saturated.

Then we are told precipitation is increasing. Well, the IPCC did not quite say that in its latest assessment report. It said confidence was high that precipitation had increased over northern-Hemisphere land areas since 1901, but that confidence in rainfall gains or losses elsewhere was low.

So let us look at the longest northern-Hemisphere mid-latitude rainfall record we have, to get some idea of how much the change in precipitation has been. Here goes.

Less than two inches more rain per year after a quarter of a millennium. Not at all easy to distinguish that from natural variability.

Mr Bailey is no Pause Denier. He admits there has been little or no warming recently, and cites Roy Spencer’s analysis of 102 models that found they had all exaggerated the warming trend by a factor of 2-5. Yet he trots out the ClimComm talking-point about the “missing heat” having gone into hiding in the ocean.

So let us look at the rate of ocean warming, measured by the 3600+ ARGO automated bathythermograph buoys.

Much of Mr Bailey’s reasoning is based not on the observed data nor on theory but on predictions. For instance, he cites an article in Nature Climate Change, a less than reliable rent-seekers’ rag, predicting that the warming rate will rise to 0.25 Cº per decade by 2020. But the IPCC predicted short-term warming at 0.28 Cº per decade as far back as 1990, and the warming rate since then has been half what it predicted. Why should we now believe predictions that have proven exaggerated by double?

Mr Bailey says the main reason for his conversion to the Temple of Thermageddon is that some researchers think climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration might be as high as 6 Celsius degrees. But the main reason for these high-sensitivity estimates was the belief that the Bode feedback-amplification equation would apply unmodified to the climate, and that in particular no homeostatic asymptote would bound the output temperature.

The graph of the Bode equation shows that if feedbacks are strongly net-positive the equation would lead us to expect rapidly increasing climate sensitivity. But it does not apply to the climate. Researchers had wandered into a field with which they were not familiar, and had made the huge mistake of assuming that an equation that represents the behavior of dynamical systems such as an electronic circuit is applicable unmodified and undamped to dynamical systems such as the climate. Well, it isn’t. And without it, high sensitivity vanishes.

“If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?”

Well, if Mr Bailey does me the courtesy of reading the above, he will realize that temperatures are not rising by much, glacial ice-melt (if occurring) is on too small a scale to raise sea level by much, global sea ice extent shows little change in two generations, ditto northern-hemisphere snow cover, there has been little increase in rainfall and (according to the IPCC) little evidence for “stronger rainstorms”, and the ocean warming is so small that it falls within the considerable measurement error.

The evidence he adduces is questionable at best on every count. The Temple of Thermageddon will have to do better than that if it wants to convince us in the teeth of the evidence.

I have presented much of the evidence in the form of simple graphs. Do readers like the way the graphs are presented, many of them with a small “Post-It note” highlighting the main point?

Conclusion

Back we go, down the tax-gobblers’ mighty mountain to base camp. Our attempt to climb it has failed at every single step. Even with the aid of CO2-emitting helicopters to lift us and our equipment to each new step as we fail to climb the one below it, no rational scientific or economic case can be made for taking any action whatsoever today in a probably futile and certainly cost-ineffective attempt to make global warming that is not happening as predicted today go away the day after tomorrow.

The correct policy to address what is likely to prove a non-problem – and what, even if it were every bit as much of a problem as the tax-gobblers would wish, could not by even their most creative quantitative easing be cost-effectively solved by any attempt at mitigation – is to have the courage to do nothing now and adapt later if necessary.

The question is why, in the teeth of the scientific and economic evidence, nearly all of the global governing class were so easily taken in or bought out or both by the strange coalescence of powerful vested interests who have, until now, profited so monstrously by the biggest fraud in history at such crippling expense in lives and treasure to the rest of us, and at such mortal threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of science itself.

## 573 thoughts on “How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong”

1. Gubulgaria says:

Mildly amusing, but the [trimmed] stuff was funnier.

• Gavin says:

Never mind, it makes me laugh every time I think of [trimmed] and tartan slippers.

• Brian says:

Do either of you (Gub and Gav) have anything to say that actually contributes to the discussion?

• Gavin says:

Mods, Great Uncle Bulgaria is a character in the children’s Wombles books. A brief search of the internet will show multiple images from the animated TV version and confirm that he does indeed have a furry little head and (usually) tartan slippers.

• Gavin says:

Brian – No. Are you that snail from ‘The Magic Roundabout’?

• FrankKarrvv says:

Your comment is very amusing and laughable Guba – but I could not find any homophobia in Chris Monckton’s post. On the contrary his post is a very good summary of the skeptic points of view.

• facts and logic = [trimmed] = [trimmed]

• Tim says:

Wow the trolls are going lower in their posts. Next time are they going to say, but my daddy can beat your daddy.

• guburomania, first again I see, get another bonus for that?

• They are doing everything they can to disrupt the conversation. In the last few days it has struck me that this is also the reason for some of the mindless proclamations and pronouncements pushed by the media in recent months, such as the asthma story from the other day. The proverbial blind man should be able to see that the story was illogical, yet there it is on mainstream news sites. This is all diversion tactics.

• Roy UK says:

This post by Gubulgaria should be removed, or have a moderator reply to it. There is nothing Homophobic in the the head post. Nothing.

Useful idiot Gulliblebulgaria has posted something (first!) that is factually incorrect, It might be the only response some people see, and might play into the minds of people who did not read the whole post. If he is getting paid for his propaganda you should not leave it as first post, to the delight of his/her Pay Masters

If you dont want to delete, maybe demote it down the replies.

Only my 2c.

[That comment was trimmed. .mod]

• rogerthesurf says:

Gubulgaria,
Looking forward to seeing your scientific refutation of all of Lord Moncktons post.
When you have it ready, please let me know by leaving a comment directing me where to read it at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com.

Cheers

Roger

• sabretruthtiger says:

YAWN.

2. CodeTech says:

This is what I’ve been looking for.

ALL of the important points in one easy-to-reference location.

And this question has been asked on almost every “climate change” related article and forum I’ve been to lately, so I know it’s been programmed into the warmist bots. And here’s your answer.

• CodeTech says:

By the way – Thank you Lord Monckton for this. Expect a lot of whiny angry posts claiming it’s all “wrong” from the butt-hurt alarmist defenders.

• RWturner says:

The only thing I would add to this is that it is a fact that given only natural forces the world is certain to reenter a glacial period. Sea level would lower several hundred feet stranding most major ports, glaciers would grow and destroy millions of acres of arable and pleasantly habitable areas including northern Europe and eastern North America, the global climate would be much drier over all with forests drying up burning away and changing into grasslands with grasslands drying up and turning into semi-arid or deserts.

These are facts recorded in 3 million years of geologic data. Now compare these facts to the worse-case scenario hyperbole on the CAGW side. It’s a no brainer on which scenario is worse.

• Menicholas says:

RWturner,
I could not agree more. The current interglacial has already lasted longer than most. The turn towards colder and drier conditions and shorter growing seasons in the major food producing regions of the world would/will be a truly frightening and epic disaster, playing out over centuries of time, and causing misery and death on a scale that humanity has never witnessed.
Perhaps the only thing which could be worse would be to couple such an eventuality with the simultaneous dismantling of the technology and infrastructure that would/will allow us to perhaps ameliorate these grave consequences.

3. The AGW industry is not about saving the planet, most of its participants know there is no achievable “solution”, even when framed in their own terms. It is a new religion, exploiting irrational fears just like the old ones did/do. There is much gold and prestige for the priesthood, and satisfaction for some in persecuting the heretics.

• Just an engineer says:

“The AGW industry is not about saving the planet,” nope, its about “Profits of Doom”.

• Tom in Denver says:

Climanrecon, yes you are at least partly right, But it wasn’t until the global government crowd latched onto the global warming issue that the science became corrupted. Before that the [anti-capitalist], global socialist government crowd had been spinning their wheels without getting any traction with the “Population Bomb” concept.

These guys saw AGW as the perfect means to their ends. It wrapped up original sin, white guilt, and global redistribution of wealth all into one neat package.

Again the AGW initiative is merely the means to the ends. If we counter the scientific points with facts and logic, they will only come up with another means to their ends. To truly kill this hydra we must expose these peoples intent to the light of day. If they came out and were honest with their intentions most people would reject this concept of dissolving all countries and creating a global government and redistribute the world wealth.

The only way to attack this hydra is to go for the heart, (expose it to the light of day). Read about the UN Agenda 21 initiative, step one in this agenda, is to disarm the population. This has been done in many places already, but the US 2nd amendment stands in their way. Many things that are happening today are all linked to the same objective. AGW, 2nd amendment rights, Political Correctness, Class warfare, racial divides, it all ties together

• Warren Latham says:

(From Warren in England).
I read your four paragraphs and I am in COMPLETE AGREEMENT with you, Many thanks.

• I agree with everything you said, except: “…global government crowd latched onto the global warming issue ”

The global government crowd invented the global warming issue.

• Brian says:

A true “one world government” is unattainable in the long term. It’s a nice thought in that there would be no more nuclear threats or (non government sanctioned) mass starvation. The problem is: When there are no outside challenges to face, the attention of society turns inward upon itself (human nature) and internal struggles follow which invariably tear the society apart.
Anybody that thinks Agenda 21 is feasible, has never lived in the real world.

• Baronstone says:

Tom, the problem with your conspiracy theory is that the US Supreme Court has already said that the constitution guarantees US citizens not convicted of a felony the right to own guns. Unless they can get control of congress and push through changes to the constitution, there is simply no way to disarm the population.

4. M Courtney says:

It is a serious problem, for those advocating expensive policies, that the largest number of sceptics about newsworthy AGW happen to be thermometers.

Being inanimate they tend not to be swayed by alarmist rhetoric and instead just report the fact that the models are out of touch with reality.

How can they persuade measurement devices that they are wrong?

• warrenlb says:

Since those measurement devices show the earth — land, lower troposphere, and oceans — warmed at the fastest rate in recorded history beginning in the late 1800s, who is it that should be reading their thermometers more carefully?

• Moderator: Please ban DBStealey from this forum for his personal attacks on me, and on many others.

[No. .mod]

• Alan Robertson says:

warrenlb-
Your “recorded history” began in the 1800’s with the invention of thermometers and physics tells us that no warming from man’s added CO2 was possible before 1950, so what does that tell us about your screed?

You are another who uses “facts” as if they were truth. The truth is, mankind has gone through several periods in recorded human history where the climate was much warmer than today and at least, part (most) of the warming which has occurred since the 1800’s is natural variation.

• Are you kidding? dbstealey is what keeps me coming back.

• warrenlb says:

Please ban DBStealey from this forum

warren, giving my opinion [‘he’s nuts’] is nothing compared with labeling scientific skeptics as being the same as Holocaust deniers. But I never see you complaining about that.

What you really want is censorship of those you don’t agree with. But as we see, you have no moral standing to demand it, and it isn’t going to happen anyway. (I do not know the identity of the moderator who said “No”, and I didn’t ask for that support. Even though I appreciate it.)

Everyone is different. I don’t cry about it when someone like ‘Sou’ makes really vicious comments about me, by name, on her blog — referencing opinions I made here, not there (I almost never click on her blog). So, I apologize for hurting your feelings. And I’m glad I only said ‘nuts’. This is the internet. I’ve seen far worse. And so have you.

Now, regarding your opinion that the planet…

…warmed at the fastest rate in recorded history beginning in the late 1800s

Which is it? Recorded history? Or the late 1800’s? Because the ice core records show that temperatures fluctuated by many whole degrees just prior to the Holocene, and even more before that — when CO2 remained steady, and low.

The alarmist crowd is trying to make a big deal out of the almost flat temperatures over the past century. A change of 0.7ºC is extremely small. That very tiny fluctuation makes the wild-eyed Chicken Little ravings (Oops!) of your side look ridiculous. In reality, we would all be better off if global T remained within a ± 1º range — which it appears to be doing. So what’s the problem?

• Alx says:

Yeah kind of too bad we weren’t starting a cooling trend when thermometers were invented, than we could have “cooled at the fastest rate in recorded history beginning in the late 1800s.”

It would have been so much cooler (so to speak) in making assertions based on a version of global geology, evolutionary biology/ecology, and climate history truncated down to 160 years.

Creationists beliefs need to assert the earth is 6,000 years old in order to support their claims. This is at least better than “humans are burning up the earth” alarmists who need to assert the earth 160 years old in order to support their claims.

• richardscourtney says:

warrenlb

Please state the “attacks” on you which you assert have been made by dbstealey because I have seen none.

He has stated that you are “nuts”. That is not an “attack”: it is a mild understatement pertaining to the irrational ravings which you post on WUWT. For example, in this thread you wrote

Since those measurement devices show the earth — land, lower troposphere, and oceans — warmed at the fastest rate in recorded history beginning in the late 1800s, who is it that should be reading their thermometers more carefully?

Recorded history began long before 1800 and it is “nuts” to pretend otherwise. Importantly, the temperature rise began before the human emissions could have started to have observable effect (i.e. ~1950) so the thermometers indicate the opposite of what you assert.

“Nuts” is an attack of you? NO! Don’t be silly.

Richard

• MCourtney:

One person who is completely unteachable is warrenlb. His mind is closed tight to any facts that contradict his eco-religion. Put simply: he’s nuts.

• Chris says:

dbstealey,

Given that you stated this, I would assume that you are open to facts or points that differ from your positions. Can you give any examples of this occurring?

• richardscourtney says:

Chris

Your demand of dbstealey is pure trolling.

warrenlb made a false and untrue assertion that dbstealey made “attacks” on him and others. Furthermore, warrenlb claimed dbstealey should be banned saying

Moderator: Please ban DBStealey from this forum for his personal attacks on me, and on many others.

dbstealy defended himself by refuting those falsehoods and he suggested they had been made because

One person who is completely unteachable is warrenlb. His mind is closed tight to any facts that contradict his eco-religion. Put simply: he’s nuts.

Thus, dbstealey made a reasoned and reasonable rebuttal of the untrue attacks of him by warrenlb.

Your response is to ‘pile in’ on dbstealey by writing

dbstealey,
Given that you stated this, I would assume that you are open to facts or points that differ from your positions. Can you give any examples of this occurring?

He does NOT need to do that! An accused has a right to defend himself and is assumed to be innocent until shown otherwise.

Your addition to the attack of dbstealey is even more egregious than that of warrenlb because warrenlb had the courage to attack using his own name but you have ‘piled in’ from behind the coward’s shield of anonymity.

Richard

• Chris,

Just yesterday I was labeled as being “silly”, and I was told that I was “stupid”. That’s normal online conversation, and I don’t let it get to me. Most people would disregard it.

But since warrenlb is such a delicate flower, I apologized to him for saying I thought he was nuts. The poor thing couldn’t handle it, so I backed off.

Now, what was your problem again?

• Chris says:

Richard Courtney,

Ahhh, the self appointed policeman is on the beat! Is this an appointment by Anthony Watts, or did you just just take this upon yourself? Gosh, the last time I checked, dbtstealey is capable of defending himself. But no matter. Richard, perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the concept of structured blogging. If you do so, you will note that my post was entered under dbstealey’s comment: “One person who is completely unteachable is warrenlb. His mind is closed tight to any facts that contradict his eco-religion.”

Further analysis will that my comments do not fall under the comments you referenced, so those are irrelevant to my comments and your retorts. Thus, sadly, your rant must go into the trash heap of unjustified attacks. But no matter, hope springs eternal! Keep up the good efforts, sir, and eventually your random attacks will strike home.

• Chris says:

dbstealey,

Does my point really require further clarification? I do not know how to reduce it further beyond two sentences. Do you require further simplification? To refresh your memory, here is what I said;

“I would assume that you are open to facts or points that differ from your positions. Can you give any examples of this occurring?”

• Chris (quoting himself)

To refresh your memory, here is what I said;

“I would assume that you are open to facts or points that differ from your positions. Can you give any examples of this occurring?”

Well, there are no facts nor measurements that are contrary to the general skeptical position on man-made climate change/CAGW: Mankind is responsible for the measurable parts of the recent, and very beneficial, CO2 increase in the earth’s atmosphere. The recent increase in CO2 is likely, though not conclusively, responsible for some part (perhaps 1/10 and 1/4 of the warming that occurred between 1975 and 1996); however CO2 cannot be held the cause of the earlier warming between 1500 BC and 400 BC, between 450 and 900 AD, nor between 1650 and 1850; between 1850 and 1880, between 1910 and 1945; nor the minor cooling between 1880 and 1910, the cooling between 1945 and 1975, nor the recent plateau between 1996 and 2015.

ALL measurements and “evidence” of man-caused global warming are evidence of previous climate events and occurrences such as last-year’s all-time record Antarctic sea ice extents, the minor 7% reduction in Arctic sea ice, loss of glacier ice, land and sea-based temperature increases, etc. To repeat, NO FACTS REFUTE THE GENERAL SKEPTIC POSITION. Then again, NO FACTS support the climate alarmism and political positions of the CAGW religion.

• Chris says:

“I would assume that you are open to facts or points that differ from your positions. Can you give any examples of this occurring?”

Examples are everywhere. Since I won’t go look them up gratis, feel free to corroborate them. But put simply, it’s this:

warrenlb is a dyed in the wool climate alarmist. He believes that man-made global warming is occurring, and that it is a big part of overall global warming. He probably believes that almost all global warming is MMGW. But that is only his Belief.

On the other hand, as a skeptic I simply say: prove it. Or at least, produce solid, convincing evidence showing that to be the case.

But warrenlb has never accepted my challenge to produce empirical measurements quantifying the fraction of global warming (out of all global warming, both natural and man-made) that is caused by human CO2 emissions.

I keep asking warrenlb and others to produce verifiable, empirical, testable measurements of MMGW. But in every case, warrenlb and his cronies deflect. They have NEVER posted any such measurements.

Without measurements, we can conclude a couple of possibilities:

One is that MMGW is so minuscule that it is impossible to measure. Despite searching for such measurements for many decades now, by thousands of well paid scientists using the latest equipment, not one of them has produced such a measurement. So it is extremely likely that the fraction of global warming due to human CO2 is below the background noise. It is just too small to measure.

The other possibility is that MMGW doesn’t exist. Personally, I think it does, but that any warming due to human emissions is extremely tiny; on the order of ≈0.5ºC per doubling of CO2. Maybe even less.

If either of those is the case, we have absolutely nothing to worry about from the rise in CO2, which is completely harmless, and very beneficial to the biosphere.

But that conflicts with warrenlb’s catechism, so he will never agree. But then, I note that he has no measurements, either. Science without measurements is merely a conjecture; an opinion.

I’ll be happy to answer any additional, sincere questions you may have.

• Chris says:

dbstealey said: “Chris says:“I would assume that you are open to facts or points that differ from your positions. Can you give any examples of this occurring?”

Examples are everywhere. Since I won’t go look them up gratis, feel free to corroborate them.”

No, I shan’t do through your thousands of posts to find the possible one (or more) that responds to my question. They are your posts, not mine, so those fall under your purview. Once again, you are quick to the task of asking people to defend their positions, but sadly lacking in willingness to defend yours.

• What evidence leads you to this conclusion?

Prof Richard Lindzen has written that a doubling of CO2 will result in between 0.5ºC and 0.66ºC of global warming. That is nothing. what’s more, there are not enough fossil fuels left to double atmospheric CO2, so the effect will be less than that.

I agree with Prof. Lindzen. He is not the only one who thinks that the sensitivity number is very low. Estimates from well known climatologists range from just over 1ºC, to zero (Dr. Ferenc Miscolczi). Based on empirical evidence and real world observations, the sensitivity number must be below 1ºC.

For those interested in the subject, here is Lindzen’s CV. I’ve read close to half of his twenty dozen papers. I doubt very much that he has read a single one, so it’s no wonder that he doesn’t have a clue.

• Chris says:

No, I shan’t do through your thousands of posts to find the possible one

That is exactly what you want me to do, for free. But you are not willing. How about if I assign you some homework? Will you do it for me? Didn’t think so.

So my comment stands. If you want to try and falsify it, you have plenty of reading to do. Have fun.

• Chris says:

dbstealey said:” Chris says:

No, I shan’t do through your thousands of posts to find the possible one

That is exactly what you want me to do, for free. But you are not willing. How about if I assign you some homework? Will you do it for me? Didn’t think so.

So my comment stands. If you want to try and falsify it, you have plenty of reading to do. Have fun.”

Actually, if you asked me something about the posts I had made, I’d be happy to defend that. But that’s me – clearly you are different. And of course my posts total 100-200, not the 1000s, or perhaps 10s of thousands, that you have posted. So your task clearly would be more challenging. I’m willing to back up my posts, you are not – thanks for clearing that up!

• warrenlb says:

@DBStealey.
You made a claim “any warming due to human emissions is extremely tiny; on the order of ≈0.5ºC per doubling of CO2. Maybe even less.”
Now its your turn in the box. Back it up.

• @warrenbot,

Pay attention, boy. I already did at 2:21 pm above. What were you doing, playing with yourself? No wonder you’re going blind! ☺

====================

Chris,

Wake up, and pay attention. Based on your own rationale, it would be a lot harder for me than for you. It would only be easy if I kept a copy of my comments, in order and by subject. I don’t, and I suspect most other folks don’t, either.

So go find whatever you’re looking for. It amuses me to think of you furiously searching my comments, just so you can say, “I found it! A comment that, if I read it just the way I want to, it will support my stupid argument!”

I don’t even recall what you wanted in the first place. All I know is that the alarmist crowd has lost the debate: even if some minuscule warming has resulted from the rise in CO2, it is completely harmless, and CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. What’s your problem with THAT?

See, you’re supposed to be convincing me that I’m wrong about MMGW. But all you’re doing is amusing me with your silly comments.

• richardscourtney says:

Chris

I notice that you avoid answering my rebuttal of your egregious attack of dbstealey by using ad hom. and irrelevance.

I have no intention of assisting your attempt at deflection although I do answer it

Richard, perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the concept of structured blogging.

I am very familar with it, as I am also familiar with – and grossly offended by – nasty trolls such as your self who attempt to deflect threads by attacking people from behind your coward’s shield of anonymity.

I repeat the substance of my post which you responded

An accused has a right to defend himself and is assumed to be innocent until shown otherwise.

Now, withdraw your unsolicited and untrue attack of dbstealey which is your demand for him to provide information to prove his innosence, and then slither back under your bridge.

Richard

• It seems that there is a belief that the thermometers are wrong, why else would there be monthly adjustments? Maybe the thermometers just need more convincing that they are wrong.

• Isn’t that a job for those who specialize in ‘communicating the science’ ? ( or should that be in projecting the propaganda ? )

• warrenlb says:

Richard Courtney:
You say: “Recorded history began long before 1800 and it is “nuts” to pretend otherwise. Importantly, the temperature rise began before the human emissions could have started to have observable effect (i.e. ~1950) so the thermometers indicate the opposite of what you assert.”

My post never claimed recorded history began before 1800; it said that the RATE of temperature rise SINCE 1800 was the fastest in recorded history. RATE of RISE. Steepness of the temperature curve. AFTER 1800. Got it now? Or are you still struggling to read?

And then you post nonsense: “The temperature rise began BEFORE [my emphasis] human emissions could have started to have observable effect (ie ~1950). Human emissions thru the burning of fossil fuels started to ramp up during the industrial age, which was well underway by the late 19th century. Last time anyone checked, 1950 was well AFTER the end of the 19th century. not BEFORE.

Whose nuts?

• Warrenlb (replying critically to dbstealey)

My post never claimed recorded history began before 1800; it said that the RATE of temperature rise SINCE 1800 was the fastest in recorded history. RATE of RISE. Steepness of the temperature curve. AFTER 1800.

And then you post nonsense:

“The temperature rise began BEFORE [my emphasis] human emissions could have started to have observable effect (ie ~1950).

Human emissions thru the burning of fossil fuels started to ramp up during the industrial age, which was well underway by the late 19th century. Last time anyone checked, 1950 was well AFTER the end of the 19th century. not BEFORE.

OK. SO, why did the global average temperatures rise so “rapidly” BEFORE man-released CO2 was significantly increasing total CO2 levels – that is, why did a very small increase in CO2 cause your claimed increase in global average temperatures between 1800 and 1950;
AND, why did NO measurable increase in CO2 cause a rise in global average temperatures between 1650 and 1800;
AND, why did global averages temperatures decline between 1950 and 1975 while man-released CO2 DID increase;
AND, why did global average temperatures NOT increase while man-released CO2 increased about 34% over an 18 years period between 1996 and 2015 when measured atmospheric clarity remained steady?

In all the 4 billion-year history of the world, there is only one 21 year period between 1975 and 1996 that both CO2 levels and global average temperatures increased as predicted by the global circulation models.

• @RACookPE1978.
You ask: “why did the global average temperatures rise so “rapidly” BEFORE man-released CO2 was significantly increasing total CO2 levels”.
My response: No, while the rise began about 1880, Global average temperatures didn’t rise ‘so rapidly’ until after 1950.

You ask: “Why did NO measurable increase in CO2 cause a rise in global average temperatures between 1650 and 1800;”
My response: Global average Temperatures were on a slow downtrend over the last 5000 years, until the industrial age rise. Any upward or downward variations about this 5000 year downward trend line are due to natural causes, not man-caused.

You ask: “why did global averages temperatures decline between 1950 and 1975 while man-released CO2 DID increase?”
My response. W.M.O. (The World Meteorological Organization) defines 30 years as the minimum time frame for a climate trend to emerge from short and intermediate term weather cycles.

You ask: “why did global average temperatures NOT increase while man-released CO2 increased about 34% over an 18 years period between 1996 and 2015 when measured atmospheric clarity remained steady? ”

• I note that warrenlb cannot answer RACook’s post.

[And: “Whose nuts?” I don’t know. Whose?]

• warrenlb says:

So I answer Courtney’s challenge to my post, but Courtney doesn’t respond while RACook does. So I answer RA Cook’s challenge, and Stealey posts a non-answer to my response to RACook.

Where is Courtney’s response to my original answer to his challenge?

• warrenlib, get off your high horse, sonny. No one owes you anything, and what you’re complaining about (someone else answering) is done all the time — more by folks like House than anyone. And you do your own share of it, too.

• [Snip. No more ad hominem attacks. ~mod.]

• warrenlb,

You never answered my question: whose nuts?

• richardscourtney says:

warrenlb

So I answer Courtney’s challenge to my post, but Courtney doesn’t respond while RACook does. So I answer RA Cook’s challenge, and Stealey posts a non-answer to my response to RACook.

Where is Courtney’s response to my original answer to his challenge?

I do not need to repeat the words of RACookPE1978. Indeed, my so doing could be interpreted as trying to steel his thunder. And there is nothing special about my words compared to those of RACookPE1978.

You posted nonsense. I and others pointed out that it is nonsense. It is time for you to conclude this sub-thread by admitting that you posted nonsense.

Richard

• Hi Richard,

warrenlb is so fixated on his repeatedly falsified MMGW nonsense that he can’t think straight. I doubt if he ever could.

Now warrenlb will probably whine for a moderator to have me banned, because I hurt the delicate little pansy’s feelings. But of course he won’t reply to this, because he criticized me for answering him “uninvited”. So he isn’t invited to respond here.

And I agree with you that warrenlb posts infantile drivel. That’s about the only kind of argument he uses.

• warrenlb says:

@RichardCourtney
Do you have an answer yet to my response to your challenge?:
Richard Courtney:
You say: “Recorded history began long before 1800 and it is “nuts” to pretend otherwise. Importantly, the temperature rise began before the human emissions could have started to have observable effect (i.e. ~1950) so the thermometers indicate the opposite of what you assert.”

My post never claimed recorded history began before 1800; it said that the RATE of temperature rise SINCE 1800 was the fastest in recorded history. RATE of RISE. Steepness of the temperature curve. AFTER 1800. Got it now? Or are you still struggling to read?

And then you post nonsense: “The temperature rise began BEFORE [my emphasis] human emissions could have started to have observable effect (ie ~1950). Human emissions thru the burning of fossil fuels started to ramp up during the industrial age, which was well underway by the late 19th century. Last time anyone checked, 1950 was well AFTER the end of the 19th century. not BEFORE

• richardscourtney says:

warrenlb:

Repeating nonsense does not convert it into sense.

I iterate my suggestion to you that you have ignored while repeating your already repeatedly refuted nonsense.

You posted nonsense. I and others pointed out that it is nonsense. It is time for you to conclude this sub-thread by admitting that you posted nonsense.

Richard

5. Rob JM says:

It should be easy to convince me, you just need to show me the workings of how human CO2 travels backwards in time to produce warming before we produce CO2!

• FrankKarrvv says:

RobJM your comment indicates a misunderstanding. The evidence indicates that naturally occurring CO2 over long term time periods from ice cores follows temperature increase and decrease by about 800 years.

But what the post is alluding to is the view of Professor Salby that the majority of CO2 (‘we’ only produce 3% of the 100% CO2 in the atmosphere – the remaining 97% is natural due to ocean degassing and humidity) also follows temperature increase (and vice-versa for a decrease) at a much shorter time scale. He is of the view that our CO2 contribution could only amount to a few tenths of a degree C in global temperature increase in time. See: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/a-recent-seminar-presentation-by.html

Human CO2 obviously does not “travel back in time”. Human as well as natural occurring CO2 tends to dissipate in the atmosphere due to predominately vegetation uptake but also colder ocean water in the polar regions and according to a number of climate scientists within a time period ranging between 4 to 40 years. (Salby says 4 to 7 years; the IPCC erroneously conclude it does so within hundreds of years and warming activists a ridiculous 1000 years plus!!). I hope that helps.

• Except that there is little doubt that humans are the cause of the increase: The natural cycle was quite stable with only 8 ppmv/°C change over thousands of years in the past 800,000 years. The current increase is 110 ppmv over 160 years, where humans have emitted over 200 ppmv CO2 extra above the natural cycle…
The 3%/97% emissions is a false comparison, as the natural sinks are 98.5 of total emissions with near zero human sinks: nature is more sink than source and humans are fully responsible for the increase.

Further, the 4-7 years is the residence time, that is the average time any individual CO2 molecule (whatever its origin) resides in the atmosphere before being exchanged by CO2 from the oceans or vegetation. That has nothing to do with the time needed to remove an extra amount of CO2 above equilibrium which has an e-fold decay rate of ~50 years. The IPCC uses the Bern model, which assumes rapid saturation of the deep oceans, for which is no sign. Thus both Salby and the IPCC are wrong.

Where I can agree with Dr. Salby is that the effect of more CO2 is far less than the climate models show and mostly beneficial…

• FrankKarrvv says:

Thanks Ferdy. But of course this is just your opinion which you are entitled to but you do not provide any links except for the part you agree with.

• MarkW says:

Ferdinand, if the warming over the last 180 years did cause the oceans to warm, then the oceans would have released a lot of CO2. You are assuming that simply because it changed, that it must be caused by man.

• Frank and Mark,

The solubility of CO2 in seawater was established some 70 years ago. The equilibrium between seawater CO2 pressure (pCO2) and atmosphere changes with about 8 ppmv/°C. That is all.

If we may assume that the drop in temperature between the warm MWP and the cold LIA was about 0.8°C (according to the reconstructions of Moberg and Esper), that shows a drop of ~6 ppmv in high resolution (~20 years) ice cores. Or about 8 ppmv/°C…

If we may assume that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today, the warming since the LIA thus is good for an increase of 6 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere.

Humans on the other side emitted and emit twice the amount of CO2 which remained and remains in the atmosphere, currently 110 ppmv above the equilibrium (~290 ppmv) for the current temperature.

About more proof that humans are the cause of the increase plus more pictures and links:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

• Alx says:

@Ferdinand Engelbeen

What I think you are arguing is that the rate of increases were slower over the last 800,000 years. I find it hard to believe we can claim with reasonable certainty that a global 150 year spike in CO2 never ever occurred in the last 800,00 years. Even if we had conclusive evidence that in 800,000 years there was never a period where CO2 increased at a rate equal to the last 160 years, so what?

The crisis argument contains the notion of “too high” levels of CO2, If natural cycles get to this “too high” level in 1000 years or 200 it is irrelevant if the issue is amount of CO2.

• Alx,

The traceability of a 160 ppmv spike in an ice core is a matter of resolution, which depends of the snow accumulation rate of where the ice core originates. For coastal ice cores, that starts with a resolution of 10 years over the past 150 years, before reaching rock bottom, for the deep inland cores with a few mm per year precipitation, the resolution is 560 years over the past 800,000 years.

The repeatability of ice core CO2 for the same part of the core is 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma). That makes that the current increase of average 55 ppmv over the past 160 years would be visible as a peak of ~15 ppmv even in the oldest ice or over 80 ppmv for more recent times and high resolution.

Thus simply said: there was no such peak of 110 ppmv as seen today over the past 800,000 years.

But I doubt that the current peak or even a CO2 doubling will have much impact and if so, mostly positive.

• Ferdinand says:

Where I can agree with Dr. Salby is that the effect of more CO2 is far less than the climate models show and mostly beneficial.

And:

I doubt that the current peak or even a CO2 doubling will have much impact and if so, mostly positive.

Climate alarmists, sit up straight and pay attention to that. The rise in CO2 is not a problem.

So what are you gonna do now, complain about methane? ☺

• dbstealey, Ferdinand is a lukewarme like me. but even methane is not a problem, as catastrophists recently admitted

• Hi Hans Erren,

I don’t personally go by lukewarmers, etc. All I go by is whether someone believes that man-made global warming (MMGW) is any kind of a problem or not.

I don’t think there is any measurable MMGW myself. But if someone believes otherwise, I say to them: post your measurements quantifying the specific fraction of global warming since the LIA, which you believe is caused by MMGW.

Is it 90%?

Is it 50%?

Is it 3%?

Is it 0.002%?

No one has ever answered that question, and I’ve asked it many, many times. My feeling is that after a century of searching by thousands of scientists, using the latest equipment available to them, if human CO2 emissions were a problem then we would have measurements acceptable by most everyone. But there are no such measurements. And we would have had evidence of global harm from CO2. But there is no such evidence; CO2 is completely harmless at current levels, as far as we know.

Based on the physics of radiation, I personally think that the rise in CO2 probably has had some minor warming effect. But as Willis points out, CO2 is a 3rd-order forcing, which is swamped by second-order forcings. Those are swamped by 1st-order forcings, so any warming from human emissions is probably far too small to measure.

We can see that even a large rise in CO2 will not cause any noticeable global warming by looking at this chart. Find the rise in global T from a 10% or 20% rise in CO2:

So we need empirical, testable (verifiable), accurate measurements to know whether MMGW exists, and if so, if it is any kind of problem or not. But as far as I know, no one has any such measurements. Every guesstimate up to now has been no more than a personal opinion.

Without real world measurements, MMGW must be extremely small and insignificant. Maybe it does not exist at all; no one knows. So I am happy when someone like Ferdinand states that CO2 is not a problem, and that on net balance it is beneficial. If that is the case, it destroys the alarmists’ conjecture, and their entire ‘carbon’ scare is debunked.

[BTW, I was kidding about methane.]

• Hi dbstealey,

I can reassure you, even for lukewarmers MMGW is not a problem! Au contraire: it is a blessing. But I am still convinced that Mockton has the physics wrong wrt the CO2 cycle. If we go with the latest number of 1.3 degrees per CO2 doubling, then the warming since LIA is 1.3*ln(400/280)/ln(2) or 0.68 degrees C. This temperature rise has been beneficial. If we consider a likely future constant airborne CO2 fraction, then under a business as usual scenario the total warming since LIA will be a benign1.7 degrees C.

• Hi Hans Erren,

You’re a true scientist, one whom I have always listened to. I very much appreciate your thoughts, and the fact that you comment here.

WRT your 0.68º rise in temperature, that seems to be in line with Prof. Lindzen’s assumed 0.66ºC warming from the rise in CO2. I agree that one and a fraction degrees more warming would be a net benefit to the biosphere. But based on the way the global climate is acting, I would be very surprised if that much warming actually occurs. Of course, no one knows at this point. Bragging rights go to the person who makes the most accurate guesstimate.

You also say, “If we consider a likely future constant…”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that as atmospheric CO2 rises, more is required to cause the same amount of warming. Could you please explain what constant you were referring to? Thanks in advance.

• Hi dbstealey,

The logarithmic relationship of climate sensitivity already incorporates diminishing returns. The pea under the scaremongerers thimble is the theory of “saturating sinks”. Normal diffusion works the other way: the higher the level the faster the sink speed. Imagine a leaking pool: the higher the water lever the faster the leak. The scary Bern CO2 model works the other way round: the higher the CO2 level, the slower the leak.

In a standard diffusion case the airborne fraction remains constant in an increasing emission scenario This has been observed the last 70 years: more CO2 is entering the system, but still 50% enters into the sinks, So the sinks are increasing, and not decreasing as the Bern model prescribes. So I am fairly confident that with evermore increasing emissions the sinks will increase too.

• Hi Hans,

I agree completely, and apparently so does the biosphere. Agricultural productivity has risen in lockstep with the rise in CO2. I know that is not absolute proof, but it is extremely strong evidence that CO2 is beneficial.

Also, I keep asking if anyone can show any global harm due to the rise in CO2. To this day I have never gotten an answer. Therefore, it seems clear that CO2 is “harmless”.

The central tenet of the climate alarmists’ argument is the demonization of “carbon” (CO2). All facts and evidence indicate that they were wrong about that. When a skeptic is wrong about a conjecture or hypothesis, he will acknowledge it, and try to understand why he was wrong.

That is the difference between skeptics (including lukewarmers) and alarmists. When the alarmists are proven to be wrong, rather than trying to understand how to fix their conjecture, they dig in their heels and fight to rescue their argument. Usually by confirmation bias: cherry-picking only those factoids that support their conjecture.

So that is the problem we’re dealing with. Skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists) have won the MMGW debate (if by winning we mean that AGW is at most a very minor effect). That is why the debate has drifted into the political arena. In politics, facts and evidence are not necessary.

I prefer rigorous science. I’m skeptical of any conjecture that does not have the support of verifiable, quantifiable measurements. I think you view it the same way. So if actual, testable measurements quantifying AGW are found, measurements that withstand falsification and scrutiny by the scientific community, I will accept them and alter my understanding if necessary.

But so far, there are no meassurements. So the debate devolves into a narrative by the alarmist side, and by framing the debate their way, they have an advantage. But Albert Einstein didn’t let that stop him, and we should not let their scientifically weak arguments stop us. It often seems fruitless and frustrating to refute each argument as it appears. But in the long run, I think the truth will remain, and will be eventually accepted.

Again, I always appreciate your views on the subject. For quite a while I argued with Ferdinand Engelbeen over the source of the rise in CO2. I believed it was mainly due to the 800 ±200 year lag in ocean outgassing from the MWP. But with patience and plenty of facts, Ferdinand convinced me that it is due almost entirely to human emissions. I’ve encorporated that into my thinking, and I very much appreciate his taking the time to explain repeatedly, until it sunk into my hard head. Now I regard Ferdinand as one of our resident experts here. You too, I might add. So thanks to you both. You are real assets to Anthony’s “Best Science” site.

• oeman50 says:

Yeah, that human CO2 is smarter than the natural CO2. It causes droughts, floods, snow, no snow, rain famine, fuzzy little animals to move higher on a mountain, you name it. And now time travel. What will it think of next?

• James Harlock says:

No, it’s more a case of “Natural” CO2 being elitist in its “Organic Nature” and snubbing the unnatural, destructive Man-Made CO2. That, and plants prefer Natural to Human-synthesized gas, don’t you know?

/s

• Menicholas says:

/sarc on:
And it is dirty, that CO2. Best to call it carbon, which helps to see it as the filthy pollution is truly is.
And not just physically dirty either, but morally dirty. Filthy. Repugnant even. How so?
It is now about to cause whoring on a massive scale:

/sarc off

I wonder though…do the people who think of CO2 as “carbon” worry about getting too much chlorine in their diet when they put salt on their food?

6. Warren Latham says:

A superb piece of scientific writing by Lord Monckton once again: he is like no-one else on this earth and I shall always continue to publicly advertise his wise words. If I was able to donate the £1,300,000- to assist in the making of his film (which will smash the gravy train of Albert Gore et al) then I would do so gladly. If anyone is willing to donate to that purpose then please do so straight away, thank you.
Thank you Lord Monckton once again ! SUPERB … absolutely SUPERB !

• James Harlock says:

Isn’t algore riding a gravy boat?

7. This is great to have all this info at one location. Thanks for that!!!

Unless I missed it, I didn’t see a global drought graph:

Maybe there is a better one. This one only goes up to June 2012 – is there an update to this graph?

• Hugh says:
• The graph shown by J. Philip Peterson is from Hao et al. (2014). it shows a slight decline in the fraction of the global land area under drought conditions. I don’t know that anyone has updated it.

8. DHR says:

Lord Monckton,

I have never been able to grasp how it might be possible for there to be a positive temperature feedback from increased CO2. I should think that the climate system does not care from where an increase in heat comes from, be it CO2, sunrise, a volcano, or an alien spaceship. If increased heat causes more increased heat, should we not be boiling by perhaps 10AM each morning? Do you have an explanation for a positive-feedback concept that somehow leads to a stable climate such as we have?

• Stig says:

Well said DHR. As an engineer who has studied the effects of positive and negative feedback in systems, I have often wondered why the climate hadn’t screamed off to infinity years ago if it had all that postulated positive feedback.

• Hivemind says:

Positive feedback, combined with a time delay leads to oscillation. In fact, if you look at the long-term temperature history, you can’t go past the conclusion that the Earth is a bistable oscillator. It goes warm, it goes cold. Both states are partially stable, so the Earth pauses in each state for a while before it changes.

At the moment, we are in a warm state. It will change into a cold state presently, it is just a question of how long it takes:

Read the novel “Fallen Angels” by Larry Niven, et al to see how the “green” movement will handle the proof that climate change is an elaborate fraud.

• er, no. Positive feedback with (or without) a time delay leads to slamming into the limits on one side or the other.

*negative* feedback with a time delay can cause oscillation.

Assuming of course that only one feedback mechanism is happening. Which is unlikely.

• Joe Born says:

I’m no advocate of the positive-feedback theory, but it is not inconceivable.

If each temperature increase $\Delta T$ is fed back to result in $\Delta T/2$ of additional warming, then knock-on effects of a, say, CO2-caused increase of 1 K would then be an additional 1/2 K + 1/4 K + 1/8 K + . . . , continuing “forever” but nonetheless approaching a limit of 2 K. The infinite number of terms adds up to a finite sum.

• 1/2 K + 1/4 K + 1/8 K + .
===========
The presentation is very good, except it does not label the graphs sequentially. If one looks at the feedback graph labelled “Bode Feedback”, the effect of infinite series is plain. Convergence for the series sum(X^n) only converges where X<1.

In other words, any feedback greater than 1 gives an infinite response. The system will slam against the rails (power supply limited) either negative or positive, and may well oscillate depending on lags, without the slightest change in the forcings.

In other words, if we actually do have a climate system with high positive feedback (Climate Science assumes a feedback of 3), then the ice ages and climate in general does not depending upon the forcings. Instead it is an oscillation driving by the lags in the system and the high positive feedback, and nothing we can do regarding CO2 will have any measurable effect.

Trying to change the oscillation of a high positive closed loop feedback oscillator (Climate) by a minute adjustment to the open loop gain (CO2 levels) is a meaningless exercise because the limits and the frequency are not a function of the gain. They are a result of the power supply limits and the lag.

• Joe –
DHR’s point is surely a bit different.
Isn’t your original delta T potentially there all the time, from that near-infinite supply of H20? In what way does adding CO2, greenhouse gas though it is, change that situation? If there are temperature-induced feedbacks, aren’t they already there? This is something I have posted often, and no one seems to want to tell me what’s different about CO2 warming. What’s the argument? Is it the spatial mixing of CO2, relative to the lumpiness of H20 distribution? How does it work?

• Joe Born says:

ferdberple: “In other words, any feedback greater than 1 gives an infinite response.”

Just in case our seemingly inconsistent responses are confusing, it might not be amiss for me to let DHR know that I largely agree with what ferdberple said, except that we have used terms inconsistently.

I said that the $\Delta T$ was “fed back” to result in $\Delta T/2$ of warming, but the 1/2 factor there is more properly termed “loop gain”.than “feedback,” and it is the greater-than-unity loop gain, not feedback, that causes things to blow up. (This is without lags; I’m not going to go there.) Loop gain is the product of feedback and open-loop gain, i.e., what the gain would be if there were no feedback.

Although I’m not sure of how the IPCC does things, it seems unlikely to me that he IPCC assumes a loop gain of 3, so, if the open-loop gain is, say, 1 / 3.2 and the feedback is 3, then the loop gain would be 3 / 3.2 < 1, and theoretically it wouldn't blow up. As a practical matter, though, that much loop gain seems implausible.

As to Lord Monckton's position on the "Bode equation," who knows what he means? But a problem is that the power series 1 + r + r^2 + r^3 + . . . adds to the 1 / (1 – r) he likes to plot–except that the equation really works only for r <= 1, and that's true whether you're talking about circuits, bank accounts, or climate. The math is the same. No doubt there's something else he's heard that could be made to make sense about how the "Bode equation" is applied incorrectly to climate, but I've seen him write about this numerous times, and I've never been able to understand what he thinks the problem is.

• Joe Born says:

mothcatcher: “This is something I have posted often, and no one seems to want to tell me what’s different about CO2 warming.”

I don’t think anything is. (Oh, different forcings have different spatial distributions, etc., but I’m ignoring that.)

If you assume (for the sake of argument only) a state of equilibrium, then the power series have all aready finished adding up; the feedbacks, as you say, are there. Then you add a forcing, the temperature responds, the feedbacks respond, and so on. Nothing in that scenario distinguishes CO2 from anything else.

Of course, we’ve greatly simplified things and assumed linearity, which is wildly incorrect, but I think those are the assumptions we’ve tacitly been assuming in this discussion.

• Ian Macdonald says:

@ferdberple: It is in fact possible to pretrigger an oscillator by applying a small pulse just before the direction of change would normally reverse. This can increase but not decrease the frequency, That is how sync worked on early TV sets, before the phase-locked loop was invented.

It is interesting though that the ice age cycle is almost a sawtooth, whereas the Milankovich inputs are mostly sinusoidal. That suggests there is possibly some ‘relaxation oscillator’ effect involved.

Some alarmists have claimed that our activities might in fact pretrigger the next ice age early through exactly that mechanism. I somehow doubt that though, because the more rapid change is the warming side of the ice age cycle, sugesting the pos f/b trigger event occurs at the coldest, not warmest, point. The warmest point being that at which the pos f/b runs out of resources.

• Joe –
Thanks for your reply, but in the context of these remarks, isn’t your distinction between feedbacks and forcings rather artificial? If there is not, as you seem to say, any fundamental difference between the response of the system to warming from CO2, or warming from H20, then it seems to me that it becomes rather a lot harder to make the case for a CO2-mediated temperature response. I’ve asked repeatedly about this, and gotten no substantive reply in several forums, which seems to me to indicate two possibilities-
(1) that I’ve not understood something quite obvious to smarter people, so they have thought it not worth explaining to me, in which case I apologise, or
(2) that maybe this sort of thinking is novel to the followers of the radiation physics. I’d be surprised if that were the case, but I am in need of enlightenment.

• Joe Born says:

mothcatcher:

I think we did miscommnicate. The question I thought you were posing concentrated on temperature feedback. That is, the temperature increases in response to some kind of forcing, be it CO2, aerosol decrease, whatever, result in some knock-on increases. The knock-on response to that temperature change shouldn’t deoend on what caused it (again, modulo the different temperature distributions, etc.), and I thought that was your comment.

However–and I guess this means I’ve wasted your time–I wouldn’t want to say anything about the differences between the forcings caused by CO2 and those by H20, because I am not knowledgeable enough about what they are. As just the guy on the next bar stool, I’d speculate that their vastly different distributions make them quite different, but I really have no clue about what the differences are.

Not much help, huh?

• Peter says:

Ian, when you are speaking about positive trigger when temperature is at lowest, there is only one thing popping up in my mind. Another star passing near solar system. Energy trigger pulling earth from ice age immediately. Then letting our system on its own, cooling slowly.

• Menicholas says:

“Ian, when you are speaking about positive trigger when temperature is at lowest, there is only one thing popping up in my mind. Another star passing near solar system. Energy trigger pulling earth from ice age immediately. Then letting our system on its own, cooling slowly.”

Sir, are you speaking seriously about the possibility of the Sun having a companion which is unseen and unknown to astronomers, is in an eccentric orbit which periodically brings it close enough to the solar systems to affect the radiative balance of the earth, is nevertheless too dim to be visible, and manages to come close enough to warm the earth without disrupting the orbits of our planetary system?
Oh, and is also of an orbital period that mimics the variations thought to be caused by the Milankovich cycles?

Not being sarcastic, but wondering if this is a serious proposition, or if I have somehow misconstrued what you are suggesting?

• gbaikie says:

–Some alarmists have claimed that our activities might in fact pretrigger the next ice age early through exactly that mechanism. I somehow doubt that though, because the more rapid change is the warming side of the ice age cycle, sugesting the pos f/b trigger event occurs at the coldest, not warmest, point. The warmest point being that at which the pos f/b runs out of resources.–

It seems the warmer conditions of the Holocene Maximum indicate this,
and also the gradually cooling over last 8000 years.
One thing different about our present interglacial period is the apparent interruption of the Younger Dryas. And long terms consequence of it, and what caused it, is interesting question.
But general the sudden warming that *lead* to Holocene Maximum and I believe this had to some kind of very large effect- and makes me suspect large amount of ocean warming over a long time [+century]. And perhaps oddly, I think it was caused by large amount cool conditions in the tropics, which reduced the troposphere and reduce the amount cloud formation in the tropics.
I have no evidence of this but I believe it has be a big effect of some sort and most Earth surface is ocean [and large part the tropical ocean].
Or something like massive El Nino that basically removes the warm surface water in the tropics and replaced with colder deep water [which would dramatically cool the tropical air temperature].
An easy answer would be ocean impactor which caused 1/2 km high wave going at supersonic speed- so around 500 meter diameter impactor. But it’s not climatic mechanism. Nor would be finding evidence of it be easy.

One thing I wondering about if large waves are traveling really fast, it seems
it doesn’t allow enough time for coast water to recede prior to the waves arrival. Another aspect is there is no doubt such events have occurred in Earth history. hmm:
“The tidal wave height in meters =10.9 × (distance from impact in kilometers)-0.717 × (energy of impact in megatons TNT)0.495. What this means is that a 10-km asteroid hitting any deep point in the Pacific (the largest ocean) produces a megatsunami along the entire Pacific Rim. ”
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solfluf/s5.htm
Of course a 10 km diameter impactor is on much longer timescales, anyway according even 1 km diameter doesn’t make as big of wave as I thought.
Or:
“Studies of Earth’s history indicate that about once every 5,000 years or so on average an object the size of a football field hits Earth and causes significant damage. Once every few million years on average an object large enough to cause regional or global disaster impacts Earth.”
So thinking something between a football field and the larger size which occurring every few million years.
So probably not related, but where the evidence in terms of effects upon the shoreline of these hitting every few million years.
One thing about it, is the chances are the sea level was 100 meter lower than present, because most of the time in last few million years, has been glacial period with it’s lower sea level.
Another thing is corral islands have been rising with sea level, so core samples of corral islands should give some evidence of it.
Anyways seems like there would some sort climate mechanism which caused this.

• warrenlb says:

There can be positive feedback in any electronic or mechanical system, including the Climate, but such positive feedback can be either stable or unstable, depending on the amplification of that feedback. Venus’s planetary response to increasing atmospheric water vapor due to evaporation from primordial oceans was unstable and led to runaway warming,the driving of CO2 from the planet, and now with an atmosphere that is 95% CO2. None of the Science concludes Earth’s system is in danger or reaching such a tipping point, as the positive feebacks –albedo, CO2 release, water vapor– are not sufficiently large.

• DirkH says:

I don’t see how a comparison of a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere as thick as water on surface level with Earth’s atmosphere is useful.

You could just as well compare our climate with the moon’s – as the moon does have an atmosphere, it’s just very thin.

• Yawrate says:

Very good point. When I first got interested in global warming in the early 90s, I was concerned. That is until I learned about the positive feedbacks incorporated into the general circulation models used to project future climate. You see, I too am a controls engineer. I like your take on it though…anything causing a temperature increase, in the case of positive feedback, would cause our relatively benign climate to oscillate out of control. That is, after all, exactly what the GCMs do…the extra heat from manmade CO2 causes an increase in water vapor, which leads to increased temperature, etc.

Well said!

• Michael 2 says:

Servomechanisms are unstable not just because of excessive gain in the feedback, but latency. If the control mechanism is slower than the process it will swing back and forth with greater swings until something bad happens.

In the case of Earth, the ocean process is extremely slow relative to the control mechanism, namely clouds and atmosphere or even human contribution.

Op amps have extremely high gain and are perfectly stable provided you don’t have positive feedback and such feedback as you do have is not phase shifted. An op amp that has positive feedback will simply clamp to one state or the other (flip-flop in other words).

• Chris says:

Never mind – if, and that is a big if, there were a positive feedback, where increased heat caused additional heat, iIhave yet to see anyone explain where that additional energy comes from, over and above of the initial energy.
I genuinely interested, as such a physical phenomenon could be used for clean energy production, as it would be over-unity.

• warrenlb says:

Its not a matter of ‘additional heat’ entering earth’s system –its a matter of heat energy trying to escape earth and being restricted from doing so by the Greenhouse gases in the upper troposphere absorbing and re-radiating IR thermal radiation back to the planet.
Positive feedback #1) A reduction in snow and ice cover due to a warming planet reduces the reflection of heat energy to space, which means less heat energy leaves the planet.
Positive feedback #2) A warming planet drives CO2 from the oceans and land, increasing the greenhouse effect, and further warming the planet.
Positive feedback #3) A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (per the Clapeyron-Clausius relationship), and as more water vapor is held in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is further increased, warming the planet further.

9. lonetown says:

I guess the real question is “What evidence would convince you that climate change is not man made”?

Then you will find out that evidence has nothing to do with it.

• What evidence would you require to prove that the Rocky Mountains and Himalayas are not man made?

Did our CO2 make them too?
I did not know that.
You have data, of course?

• Menicholas says:

“Did our CO2 make them too?”

Not sure, but it definitely put a very pleasing fizz into my soda pop drink.
When they come for my Diet Coke, there is gonna be trouble.

• Michael 2 says:

“What evidence would you require to prove that the Rocky Mountains and Himalayas are not man made?”

The usual procedure is to demonstrate the procedure. That would be proof that the mountains could be man made. I doubt proof exists that these mountains were not man made; of course, it would be a very big man.

• thallstd says:

Geologic evidence that shows they predate man’s arrival, perhaps?

• Duster says:

Since you cannot prove a negative – only disprove – the question as you pose it is not addressable through logic (except to point out the hostility it exhibits to proof), or mathematics, or science. As Monckton points out, there is no scientific question about whether humanity has an effect on climate. There never has been. We do. There are various acknowledged effects in the micro and meso scales that we can be quite confident are anthropic. The Urban Heat Island effect is an easy example. Another is the effect of large scale agricultural modifications to landscapes, which also have climate effects. Timber clear cuts are yet another. What has not been answered is the effect we have on global climate and whether that effect is a “harmful” or “beneficial” effect. There should be some effect, but how can it be isolated from “natural” climate. One really terrible answer from the AGW view point would be that it cannot be separated. Humanity is as natural as buffalo, so our “effects” are as natural as any other influence on climate from the rest of nature.

The issue of whether the effect that ought to be there a positive of negative, good or bad effect, is not scientific in any sense. It can be shown with very little effort that just about any change in a habitat benefits some occupants and disadvantages others. In cities, we see squirrels, rats, mice, racoons and opossums happily adapting and engaging in life free from their major predators in the “wild.” Anyone who bothers study real paleoclimatic change knows that biotic zones migrate with large scale climate changes and that along Pacific coast of North America for example, life zones have moved about 1,200 km poleward since the end of the last glacial advance. “Positive” and “negative” effects are relative.

• Duster says:

Drat: “…The issue of whether the effect that ought to be there a positive or negative, …

• Menicholas says:

“In cities, we see squirrels, rats, mice, racoons and opossums happily adapting and engaging in life”

And in suburbia, my bird feeders and those of my neighbors are filling the belly of many a songbird. More than Fluffy can catch, even on a good day.

Getting to be quite a few ducks here and there, too!

• Duster says:

“Menicholas”

Well, yes. But urban environments are so much farther from “natural.” My wife has attracted so many birds with her feeders that I am trying discover a camo paint scheme for my truck that will disguise the bird “paint.” It’s a drought here, so we are according to Jerry to conserve water.

10. I’m wondering if Monckton is familiar with Leckner’s work. It is the seminal source for engineers who must estimate radiant energy effects of CO2. I discussed it at scienceofdoom and he agrees that it shows saturation. Leckner looked at very high temperatures. His lowest limit is 0C and at a standard atmosphere (101 kPa).

• warrenlb says:

I couldn’t find your conclusion in the peer-reviewed literature. Could you please cite such a peer-reviewed paper, either by Leckner or another author? Thanks.

• Alan Robertson says:

Warrenlb-
You didn’t find his conclusion because you didn’t look, which makes your contention less than truthful. Your request for a citation is a well- known diversionary trick employed by people who are known as TROLLS. You have self- identified…

• As another stated, not finding it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I am out of the country right now. so don’t have access to my text books. Try this text book for reference to the original paper. Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves, available in electronic form from http://www.knovel.com). The curves Leckner derived for emissivity (a measure of how much radiant energy will be absorbed), detailed in peer reviewed literature used by engineers world wide to design things that work, are on my (near moribund) blog. They show saturation.

• warrenlb says:

@Alan Robertson. I was holding out hope –apparently unjustified– that someone on this forum actually makes peer-reviewed citations. Still unjustified, it seems.

• warrenlib

Why cite a pal-reviewed, incorrect, government-paid source written WITH government grants BY government-paid grant writers FOR government-paid institutions paid for BY government-paid bureaucrats FOR the purposes of government-paid politicians … when that which is written is incorrect?

• warrenlb says:

@RACOOKPE1978.
It wasn’t my citation of peer -reviewed literature. John Eggert alluded to what he claimed was a peer-reviewed reference to support Monckton. You should tell John how bad peer-reviewed references are so he doesn’t use one again.

• Warrenlb:
Wow. Every assertion you make is false. An indication of intentional misdirection, or intellectual vacuity. Let’s illustrate.
@RACOOKPE1978.
–It wasn’t my citation of peer -reviewed literature.

Uhm. Yes. You did indeed make the first reference to peer review. You asked for it. When given you now seem to be claiming that it is “bad” without any basis for that assertion.

–John Eggert alluded to what he claimed was a peer-reviewed reference to support Monckton.

No. I asked Monkton if he was familiar with the research of a particular person. I noted in response to you that this person’s research can be found in peer reviewed literature. Also, at no time did I support or not support Monckton.

–You should tell John how bad peer-reviewed references are so he doesn’t use one again.

To call university text books otherwise known as references used by engineers to successfully build things that work otherwise known as peer review “bad” is . . . actionable.

To determine if you are a troll, I shall leave the last word to you.

11. Tom in Florida says:

Perhaps the should be a step 11: Is this the best use of tax payer money?

12. Tucci78 says:

My question is why Ronald Bailey is writing for Reason, a libertarian periodical with the motto “Free Minds in Free Markets.”

One would think that the editors of this magazine would’ve filtered out Bailey’s warmulist folly..

• warrenlb says:

They don’t because Reason follows the Science.

• M Courtney says:

Sadly that is the correct order for climate science.
We know the truth – then we apply reason. As demanded by the UNFCCC.

In real science we use reason to try and discern what is science and what is faith.
Interestingly, we do the same in real theology.

• warrenlb says:

“They don’t because Reason follows the Science.

There. Fixed.

• DirkH says:

“They don’t because Reason follows the Science.”

Hardly. Modern warmunist science is based on iterative computer modeling. I have never found a iot of evidence that Reason knows anything about modeling, or technology in general. They are not in a position to judge the quackery that is warmunism.

• Tucci78 says:

Writes DirkH:

Modern warmunist science is based on iterative computer modeling. I have never found a iot of evidence that Reason knows anything about modeling, or technology in general. They are not in a position to judge the quackery that is warmunism.

Agreed. But the editorial staff of Reason magazine (headed by two Editors-in-Chief, Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch) have ready access to fact-checking resources other than the periodical’s Science Correspondent, Mr. Bailey (who, in 2002, had edited Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death, so to see him coming on board with the climate catastrophe quacks hit me as something of an elaborate April Fools’ Day prank).

If Mr. Bailey’s 3 April article was not a jape, and was intended as a genuine reflection of the man’s present take (after the initial Climategate tranche hit the ‘Net on 17 November 2009, mind you!) on the ‘viro quacks’ effort “…to Scare Us to Death,” then Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Welch and their editorial subordinates had a helluva responsibility to run Mr. Bailey’s recent “road-to-Damascus” conversion to warmulism through other well-identified critics of this preposterous bogosity (in the Reason readership alone, if they might choose from their subscriber files) so as to vet this goddam strange transformation on Mr. Bailey’s part.

• Duster says:

A genuine libertarian would let him have all the rope he needs. Libertarian philosophy doesn’t support censorship.

• Tucci78 says:

In response to my question about

…why Ronald Bailey is writing for Reason, a libertarian periodical with the motto “Free Minds in Free Markets.”

….Duster posts:

A genuine libertarian would let him have all the rope he needs. Libertarian philosophy doesn’t support censorship.

Well, a libertarian publication (ceteris paribus) doesn’t publish the propaganda advanced by the “tax-gobblers” to put across the most gaudy and predatory fraud in modern history.

I could see Mr. Bailey’s article in some other venue, but in Reason magazine?

The editors have a responsibility to their subscribers and other readers to do some fact-checking before they publish something like this, and it beggars belief to assume that they got so blatantly suckered by what is undeniably pure statist bilge.

• Duster says:

Tucci78
April 9, 2015 at 1:56 pm

You may be confusing “fact checking” with publishing “truth” a phenomenon unknown in the anals of writing. The former is useful but an indifferent guide to anything of use. “Fact checking” generally means that you checked the sources provided and concluded that the writer did not misrepresent them. The editors are unlikely to be in a position to be able to evaluate the science available in any sensible manner. In fact, my own observation is that no one can at present. Luke warmers are merely the sanest of the insane. As it is, Mr. Monckton has effectively rebutted Bailey’s view well beyond anything the editors could have achieved by suppressing the article. Open discussion is a far superior means of debate. Just look at the “well rounded” discussions on Real Climate if you doubt this (and yes that is irony and should be understood to be set off with /sacr tags).

• Tucci78 says:

Writes Duster regarding the editors of Reason magazine and their duty to the subscribers to make sure that their periodical isn’t being employed to sell fraud:

You may be confusing “fact checking” with publishing “truth” a phenomenon unknown in the anals of writing. The former is useful but an indifferent guide to anything of use. “Fact checking” generally means that you checked the sources provided and concluded that the writer did not misrepresent them.

In the wake of Climategate and the more recent demonstrations of the “consensus” quacks’ rent-seeking mendacities? Jeez, to what extent are you familiar with Reason magazine and its track record of skeptical regard for anything so redolent of government thuggery?

The editors [of Reason] are unlikely to be in a position to be able to evaluate the science available in any sensible manner.

That’s supposed to be an excuse? The information sources available online are broad and deep, not least of which are the materials accessible through links maintained by Mr. Watts on this Web site.

The ex-Journalism majors at Reason aren’t expected to invest the time or effort to become literate on these matters particularly, or even on scientific method generally. But they have to be able to undertake the sort of simple sniff test that any libertarian exercises whenever he hears any government employee make any sort of claim against the rights of the individual human being.

Luke warmers are merely the sanest of the insane.

They’re merely compensated delusional psychotics? Well, I might give you that. Calls for some cognitive restructuring therapy, though, don’t it?

As it is, Mr. Monckton has effectively rebutted Bailey’s view well beyond anything the editors could have achieved by suppressing the article. Open discussion is a far superior means of debate.

Did I call for suppression of Mr. Bailey’s 2005 “come-to-Jesus” adherence to the religion of anthropogenic global warmulism? Heck, no.

But what Bailey’s submission should have evoked from the editors of Reason was simply something along the lines of “This reeks. You trust the tax-gobbling government goons who’ve been shown recently to have ‘adjusted’ the temperature records to their advantage? That alone needs some explaining. Gotta have a do-over here, and we’re not desperate enough for filler this month to give your manuscript houseroom the way you’ve handed it in.”

• Duster says:

Sheesh – /sacr -> /sarc

13. Neville says:

But the biggest con and fraud is the so called mitigation of AGW. The EIA clearly shows that over 90% of new emissions of co2 until 2040 will come from India, China etc and the OECD countries will almost flat-line over that period.
The OECD countries could cease all emissions of co2 and it still wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the temp or climate at all.
In the meantime western countries are quite happy to export as much gas, coal and iron ore as they can to every country that wants to buy. Once again this just proves that they couldn’t care less about increased co2 emissions, but they don’t western countries to benefit any more from the new jobs and industries that will be created from the future use of fossil fuels.
This has to be the most easily understood ponzi scheme and fraud in history and yet nobody seems to get it? Why is that?

• David A says:

“This has to be the most easily understood ponzi scheme and fraud in history and yet nobody seems to get it? Why is that?”
——————————–
? Gruber?

• Peter Charles says:

Why David? Well, that’s easy to answer. Too many organisations profit from it. Politicians just love to be seen ‘saving’ the world and engaging in ‘important’ global discussions. Government loves it because it really, really demands more government and more regulation. Big business and wide boys love it for the guarantees, subsidies and beneficial (to many of them) regulation it brings. Science academia loves it because it brings grants and work and a higher public profile. The media love it because doom and gloom sells. Organised religion loves it because they can claim it is your sins to blame. Establishments love it because it generates fear in the common man they can use to tighten their grip. The Green movement loves it because it gives them the fuel to drive their vision of the world forward. Progressives and One World Government advocates (to which the majority of Western, developed political classes are fully signed up) love it because it just calls out for wealth redistribution and global regulation/governance.

Is it even slightly surprising all these will cling to their faith even in the face of incontrovertible evidence? How many of those can you ever recall admitting they were wrong?

• Warren Latham says:

Spot on Peter ! Absolutely spot on !

• Tim says:

Why is that?

The masses unfortunately don’t have the time, knowledge or education to understand the science. Advertising / PR campaigns with purely emotional content (think Polar Bears, rising tides, etc) performed about twice as well (31% vs. 16%) compared with those with only rational content, and those that were purely emotional did a little better (31% vs 26%) compared with those that mixed emotional and rational content.

• Tucci78 says:

This has to be the most easily understood ponzi scheme and fraud in history and yet nobody seems to get it? Why is that?

Heck, they “get it” all right. Making their careers as popularity contest participants, however, they respond to perverse incentives.

Take note of the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which “…started off with the best of intentions: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote American energy independence,” and which has subsequently made it all but impossible for a presidential candidate to speak against the insanity of the food-to-fuel mandate.

America is already plowing an area larger than Iowa to grow corn for ethanol, and turning nearly 40% of all its corn into ethanol. The guaranteed income incentivizes farmers to take land out of wheat and rye, conservation easements, pasture land and wildlife habitat – and grow corn instead. Converting these vast fields of corn into ethanol requires enormous amounts of irrigation water, fertilizers, pesticides, and gasoline or diesel fuel to grow, harvest and ship the corn … and more gasoline, diesel and natural gas to produce and transport the ethanol.

This isn’t rocket science, and everyone who’s looked at this subject appreciates precisely how unspeakably cruel and stupid this ‘viro-fellating “policy porn” really is.

Even the ‘viros.

But, then, there’s them first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses every presidential election cycle, and there’s nothing halfway about the Iowa way to greet you if you threaten their extremely profitable corn-to-motor-fuel boondoggle.

• MarkW says:

Any state with a non-trivial agricultural sector is supportive of these policies. As you mentioned, barley and wheat fields are being converted to corn, which increases the price of barley and wheat. (And the list doesn’t stop with barley and wheat)
Don’t blame Iowa, it’s a nationwide phenomena. Just about any state would have the same dynamic.

• Tucci78 says:

Says MarkW regarding the effect had on presidential politics by the Iowa Caucuses as a defense of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) corn-fed fuel ethanol boondoggle:

Any state with a non-trivial agricultural sector is supportive of these policies.

Don’t blame Iowa, it’s a nationwide phenomena. Just about any state would have the same dynamic.

The people and government of what other state have mandated by statute law that their role in the presidential nominations process must precede all other states’ primary elections?

Sure, neither Iowa’s role in the popular vote nor in the Electoral College matters as much as do most of the other states with “non-trivial agricultural sector” participation. Their position in terms of electoral “momentum,” however, is critical, and gives the graft-seeking caucus participants political clout far out of proportion to their unalienable rights as human beings. The Iowa Caucuses thereby entail a violation of the property rights of people elsewhere in the republic, who labor under the increased material costs of the RFS upon which the Iowa ag sector battens like a flock of buzzards on a corpse that hasn’t quite quit moving yet.

Try to excuse the people of Iowa in any way you like, but bear in mind the fact that it takes only a single ear of corn rammed into a man’s trachea to choke him to death.

14. ralfellis says:

>>so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%.
>>However, the electric car requires 30% more power per
>>mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.

And this does not take winter into account. The ‘waste’ heat from a fossil-car warms the screen and the cabin when it is -15ºc outside, so it is not wasted at all. In fact, my normal radiator barely gets warm, when it is -10ºc outside.

But the electric car has to take all of that heat from the battery, because the electric ‘engine’ produces no ‘waste’ heat. So what does that do for the range and efficiency? I did try to get information on the range reductions when using the cabin heater on the Volt and Tesla, but was unsuccessful.

R

• Paul says:

“because the electric ‘engine’ produces no ‘waste’ heat.”

Because they are much more efficient than ICE, and the waste heat is of low quality (cooler).
The low delta T is also why electric drives have large radiators. IF cars didn’t leak air, and have an R value of 1, it wouldn’t take as much to heat/cool them. Since ICEs have tons of high quality waste heat, there is no need for insulated glass, air leak prevention, and thermal insulation. The addition of solar glass would cut down on the A/C requirements too. Most vehicles has A/C units that could cool a small house. (20K -30K BTU, ~2-3 tons).

There might be options to pre-heat/pre-cool the cabin while on charge, and most are garage kept anyway.
The EV energy figures I see are less than 0,5 kWhrs per mile. BEVs aren’t the end-all, but they do seem to be good commuter vehicles. I don’t have an EV car, but I do have an all electric pontoon boat. It doesn’t scare the loons (the birds or the people) like a gas engine does. It’s not fast, but going fast would just spill your adult beverage, and blow away your snacks.

• ralfellis says:

Yeah, we all know why electric motors run cooler, Paul. You don’t need to post like a school mistress with her glasses perched on the end of her nose.

The point is, as Kakatoa below says, that the range of an EV drops by half if it is 10ºc below zero ambient. But if range is halved, then the efficiency is also halved. So this wonderful electric car, that is supposed to be sooo efficient, is now chewing up the coal and gas at twice the rate of my turbo-diesel. See my post below, for some mpg and khw figures.

• Paul says:

@ralfellis, thanks for the rude reply.

• MarkW says:

If cars didn’t leak air, the passengers would suffocate.

• MarkW says:

Additionally, insulation takes up space, so your car would have to be bigger, reducing it’s efficiency even further.

• ralfellis says:

I doubt it. The US doesn’t do efficiency.
In fact, when I sent a US lady to drive my car she came running back in screaming, because the car was moving up and down all by itself (hydraulic suspension). So no, I don’t suppose you see too many Citroens in the US.

• Paul says:

“I doubt it. The US doesn’t do efficiency.”

You must mean the US is concerned with diesel emissions, which affect efficiency?
Adding a DPF & SCR to meet Euro 7 might change your smugness.

BTW, most every engine I have is diesel but only my truck has a DPF. I get relatively great fuel economy until it dumps fuel in to do filter regeneration. An added benefit is the extra fuel in the crankcase oil too.

• richardscourtney says:

Paul

Please say why snake oil salesmen always claim refutation of their assertions is “rude”.

You replied to an accurate comment by ralfellis, and he politely pointed out that your reply was both patronising and misleading. Your complete response to that says

@ralfellis, thanks for the rude reply.

That response is a typical response of all the other promoters of scams to reap excessive subsidies (e.g. electric cars, windfarms, solar farms); i.e. when refuted you responded by making a false accusation of rudeness and tried to change the subject. Why?

Richard

• You must leave an electric car plugged in when not in use, so that it is warm enough to be operated in winter. In effect you must heat the car whenever it is not in use, so that you don’t need to heat it when it is in use. Because the range of the car is limited, you typically can plan on arriving at your destination before the car cools too much, so that you can plug in once more.

Once you factor in the cost of keeping the electric car warm in winter, on the off chance it might be needed, you suddenly realize either the car needs to be built differently, like a well insulated home, or you need to keep the car inside in a heated, insulated garage during the winter.

• Paul says:

ferdberple, it’s not hard to anticipate that I drive to work at the same time each morning, so any pre-conditioning wouldn’t need to be continuous. An enclosed garage isn’t too uncommon either. Like I said, changes to the thermal envelope of the car would make a huge difference in any type of driveline.

The early Chevy Lumina vans had that pinky tinted windshield. (by PPG?) you could lay your hand on it during the summer, a feat almost impossible with a standard glass windshield. Automotive solar gain is huge, and that peak drives the A/C size requirements.

My current garage is well insulated and I keep the slab set to 55F.. It’s not worth a retrofit, but fairly inexpensive during new construction. Plenty of proper well installed insulation and attention to air leaks keep the operating costs low. And fiberglass insulation’s quoted R values are a fairy tale. Any poor installation or airflow, and the R value plummets to worthless.

• TheLastDemocrat says:

“Paul” wants to build a house around an electric car just to make the electric car feasible?

• Paul says:

“wants to build a house around an electric car just to make the electric car feasible?”

No, it’s just that any modern house already has the capability to offset some of the shortcomings of an EV, so is that “wrong” in your eyes?

• MarkW says:

Partially offset.
Garages still get a lot colder than the rest of the house during the winter and any cooling of the batteries hurts EV performance.

• eyesonu says:

Paul,

Have you considered the heat required by your garage to bring a 2500 lb or greater car up to your garage temp setting when coming in off the road at sub freezing temps. Let’s see 2500 lbs or more of steel and lead at say 0F to 55F. You make no mention of having considered this.

• Paul says:

@eyesonu “Have you considered the heat required by your garage to bring a 2500 lb or greater car up to your garage temp setting when coming in off the road at sub freezing temps.”

No, I only considered the heat load from exposed surface area. Trying to chase a transient load seemed unnecessary. I can tell you from experience that a driven vehicle warms the air rather than cooling it. Although it does nothing to the slab temperature, and that’s what I heat.

It would appear that the thermal mass of the warm concrete floor swamps the vehicle’s mass. The frost walls are insulated to 4 feet below grade, and that volume of tempered earth buffers the floor.

• eyesonu says:

Paul,

My comment was made with regards to your support of the great benefit/efficiency of driving an electric car. You noted that you keep yours in a heated garage so less battery power is lost in heating (the car).

Assume a sub freezing cold temp outdoor. First you open the garage door to get your electric car in. Cold outside air will fill your garage. The thermal mass of the car is going to be very cold. You heat the floor/slab. Equilibrium temps are going to have an energy cost. Then you claim from experience that your driven electric car will warm the air?

I’m not buying it. You are making a weak argument to try to support the use of an electric vehicle.

• Paul says:

@eyesonu “You noted that you keep yours in a heated garage…”

I don’t own a BEV, my wife keep her ICE Taurus in the heated garage. I’m investigating the cost benefits of a BEV for a future vehicle. I live close to work, I have a garage, I ran a 30A circuit before the drywall went up, so it MIGHT just be a good fit for me? Why all of the hate?

“Then you claim from experience that your driven electric car will warm the air?”

Those are your words, not mine.
My words are; “I don’t have an EV car, but I do have an all electric pontoon boat…a driven vehicle warms the air…”.

“The thermal mass of the car is going to be very cold. You heat the floor/slab. Equilibrium temps are going to have an energy cost. ”

I estimate the slab weighs around 40K lbs and it’s always set to hold 55F. We could make some estimates of the cold vs. hot mass, and the delta T of each, but I can tell you from experience that it’s not energy intensive to keep the garage warm for a few winter months.

• Jake J says:

You must leave an electric car plugged in when not in use, so that it is warm enough to be operated in winter.

That’s news to me. I’ve owned an EV through three winters, and couldn’t keep it plugged in if I wanted to. Mine doesn’t do what you suggest, i.e., keep the battery warm if you plug it in. Teslas do that, but I don’t know of any others that do.

• Alberta Slim says:

Right on….
AND, add in the energy for heated seats; rear and front window defoggers/deicers, on top of the regular heater. Up here in northern Canada at -40C the battery may not get you to the mall and back.

• Jake J says:

I don’t think any current EV would make much sense anywhere in Canada except west of the Cascades.

• Duster says:

I wonder what the mileage is in Fairbanks art 30 below.

• Krakatoa – can it really do all that on AAA batteries? (12 for GBP1,00 in my local discount store)

• vboring says:

Yeah, but EVs are awesome. And they do reduce real pollution where people live. Large point sources of pollution (coal plants) are very easy to monitor and control. Hundreds of millions of small ones (cars) – not so much. Ground level pollution in most cities is abysmal and caused mostly by ICEs.

For people who care about real pollution at locations that really impact people, EVs are a solution.

But yeah, winter range sucks. Leaf summer range – 88 miles. Range at -10C with all the heaters on and driving through snow – about 40. I do like the pre-heating/pre-cooling, though. Especially when it is a free charge port.

• kakatoa says:

Vboring,

It sounds like you like your EV. Have you experienced a drop off in miles per kWh of driving in a hilly environment?

An associate, who owns a Tesla S85, experienced a drop off in his miles/kWh going up and down the hills when he visited us in the Sierras last summer. It was very hot ( high’s around 105F the weekend they visited). I forgot to ask how big the effect was. The only info I could find on the subject was located here- http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/miles-kwh – “3 miles per kWh (DC) Note: The hill data is pretty ugly”

As it was so hot out our HVAC needs were rather high. Once my friend learned that we were paying over \$.30 kWh for our marginal electrical energy usage on the weekend he decided to charge his car up down at the public station a few miles away as it was free. It did seem a bit odd that I was paying over \$.30 kWh to cool the house while he was visiting, but he didn’t have to pay anything for his kWh usage from the grid. My wife had to wait a few hours to do the laundry after his visit as our weekday TOU peak time kWh costs for a kWh of electricity are closer to \$.50 kWh.

• MarkW says:

As LA has found out, most pollution is caused people going about their day to day lives.
Cooking, cleaning, all of these are sources of pollution as larger or larger than the pollution put out by cars.
Denver had to mandate catalytic converters for fire places and LA has mandated them for industrial bakers.

• Duster says:

Vboring, a modern vehicle puts out very little “pollution” in the sense of genuine toxins. Most modern well maintained cars are so efficient in combustion that they present effectively no hazard of CO. The principle output is water vapor and CO2. Where I live there are many times more vehicles on the roads now than there were in the ’50s and ’60s. The air is cleaner now than it was when I graduated high school in ’69. If we could only persuade the easterners to move back east, things would be wonderful.

• MarkW says:

Back in the 80’s I read a study that found that modern cars with all the pollution control equipment, when driven in cities such as LA, the air out the tail pipe was cleaner than the air being sucked in at the air filter.
Cars have gotten even cleaner since then, but so has LA’s air.

• LordCaledus says:

To be perfectly honest I don’t think the primary problem with EVs is range or efficiency. Tesla has proven that you can make a completely feasible daily driver out of an EV…for an extremely high price. That’s the problem, price. Sure, EVs are marginally affordable, but that’s mainly due to the many subsidies, tax credits (both for manufacturers and consumers), etc that are provided for them. That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere certainly won’t be the deep pockets of politicians.

If usage of EVs increase, the overall tax burden will also have to increase. This is coupled with the hideous cost of producing infrastructure, like battery swap stations, that would allow EVs to travel as far as gas/diesel cars do. Who would you tax? Obviously not the EV drivers, that would defeat the purpose. Gas/diesel drivers? Sure, until they switch to EVs to escape those extra costs. Truck drivers? They’d just get hybrid rigs. Companies that use diesel-electric trains? Yeah, that’ll last right up until they switch to full electric. Anyone who uses gas/diesel at all, even for backup generators? People will do without to save money, possibly even if it’s lethal (as the elderly are doing in the UK as a response to high power prices). We’d end up running full circle and ending up far worse than when we started out.

• vboring…

“Especially when it is a free charge port.”

Are you really under the misconception that there are free things or was that sarcasm?

I’ll offer some Economics 101 in either case.

You are essentially stealing the money to pay for that “free” energy from all your neighbors (okay maybe I’ll settle for the less incendiary substitute: you have neighbors that have been coerced into very heavily subsidizing costs you should be paying). Sorry, it’s not free. If we can afford an EV, shouldn’t we pony up and pay for our own energy so our less effluent neighbors don’t have to?

While I’m not ascribing this thinking to you in particular, my general observation is that this seems to me like a consistent theme in the progressive movement. That is, let’s hide the true costs of benefits that affluent liberals receive from those less-affluent, uneducated, unwashed masses who are needed to finance those benefits. Green energy comes to mind (where benefits are swamped by the ills; like huge rate increases, grid destabilization, massive wildlife impacts, etc.).

However, on one point we agree. EVs reduce a local problem (the brown cloud) and put the particulate air pollution in a place where it is less of a health concern.

Bruce

• DirkH says:

vboring
April 9, 2015 at 8:18 am
“But yeah, winter range sucks. Leaf summer range – 88 miles. Range at -10C with all the heaters on and driving through snow – about 40.”

You must be a rich man if you can afford to run the heater with electricity from a Li-Ion battery (one kWh costs you a Dollar when you factor in battery lifetime).

NEVER use the heater in an EV! Rather, install a fireplace.

• Paul says:

My response to ralfellis was to point out the fact that we in the US are bound by EPA regulations. So it’s unfair to directly compare fuel economy between US and Euro diesel vehicles.

Also, it appears several commenters have question the author’s statement “…transmission to end user is 67% efficient…” A cursory search returns a number closer to 6%? So IF the author’s number is incorrect, it would certainly changes the equation.

Is it your stance that: “You don’t need to post like a school mistress..The US doesn’t do efficiency” are NOT rude things to post?

Paul

• richardscourtney says:

Paul

Anybody can see your accusation of rudeness was an unfounded smear of ralfellis, and this thread is not about differences between US and UK fuel regulations.

That response is a typical response of all the other promoters of scams to reap excessive subsidies (e.g. electric cars, windfarms, solar farms); i.e. when refuted you responded by making a false accusation of rudeness and tried to change the subject. Why?

Richard

• Paul says:

@richardscourtney

Fine with me,

“this thread is not about differences between US and UK fuel regulations”

Richard, to put it in context, ralfellis said: “So this wonderful electric car, that is supposed to be sooo efficient, is now chewing up the coal and gas at twice the rate of my turbo-diesel.”, then further on he states: “my large European Citroen 5-door turbo diesel does 50 mpg in mixed driving”

My response was that diesel engines in the US are less efficient than Euro diesels because of EPA regulations, so it IS relevant. It’s only proper to compare US diesels to US BEVs, no? And further, the author’s statement: “transmission to end user is 67% efficient” MIGHT be in error, which could affects ralfellis’s claim above.

“I asked you…That response is a typical response of all the other promoters of scams to reap excessive subsidies (e.g. electric cars, windfarms, solar farms); i.e. when refuted you responded by making a false accusation of rudeness and tried to change the subject. Why?”

Richard, it appears that you stated YOUR opinion, then asked ME why your opinion is true? Why is it up to me to answer that? If you have a question about something I have stated, I’m prepared to answer it.

BTW, please point out where you think I was misleading anyone in my posts. I consider that a serious accusation, and I’d like to clarify the situation.

Thanks,

• richardscourtney says:

Paul:

OK. I see you will not answer my reasonable question; viz.

That response is a typical response of all the other promoters of scams to reap excessive subsidies (e.g. electric cars, windfarms, solar farms); i.e. when refuted you responded by making a false accusation of rudeness and tried to change the subject. Why?

In hope of obtaining an answer from you, I state my opinion of “why”; n.b. unlike you I know the difference between an opinion and an observation.

Promoters of subsidy farming know they are promoting scams that cannot be justified so they try to avoid answering criticisms of their untrue claims.

Richard

• Paul says:

@richardscourtney “OK. I see you will not answer my reasonable question…In hope of obtaining an answer from you, I state my opinion of “why””

Richard, you’re totally off base and in the weeds building a strawman. But if you must, why not come out and ask the question directly? Stop beating around the bush with your statement/opinion pseudo question. Do ask a real question, and I’ll be glad to answer to the best of my ability.

While we’re on that topic. Again, please point out where you think I was “misleading” anyone in any of my posts. I take pride in being factual, and consider yours to be a serious accusation. You leveled that charge, now either back it up with fact(s), or retract your statement.

Also, has anyone confirmed Lord Monckton statement “transmission to end user is 67% efficient“?
The source for that number was not provided, and has come under question by several other too.

Thanks again,

• richardscourtney says:

Paul:

I am not “beating about the bush”. I am asking you a clear and simple question.

Your evasion of the question induced me – as I said, in attempt to obtain an answer from you – to provide my answer to the question. But you continue to evade the question now by pretending you don’t understand it.

I remind that my clear, unambiguous and straightforward question is

That response is a typical response of all the other promoters of scams to reap excessive subsidies (e.g. electric cars, windfarms, solar farms); i.e. when refuted you responded by making a false accusation of rudeness and tried to change the subject. Why?

And your pretense that you don’t understand that simple question convinces me of the correctness of my stated opinion of the answer; i.e.

Promoters of subsidy farming know they are promoting scams that cannot be justified so they try to avoid answering criticisms of their untrue claims.

Richard

• Paul says:

@richardscourtney

Let’s dissect; “That response is a typical response of all the other promoters of scams to reap excessive subsidies (e.g. electric cars, windfarms, solar farms)…”

I see that as a statement, YOUR opinion, your observation. Is there a question hidden in there?

“when refuted you responded by making a false accusation of rudeness and tried to change the subject.”

First off, I wasn’t “refuted”. Second, that accusation of rudeness is mine to make. You can agree, or disagree with it, but it IS my right to point out rudeness toward me. And third, just where did I change the subject? The subject all along was the cost & viability of battery electric vehicles BEV. So again, another opinion from you.

“Why?”
Is that your question? Why What? Just what are you looking for? I invalidated your “question” statement, what more do you want? Just between you and me, I think you butted into a debate without reading the full line of posts, came out swinging, and whiffed.

BTW, what “scam” do you feel I’m “promoting”? Can you provide proof that I’m promoting a scam, or is that just your holy opinion again? You’re good at throwing out accusations, but so far you haven’t proven a single one, not ONE. I find that quite ironic, don’t you?. And just who deemed you the arbiter of “excessive subsidies” anyway? Maybe you need to play the ball and not the man, hmm?

Okay Richard, lets see what you’re made of. What’s your take on my two, clear, concise questions I asked of you in previous posts? Are you going to lead by example and answer, or just restate you opinion Ad nauseam? Your ball…

Thanks,

• richardscourtney says:

Paul:

Everybody can see that you continue to evade my clear and reasonable question, and they can each make their own opinion of why you are doing that.

As I said, I think it is because

Promoters of subsidy farming know they are promoting scams that cannot be justified so they try to avoid answering criticisms of their untrue claims.

Richard

• Paul says:

@richardscourtney “Everybody can see that you continue to evade my clear and reasonable question”

Richard, your “question” is far from reasonable, more akin to asking me when I stopped beating my wife. You continually post that asinine “question”, making charges of scams, yet not one shred of evidence to make your case. You directly charged me with posting misleading information, but not a single word toward validating your hollow claim.

And speaking of evasion Richard, I see you failed to address any of the questions I asked. So while you’re barking at the fence with claims of evasion, you’re guilty of the same exact thing.

You’re a junkyard dog, all bark and no bite.

Thanks,

• richardscourtney says:

Paul

Thankyou for your concluding ad hom which demonstrates to all unbiased observers that you cannot justify your response to questioning of your snake oil salesmanship, and you only provide evasions and childish insults when questioned on it.

Richard

• Paul says:

Richard, your first post inferring that I’m a “snake oil salesman”, and every subsequent post called me out as a; “promoters of scams” without basis. So is that NOT ad hom in your world Richard, or are you above double standards?

“you only provide evasions and childish insults when questioned on it.”

You accuse me of posting misleading information but you refuse to cite one shred of evidence to valid your claim, and you call ME childish? Is that how you roll now? Doing drive-by hit & run insults with no backing? I expected a little substance from you Richard, but so far it’s been a disappointment.

I take being called a liar seriously and I’m fully prepared to backup any claims I’ve made in any of my posts. If you, or anyone, can find anything that I’ve posted that is not factual, I’ll be the first to admit it and make corrections to remedy any wrong. The same can not be said of you Richard.

You have failed to back up your claims with evidence or facts. You have failed to make your case. Yet you are adamant that you are correct, and everyone will see your position as truth. Hey, sounds just like AGW, no?

Have a good day Richard,

• OK, let’s try this:

Justify economically and by actual efficiency (more energy delivered at lower prices more reliably to more people over the lifetime of the power plant) by REQUIRING and SUBSIDIZING today’s failed “green energy” and MANDATED “renewable” energy schemes.

You cannot.

These “green energy” schemes are used by the “friends of the politicians” to get rich using their Big Government and Big Finance influence with the Big Media liberals to require taxpayers to hand them billions in subsidies and exemptions and direct payments for the short-term “benefit” of building, promoting, and “studying” these schemes.

• Paul says:

@RACookPE1978 If you’re replying to me, I’ll take a swing.

“Justify economically and by actual efficiency…REQUIRING and SUBSIDIZING today’s failed “green energy” and MANDATED “renewable” energy schemes.

Maybe we’re discussing two different topics here. If you’re saying that REQUIRING and SUBSIDIZING green energy is a failed course, I’d have to agree with you. If you’re saying that anyone that takes advantage of those existing green requirements and subsidy is a promoters of scams, a friends of the politicians, or getting rich, I’d have to respectfully disagree. If you don’t like a subsidy, do something to change them. Don’t vilify people that take advantage of a lawful subsidy, i.e. play the ball, not the man. Do you disagree?

Let’s not forget the host of this very website has taken advantage of subsidies for his PV system. Do you view him as a freeloader, promoters of scams, or snake oil salesman? For the record, I do not, and even plan to follow his lead on PV.

I’ve worked around the development and research of alternative fueled vehicles & devices for most of my career, and I happen to love electrons too. I’m interested in all forms of BEVs, mainly for the geek factor, but I do think they may well provide lower costs in certain situations.

“You cannot.”

Maybe I can? Look, we can argue the nuances of efficiency numbers until we’re blue in the face, but the bottom line to most is cost. I don’t care if a vehicle is 2% or 99% efficient, it’s the cost to drive that matters to most people. The price the consumer pays for a unit of energy should have the cost of all profit and losses baked in. There is no need to go back to the well head or generator with assumptions of efficiency, when the least common denominator is cost per mile to drive, right?

My current daily driver is coming of age prompting a replacement. That got me started doing the research to see if a BEV might suit my needs AND makes economic sense. Is that so wrong in your eyes?

From what I’ve read, the Volt averages around 3.7 miles per kW/hr. If I understand it correctly, that is input energy into the charger. Fortunately, my current rate per kWhr is ~\$0.14, and my commute is 18 miles round trip. Given that, it might only cost me ~\$0.70 per day in electrons, round trip. That is currently the same cost to me as ~0.3 gallons of gasoline, or ~0.18 gallons of diesel. Most conventional US cars can’t touch those numbers.

So at first blush it appears my drive energy costs could be much less by using electric, than either liquid fuel. The cost & maintenance of the vehicle is another matter, and I haven’t gotten too deep into that until target vehicles are identified. Does that satisfy your “Justify economically” request?

BTW, I can’t tell if you defending Richard’s position, trying to clarify mine, or some other?

Thanks,

• kakatoa says:

Paul and RA Cook..

In case you want to determine electricity costs (when charging at home) to travel 100 miles with an EV in PG&E;s territory:

In CA we, make that PG&E and the CPUC, have figured out how to encourage EV charging when the costs to provide service is lowest (midnight to 7am). We had some experimental EV charging rates E-9A and E9B for a few years that allowed for charging at a rate of as low as .04kWh. For various reasons these experimental rates have been abandoned in favor of a fixed TOU rate schedule with three prices depending on the time charging takes place- Example summer rates for E9A: off peak (\$.09829 kWh), part peak (\$.21152 kWh) and peak (\$.39653 kWh).

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ResTOUCurrent.xls

• Paul says:

@kakatoa “…and peak (\$.39653 kWh)”

Yikes! You can thank smart meter technology for enabling that ability. One other proposed scheme was to have EV chargers report data, so road taxes could be levied.

Thanks,

• Michael,

Thanks for that. From reading many of the comments, it appears that only a few of them support the article’s premise.

The public seems to be coming around to the skeptical view of MMGW.

15. I believe it is important to separate the “evidence” that the global atmosphere has been warming from the “evidence” that the cause of that warming is human CO2 emissions.

• Hivemind says:

“…it is important to separate the “evidence” that the global atmosphere has been warming… ”
No, you need to look at the evidence that lots of global warming promoters, I can’t bring myself to call them scientists, are getting paid a lot of money to “prove” global warming. Why else would outright fraud (doctoring of the temperature records of Paraguay and Iceland, for instance) not be outed in the scientific community.

16. knr says:

A far better question is the one that none of the alarmists seem able to answer , given they claimed that even cooling is proof of warming and that anything and everything has been blamed on ‘evil CO2’ , what would disprove CAGW?
If you did not know betters you would suggest that this is because they know their case is so weak that to defend it they have to resort to a ‘religions style stance ‘ of being a unquestionable and unchallengeable truth where strength of faith is much more important that strength of data .

17. Alan McIntire says:

How to convince me I’m wrong:
Astrophysicists have determined that the Sun was only about 70% as luminous as it is now when it started out around 5 billion years ago, and has been increasing in luminosity ever since. Geologists have determined that there were liquid oceans and life on Earth going back at least 4 billion years. The only way to avoid frozen solid dead oceans 4 billion years ago, or a Venus style runaway greenhouse before now is with strong NEGATIVE feedbacks.

When Astrophysicists have demonstrated that their models are wrong, and that stars DON”T get brighter as they convert Hydrogen to Helium in their cores, and Geologists have demonstrated that their prior theory was wrong, and life has existed on this planet for only a short time, I’ll believe I was wrong.

I have been relying on information and experience I’ve acquired over a lifetime to form my skeptical attitude. It occurs to me that Ronald Bailey could have asked a similar question, “What would convince you that the god THOR exists? my answer is, nothing! Even if some big blond guy with a full beard
started riding through the sky in a chariot, flinging his hammer, I’d assume it was some trick photography, a mortal with some nifty new unheard of scientific gadgets, or hallucination on my part before I’d believe in the Norse God Thor.

• David A says:

Ya, well I do have a picture…

• Alan McIntire says:

If I DID believe in Thor, I’d believe the world will end in a three year “Fimbul Winter” preceeding Ragnarok. That three year Fimbul Winter and CAGW are mutually exclusive. Of course, during Ragnarok Surt wil burn everything, but that’s not ANTHROPOLOGICAL global warming.

I’m not COMPLETELY impervious to logical arguments. I used to believe, like the Sky Dragons, that the
temperature lapse rate was a result of earth’s gravitational field.

This “Watts UpWth That” post by Robert Brown convinced me I was wrong.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/

• Ian Macdonald says:

Of course, it might be one of Tony Stark’s creations. ;)

Seriously though, the ancient peoples liked to give human personas to natural forces. When you look at it like that, Thor makes perfect sense. We still even do the same today in some cases.

The one that makes no sense at all to me is the notion that nailing a man to a lump of wood 2,000 years ago will atone for sins I’m going to commit sometime in the present era. That predisposes that God knew what sins I was going to commit long ago, in order to determine how much his son was to suffer. In which case I have no freedom of action, If my actions are preordained then I cannot by definition be a sinner. So, there was no need for his son to suffer.

If you accept that as plausible, then I guess there is no problem with the concept of CO2 causing warming before its release, which warming then causes its release. Religions are full of paradoxes of that kind. The only way they can persist is if they require the faithful to avoid thinking too critically about the creed’s tenets.

• richardscourtney says:

Ian Macdonald

There are many web sites for discussing religion: this is not one of them.

Please go to an appropriate site if you want to further display your ignorance of the subject. And, for your benefit, I strongly suggest you at least learn what “sin” is before making more of a fool of yourself.

Richard

• William Astley says:

There is peer reviewed papers that support your comment.

There must be negative feedback (planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes) to explain the faint sun paradox and to explain the cycle ice epochs. The mechanism by which the planet regulates planet temperature is cloud cover. When the solar wind speed is higher the solar heliosphere extent and magnetic flux content is greater so there is more blockage of high speed particles (called for historical reasons cosmic rays CR or cosmic ray flux CRF or galactic cosmic rays GCR which is confusing as they are mostly high speed protons not ‘rays’). The high speed cosmic particles strike the earth and create cloud forming ions. More ions more low level clouds.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306477

Towards a Solution to the Early Faint Sun Paradox: A Lower Cosmic Ray Flux from a Stronger Solar Wind

Standard solar models predict a solar luminosity that gradually increased by about 30% over the past 4.5 billion years. Under the faint sun, Earth should have been frozen solid for most of its existence. Yet, running water is observed to have been present since very early in Earth’s history. This enigma is known as the faint sun paradox. We show here that it can be partially resolved once we consider the cooling effect that cosmic rays are suspected to have on the global climate and that the younger sun must have had a stronger solar wind, such that it was more effective at stopping cosmic rays from reach-
ing Earth. The paradox can then be completely resolved with the further contribution of modest greenhouse gas warming. When we add the cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate
in the Milky Way, we recover the long term glacial activity on Earth.

It should be noted that there are periods in the geological record of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 has high and the planet was cold and periods when atmospheric CO2 was low and the planet was warm. An explanation for the multiple periods of millions of years when planetary temperature does not correlate with CO2 levels is that the planet strongly resists temperature changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover. The ice epochs are caused when the solar system passes through the spiral arms of the galaxy at which time the number of high speed cosmic protons (called GCR or CRF) striking the earth increases by a factor 5 which causes an increase in cloud cover causing the planet to cool.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.

• Alan McIntire says:

Regarding clouds, I came to a similar conclusion myself after a little thought and prompting from other papers.
Currently, clouds reflect 30% of the sun’s radiation. With no clouds, a sun radiating at 70% would just about exactly equal current levels. Clouds come from evaporated water. With a dimmer sun, less water would have evaporated and there would have been fewer clouds. Of course the earh surface would still reflect some of the sun’s radiation, so there might be other factors involved, like a faster spinning earth, maybe no continents originally, a wamer earth core because all that extra Uranium which hadn’t broken down in fission reactions yet, more energy from tides from a closer moon, etc.

18. I tell the alarmist people I know that I have a few requirements before I believe in CAGW: (1) All those that preach global warming must first live the way they tell me I have to live; lead by example. (2) All those that preach global warming must first have an honest, open debate with someone who disagrees with them. (3) All papers on global warming must make their raw data available to everyone without exception as required by the scientific method.

The preachers of doom will never satisfy all 3 requirements. Some may satisfy all 3 but most will not. In fact, most will not satisfy even one of my requirements. I like point #1 best. If CAGW is a real problem, then everyone has to act including you. Why do you need to fly to Paris for a climate summit if you can videoconference for much less money and much less pollution?

19. Bart says:

Very nicely done. The AGW contingent are like children cringing in fear of monsters under the bed. There are no monsters under the bed. The campaign of fear fails on every count:

1) We are not the driving force of CO2 in the atmosphere
2) Even if we were, there is no evidence of significant surface temperature sensitivity to it
3) Even if there were significant temperature sensitivity, warmth is good

Warmth is good for life on this planet, and for us in particular. CO2 is the very stuff of life. Without it, everything dies. It is undoubtedly true that, all things being equal, rising CO2 in the atmosphere should cause surface warming. But, all things are not equal. This evidently is a homeostatic system, and the data indicate that, in the aggregate, the response to rising CO2 is essentially nil.

20. iax says:

Particularly caught by the terminating reference of danger to “science itself”. All of CAGW is a good fit with the antics witnessed by Gulliver at the Academy of Laputa.

21. Bubba Cow says:

but, but . . .
isn’t Obama’s family dying from climate change induced asthma while he is visiting Bahamas?

• Exactly. If climate change is such a worry, why do people vacation in place with a different climate than where they live? Shouldn’t people stay at home for their vacations, and thus avoid the risk of climate change that results from travel?

And just think of the CO2 produced by jet planes. Shouldn’t the first step in combating Climate Change be to stop all jet travel? Thus reducing CO2 and eliminating the self-induced harm of climate change that result from people travelling.

Step 1 in stopping climate change. Ban all travel to places with different climates. Surely we owe it to people to stop them from travelling and thereby harming themselves by changing their climate.

• isn’t Obama’s family dying from climate change induced asthma while he is visiting Bahamas?
===========
shouldn’t the Obama’s be put in jail for exposing their children to dangerous climate change?

isn’t this what is being proposed? putting people in jail for climate change? Surely exposing your children to a rapid change of climate is the climate equivalent of high crimes and misdemeanors?

22. mkelly says:

Lord Moncton says: “But in logic – it cannot be repeated often enough – mere correlation does not necessary imply causation.”
=====

Logic also says that CO2 is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause the global temperature to rise. So blaming this all on CO2 is illogical as Spock would say.

• Alan McIntire says:

You’ve got a point there. Even measured increases in CO2 and measured increases in temperature do not prove, or even necessarily IMPLY, that the added CO2 caused the warming. I’m reminded of a paper by
McKittrick showing a correlation between increased INDUSTRIALIZATON and increased temperatures, implying that it might be the waste heat put out by our industrial society that is being measured rather than any effect from CO2.

23. William C Rostron says:

I am not sure where the 67% electrical transmission and distribution efficiency figure comes from, but that figure seems a bit low, to me. Quoting from
https://www.nema.org/Products/Document/TDEnergyEff.pdf
“Generally speaking, T&D losses between 6% and 8% are considered normal.”
I don’t know if their estimate is better than the source for your figure, but my experience in the electrical power industry supports the higher transmission efficiency number.

The analysis will suffer little from the corrected figures; there is still the fact that most energy is lost in the conversion of raw potential into useful work, no matter what fuel is employed. Nuclear plants, for example, which are favored for large scale replacement of fossil power, are limited to less than 35% thermal efficiency by peak temperature limits of the reactor core.

BillR

• William C Rostron says:
24. Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
An excellent summary of the key points underpinning the skeptical viewpoint.

25. Patrick B says:

Sorry, you missed Step 0: Prove that your measurements of “global” temperature and CO2 sources and levels are accurate to a degree (i.e. with proper error analysis) that allows you to make any scientific statement about either. Without proof that the measurements are accurate, the rest is so much garbage.

In regard to #1, what do you do if the person you trying to convince knows that you have cherry picked the only temp record that hasn’t shown recent warming, and that one is not even surface temps? Like you say, the rest of your pyramid comes tumbling down…

Satellite data is far more accurate than surface data when looking at global T. So you are the one doing the cherry-picking. As usual.

• warrenlb says:

No, recent refinements in the Satellite data calibration now show its in alignment with the conclusions of land based data — there’ no longer enough difference to be worthy of controversy.

• Chris says:

dbstealey said “Satellite data is far more accurate than surface data when looking at global T.”

What is your proof of that?

Surface is surface. Troposphere is troposphere. We don’t live in the “average” troposphere, we live on the surface. The models don’t model the troposphere, they model the surface. There is no way a satellite is “more accurate” than the surface record and the satellite people have said as much. I mean, what are you thinking, the satellite calibration needs to be constantly recalibrated with thermometers in balloons. Sheesh. I mean, really, what are you thinking?

So db, you are being sort of silly. Or stupid. Whatever.

• Chris says:

What is your proof of that?

“Proof” is pretty strong. I prefer reason: the U.S. government spends hundreds of millions of dollars launching and maintaining satellites that measure global temperature. Their data is accepted by scientists everywhere. Why would the government throw away money on inaccurate data?

=========================

trafamaore! You called me names! WAH!!

I’m going to tell on you to a moderator and get you banned!

dbstealey “trafamaore! You called me names! WAH!! I’m going to tell on you to a moderator and get you banned!”

I already am semi banned. Why do you think my “thoughts” come up 12 hours after I post?

[Reply: you are either banned or you’re not. ~mod.]

• Chris says:

dbstealey said: ““Proof” is pretty strong. I prefer reason: the U.S. government spends hundreds of millions of dollars launching and maintaining satellites that measure global temperature. Their data is accepted by scientists everywhere. Why would the government throw away money on inaccurate data?”

The US government also spends hundreds of millions of dollars on ground based instruments to measure temperature, humidity, etc. I can apply the exact same reasoning you used for satellites for ground based instruments. Once again, what is your proof/evidence/reason for stating that satellite data is far more accurate than surface data when looking at global T?

[SNIP dragon slayers prose- way off topic – Anthony]

• warrenlb says:

“That’s being cooled from 312K to 288K by our radiative atmosphere not warmed from 255K to 288 K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.”

If the oceans are being cooled, why do the measurements show they are warming?

• warrenlb says:

@Alan McIntire.
I’d also like to hear from you about the ‘lack of ocean warming’ citation that shows ocean warming. What do you say?

• [SNIP by snipping Konrad for his failure to heed site policy, so must I snip this response – Anthony]

• Lord Monckton,

It is unfortunate that I was at a conference three days this week and missed your reply before it was taken down. If you have a copy of it or if you have a copy of a similar response to someone else I would love to read it. You could send it to mark.stoval AT gmail.com if you would be so very kind.

I have been interested in this back and forth since the Scottish Sceptic wrote a series on climate and the positions of the various groups. In that series he had an interesting post called “Skydragons: good physics – appalling PR.” and I have wondered what your take would be on that ever since. Of course it is against this site’s policy to openly discuss any the theory that the greenhouse effect, on net, cools the earth rather than warms it so I despair of ever seeing your debating skills take on that issue. (and I don’t even know exactly where you would be on that)

Anyway, if you see this but don’t want to take the time to e-mail a note I’ll understand. I imagine your time is a limited and valuable resource.

Regards, Mark S.

• Scott says:

“This is science. Black or white. Right or wrong.” If you are serious I have to ask when science became as simple as black or white, or right or wrong?

I think the temperatures measured on the moon’s surface provide ample evidence that the earth is cooler than it would be without the atmosphere to help move the heat towards the poles and upwards towards space. But the idea that CO2 does not do what James Hansen’s theory says it does is not something that either side wants to consider at this juncture in time. Perhaps in a decade or so.

”[SNIP dragon slayers prose- way off topic – Anthony]”

Anthony, it is your site and you have the right to snip, but do try to think. This is the age of the Internet, the act of censorship, just as the act of comment leaves a permanent record.

In snipping me, you are leaving a permanent record of censoring the guy who was right. I don’t want you to do that. The reason is this – you are an empiricist just like me. You didn’t trust that computer algorithms could adjust for micro site degeneration. You ran an experiment using hundreds of volunteers. And you were right. The stations most contributing to the “warming signal” were those with the most problems.

Do you like being called a “Holocaust Denier” Anthony? Can you guess how I feel about the “Slayer” smear? As I have pointed out multiple times, I have no association with that false flag operation. I present all my work as empirical experiments designed so that others can replicate. I don’t lie, I have the courage to give others clear instruction as to how to test my claims. I don’t stand on my own two feet, I stand in one steel capped boot and use the other to kick ass.

My message is simple. There can be no “lukewarmer” Realpolitik ending to this farce. AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility. A “soft landing” cannot be engineered, so stop trying.

Have you ever seen Monckton, Willis or Dr. Brown win a round against me without censorship? No. And many others have now seen the same thing. If those gate-keepers of opinion at WUWT were truly better than me at radiative physics, FEA and CFD, they wouldn’t need censorship to defend themselves.

Only the hard sceptics can win this. Time to open your ocular organs and turn your olfactory attentions to nearby caffeinated beverages Anthony. It’s not “warming but less than we thought”, It’s “AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility”.

As I said in my censored comment, It’s not good enough for sceptics to be “less wrong”. We need to be RIGHT.

[Reply: WUWT does not censor. If a comment was snipped it is because site policy makes it clear that sky dragon comments are not wanted. ~mod.]

• “[Reply: WUWT does not censor. If a comment was snipped it is because site policy makes it clear that sky dragon comments are not wanted. ~mod.]”

I have seen Konrad say at JoNova’s site that the Sl*yers were not correct. He is not one of them. They do share some views, but then this site shares views with Dr. Mann and James Hansen. I would not call every post here “that Hansen crap” or anything like that.

What we have here is the censorship of a solid point of view —- the scientific point of view I was taught in college in the 70s. I was told in the 70s that the sun, our gravity, mass of the atmosphere, conduction, convection, and radiation all play various parts as do many other things. We were never told anything like the James Hansen myth that many are beholden to today.

We might be wrong, but saying that anyone who thinks CO2, on net, cools the atmosphere and does not heat it is not welcome here does look like censorship to me.

~Mark

[Reply: Thanks for the info. ~mod]

Markstoval,
Thank you for your response. Well written and to the point.

If WUWT is to retain its reputation, sceptics who claim, on the basis of empirical experiment, that CO2 causing atmospheric warming is a physical impossibility should still have a voice. If site policy says otherwise, then it is site policy that should be changed not censorship of lukewarming dissenters that should be enforced.

I put my claims to the test. I tell others how to replicate my experiments and check my claims. This is the scientific method. I find it distressing that the gate keepers Monckton, Dr. S and Dr. Brown need to flee behind censorship to avoid debate. Surely someone who’s aero & hydrodynamics engineering work has been exhibited in technology museums should be no contest? Who’s a bunch of squawking warmulonian chickens?

Moderators,
any-time you think Lindzen, Spencer, Monckton or Willis are better than me at empirical experiment or computational fluid dynamics, feel free to speak up ;)

28. NielsZoo says:

Thank You. A very nice summation. As an engineer I could pick some nits, but I won’t as they don’t change the substance of the arguments presented.

29. David A says:

“I have presented much of the evidence in the form of simple graphs. Do readers like the way the graphs are presented, many of them with a small “Post-It note” highlighting the main point?”
=========================

Yes, and overall an excellent post I have a few nits, but will leave that for now. Howe er I have one suggestion to add to this question…
” Will warmer worldwide weather be dangerous?”

I suggest something like this; Not only are the catastrophic affects of CO2 failing to manifest, but the benefits of additional CO2 are KNOWN and not in dispute. The climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is, according to all the observations, neutral to slightly negative. The crop sensitivity to doubled CO2 is extremely positive, producing a 50% increase in crop growth on the SAME amount of water, on the SAME amount of land. About 1 to 1.5 billion people would potentially starve if we waved a magic wand and dropped CO_2 right back to 280 ppm tomorrow.

30. ralfellis says:

Dear Mr Monkton,

Your analysis of electric cars closely agrees with my calculations. However, Professor David MacKay who was (still is?) a UK government advisor on energy, still says that electric vehicles are five times more efficient than fossil vehicles. See Page 127:

Quote:
“I have looked up the performance figures for lots of electric vehicles – they’re listed in this chapter’s end-notes – and they seem to be consistent with this summary: electric vehicles can deliver transport at an energy cost of roughly 15 kWh per 100 km. That’s five times better than our baseline fossil-car, and significantly better than any hybrid cars. Hurray! To achieve economical transport, we don’t have to huddle together in public transport – we can still hurtle around, enjoying all the pleasures and freedoms of solo travel, thanks to electric vehicles.”

This claim was also copied and therefore repeated in the Sunday Times in Feb 2011. Now despite his threatening court action for ‘defamation’, I made Professor MacKay clarify and amend the article in the Sunday Times, as per the email below.

But Professor MacKay has still not amended his PDF briefing-note booklet to Parliament, which still says that electric cars are 5x more efficient than fossil cars. So Prof MacKay is continuing to mislead the public and mislead Parliament.

Why? How long would it take, to amend one line in a PDF booklet? I think that parliament needs to be told of this deliberate falsehood by one of its key advisors on renewable energy. How can Parliament make sensible decisions on energy policy, if one of its key advisors is fabricating the evidence and thus lying to parliament?

.

Prof MacKay’s letter of apology to the Sunday Times.

.

Mr Ralph Ellis has mentioned your article and his correspondence with you (pasted below).

I’d like to confirm that Mr Ellis is right to assert that what I wrote
appears to have been misinterpreted. I apologise for the lack of clarity on my part.

To be clear: when I said electric vehicles use about 15 or 20 kWh per 100 km
measured at the socket, and petrol vehicles use about 80 kWh per 100 km
measured at the petrol pump, this should not be taken as implying
that today’s electric vehicles use 4 or 5 times less fossil fuels
than petrol cars.

The electricity in the UK is largely generated from
gas and coal, and the efficiency of that elec generation is about 42%,
so electric vehicles are only about 1.7 times more efficient (assuming 20 kWh electric
is compared with 80 kWh of fossil fuel, and neglecting the upstream energy costs of
fossil fuel production in both cases).

The above statement is consistent with the emissions associated with the two
vehicle types which I estimated in my book on page 131
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_131.shtml
– I explained there that with today’s UK grid mix, elec vehicles have a footprint
of roughly 100g per km whereas the average UK car bought today rolls in at 168 g (p 122)
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_122.shtml
which is a ratio of about 1.7 to 1 in favour of the electric vehicle.

The best fossil fuel vehicles are in the 100 g range so if we compare the
best fossils with the typical electric car, they are level pegging today.
An increase in nuclear power or other low-carbon electricity will in due
course change these answers so that electric vehicles will look increasingly
good by the carbon emissions metric.

I hope this helps, and again apologies if the exposition in my book
was not sufficiently clear.

Yours
Prof David Mackay

Note:
Prof MacKay uses a 33 mpg 80kwh/100km fossil-fueled car for his comparisons. However, my large European Citroen 5-door turbo diesel does 50 mpg in mixed driving, or about 50 kwh/100km. If we multiply the electric vehicle’s power consumption by 3.7, to account for electric generating inefficiencies as per Monkton’s calculations, the Tesla has a consumption of 55 kwh/100km (3.7 x 15), which is more than my diesel. And much more, if it happens to be -10ºc outside and you have the heater on.

• Joe Born says:

Nice job.

• MarkW says:

If ICE cars average 27% efficient and electrics are 5 times more efficient, that would make them 135% efficient? Heck with perpetual motion, these guys are getting out more energy then they put in.

• CodeTech says:

That’s as horrific as the commonly used “5 times less”, which is actually a meaningless combination of words. Does “5 times less” mean “one fifth”? If so, why not just say that?

The advertising industry is largely responsible for destroying our ability to think and envision numbers accurately. 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed agree…. which just means that 4 out of 5 of the 2% of dentists that actually filled in the form and got a free sample of the product they were testing…. and at that, they only represent the 80% of dentists who agree that sugar-free gum is better for the teeth than chewing on sugar all day.

Anyone who lives in this civilization and hasn’t yet figured out that most numbers we hear in the media are blatant lies is just not paying attention. If your IQ is anywhere above 70 you should intuitively recognize that a “97% of scientists” claim is rubbish. I doubt you could find “97% of scientists” who agree with anything.

• Lester Via says:

That is the result of using 27% as the average efficiency of the ICE. It is actually far less at the light loads experienced by the engine while powering the typical mid sized sedan on a level road at 65 mph. A typical 2 liter, 4 cylinder ICE has a specific brake fuel consumption (bsfc) around 275 grams per kilowatt hour at its most efficient operating point while that increases to 500-600 grams per kilowatt hour at the light loads experienced by a typical sedan moving at a constant 65 mph.

ref- Internal Combustion Fundamentals by John B, Heywood

• Jer0me says:

I think you need to account for the amount of fuel used to create distilled fuel for a car. I suspect it is of a similar order to the amount lost when creating electricity.

• ralfellis says:

>>I suspect it is of a similar order to the amount
>>lost when creating electricity.

Nonsense. You only heat to heat it to 400ºc. Besides, oil for power stations goes though the same refining process, because there is no point burning the light oils in a power station.

R

31. If you want to convince me of AGW being a problem, first thing to do is stop the hysterics. The catastrophe of the hour nonsense doesn’t further the cause even a little bit, it just makes the proponents of CAGW look silly— when projected times of calamity come and go without the calamity actually happening. Seriously, by some timetables that have come and gone New Yorkers should be treading water right now. But– it didn’t get THAT warm, not nearly enough glacial ice has melted for even a couple of inches or rise in sea level.

Then if it really IS a problem, how about some realistic means of combating it– assuming that can be done? Changing incandescent lightbulbs to CFC and driving electric cars won’t cut it. You would need to admit that you think there’s too many people and that we should cull the herd. Of course as soon as you say that you’ll show a hand yo’d rather not show– but that really is where all this inevitably heads all the same.

• higley7 says:

Almost all the programs, green energy, light bulbs, CFCs, biofuels, etc., are simply chances to practice crony capitalism and funds your friends and allies from the taxpayers’ pockets. Knowing most of these projects will fail means that large sums can simply disappear to offshore banks, as the mess left behind in the failures is rarely properly investigated to establish where all that money went.

• the biggest winner in CAGW is big oil, as strange as it might seem. they get to eliminate coal as competition, and they get paid to pump CO2 underground to enhance oil recovery. right now they have to pay for their CO2.

• Also big oil makes a ton of money on wind and solar

For starters all solar and wind plants need a natural gas plant to back them up for when the sun don’t shine or the wind don’t blow. “Big Oil” is also “Big Gas”, so right there they benefit.

Plus

Those windmills require lots of lubrication and you can’t just put 10W-40 in ’em. Nope, they need super expensive specialized synthetics that need to be changed often. Who provides that? Big Oil

Same with Solar. BP and Shell oil are among the worlds biggest solar cell distributors, but beyond that, most solar plants are Solar Thermal Plants which use the sun to heat up…..You guessed it Oil. And again, you can’t just use 10w-40 or cooking oil, nope you need a super expensive specialized synthetic blend. Who provides that? Well Big Oil of course

The sad part is the Gruber Liberal voters believe they are hurting “Big Oil” when in reality they are Big Oil’s best friend. Well they don’t call them useful idiots for nothing

32. Chris Wright says:

“If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?”

Completely unbelievable. Even if the things he cites were true and significant, it would merely suggest that some climate change has occurred. It would say absolutely nothing about the cause.

As Christopher Monckton has ably shown here, the climate change we have experienced in the last century is well within the range of natural variability. Many of the changes, including temperature, could merely be the inevitable rebound from the Little Ice Age. Therefore Bailey’s argument is not just wrong, it’s nonsense.
Chris

33. Magma says:

But Bailey’s exercise depends on answering the questions honestly and accurately, Mr. Monckton.

34. jsuther2013 says:

A seminal effort, Lord Monckton.

35. Thanks, Christopher. Once again a very enjoyable read. Had me smiling the whole time.

Cheers.

36. How to convince a climate sceptic he’s wrong
This reminds me of the notice hanging outside a church hall in the late 1970’s
“Tonight,the economy and how Labour will deal with it”
“Next week, how to nail jelly to the ceiling”

37. Bill Illis says:

CO2 has a strong absorption and emission band at 15 microns, a small portion of Earth’s heat emission spectrum but could be a significant enough amount.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS?

I want the rest of the story. I want it from beginning to end.

And I want it told in the language that it operates at, photons, the speed of light, electrons, excited molecules, gases and solid earth. I want to see the proof that all the rest (the 90% of the story that is is still missing) is actually happening. There are about 8 billion things per second which could happen that are completely different than what the global warming theory is based on.

• cba says:

maybe the best thing to remember is that convection is important in the troposphere energy transfers.

• Jer0me says:

This is so true and so often ignored. Convection trumps radiation almost every time. Hold your hand in front of a radiator, and then above it, to see how this works. And that is without things like tropical storms to amplify the convection.

• CodeTech says:

Last time I pointed that out there was a flurry of indignant warmists shocked that I could be so dense.

Convection moves energy around the atmosphere and oceans. Warmth from equatorial regions moves toward the poles until it radiates away, or moves it high enough in the atmosphere that it can radiate away.

The planet is self-regulating for temperature with documented multi-million year stability. The reason we have life on the planet is probably directly related to long term climate stability. There is no human activity that could screw that up, even if we were trying, short of some of the more frightening schemes that put the planet in shadow.

38. Charlie says:

When will it end? Make it go away My good lord Mockton. The reason this scam has gotten so far is obvious and a depressing sign of our times. It’s funny on websites like this scientists and other intelligent people try to discuss this like the are a skeptic. How can you be a skeptic of something that there is no evidence of to begin with? Skeptic is a pretty far stretch… more like sane. Or a “saner” Are there spaghetti monster skeptics?

craziest scam I’ve seen in my lifetime

39. Ben says:

Point 6 has a very good graph showing positive and negative feedbacks. However, those who are not familiar with the graph won’t understand it. Please provide a brief explanation for the graph. That iirc, the models (ie the red lines) claim that as CO2 rises, the level of heat escaping the atmosphere will decline, further heating the atmosphere. However the green line with the actual satellite readings, show that all of the models are wrong. As CO2 rises, the Earth responds as we would expect, with more heat leaving the Earth’s atmosphere and escaping into space.

If the models were right, it would be a positive feedback on the buildup of temperatures in the atmosphere. However in reality, excess heat escapes the Earth’s atmosphere. This is a negative feedback on the claim of a buildup of heat from additional CO2. Since the real world satellite data shows it is a negative number, you subtract it from the Climate Model’s claims, which decreases their claimed impact of CO2 in the real world.

Adjust as needed. Item 6 is good information, if it can be stated in a way that is understandable for those not familiar with the chart, the model claims and the real world measured results.

Great work as always Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. Keep up the good work.

40. EdA the New Yorker says:

The ONLY relevant question is, as noted by commenters above, is “What evidence would you consider convincing that CAGW is wrong?”

As soon as my students advance to the level of writing lab reports with a scientific journal format, I insist that the hypothesis governing the experiment is clearly stated, and that it be falsifiable. They object, having not been exposed to its necessity in the scientific method, but usually acquiesce. It amazes me how quickly after that they come to understand my comparison between CAGW and Christian Science. If a proposition does not have a testable hypothesis, it is not science.

Lord Monckton here addresses the opposite question. One that would need to be addressed if Trenberth becomes successful in his effort to redefine the null hypothesis in favor of CAGW. Christopher does a fine job here, and obviously believes in keeping some of his powder dry.

• AB says:

While not disputing your general argument comparing CAGW to Christian Science is bit of a stretch. My observation is that Christian Science demands a level of proof completely lacking in main stream christianity. Many churches have incorporated Gaia into their worship and theology in an attempt to appeal to the CAGW crowd. This has certainly happened in my home town. On one level comical but on a political and economic level down right sinister. The Catholic church for example will shortly endorse the AGW position.

• EdA the New Yorker says:

AB,

Each of your points is well-taken. That my actions are influenced by a Jewish carpenter running around the Middle East two millennia ago results from faith, not science. I have no such faith in CAGW. Thus, when reviewing the science basis for each topic, the formalities of scientific methodology play a significant role in my intellectual acceptance of the science.

I have not seen a clear list of testable hypotheses, leading to a global conclusion for either topic. Lord Monckton, in the main article, presents ten points that should have been presented as hypotheses outright by the CAGW crowd. The fact that he trashes them so effectively reflects their reticence to being held accountable. The recent analyses of the Shroud of Turin constitute solid test methodology, and are very interesting technique applications, but the operational hypothesis was limited to whether it is the image of a crucified man formed two thousand years ago by an unknown process. Does a final answer either way lead to a firm conclusion on the basis of Christian Belief?

Thanks for a stimulating lunch break.

41. Re Step 3:

The earliest Murry Salby presentation on CO2-lags-Temperature was (I believe) at the Sydney Institute in August 2011:

My similar January 2008 paper predates Salby by more than three years.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

I concluded that in the modern data record, the rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months.

Atmospheric CO2 also lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.

Therefore, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

I suggest with some confidence that the future cannot cause the past.

The evidence suggests that atmospheric CO2 does not significantly drive temperature; in fact, temperature (among other factors) drives CO2.

This still allows for other significant drivers of atmospheric CO2, such as fossil fuel combustion, land-use changes such as deforestation, etc. This question, called the “mass balance argument”, has been ably debated on wattsup and elsewhere by Richard S Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen.

The global warming alarmists have dismissed this lag of CO2 after temperature as a “feedback effect”, which I suggest is a Cargo Cult argument (i.e. They KNOW that CO2 drives temperature; therefore it MUST BE a feedback effect). :-)

Regards to all, Allan

• Ron, I suggest you read the 2008 icecap paper, which covers the satellite data from ~1978 to 2007. I later verified the temperature-drives-CO2 relationship back to 1958 using Mauna Loa CO2 data and Hadcrut3 temperatures.

I suggest below that short-term temperature change is not the only factor that drives CO2 – other factors that may contribute include fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, longer term temperature-CO2 cycles, etc.

Global temperature in the 20th Century varied up and down naturally, with little if any causal influence from increasing atmospheric CO2. The only clear signal we can derive from modern data is that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales..

Regards, Allan

More here:

To be clear, I am saying that Temperature (among other factors) drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives Temperature.

The annual rate of change dCO2/dt (detrended, in ppm/year) ~= 4T (Temperature anomaly, in degrees C).
Thus the integral CO2 lags surface and tropospheric temperatures by about 9 months.

Natural CO2 flux dwarfs humanmade CO2 emissions. Some parties say that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is primarily natural – I suggest the jury is still out on this question, and fossil fuel combustion, clearing and burning of rainforests and other land use changes do contribute – how much is the question.

The Phase Relation between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69
by Ole Humluma, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Highlights
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

• “Textbooks are not peer reviewed.”

Really Ron?

Had I realized you were a troll, I would not have wasted time on you.

• A day is a time scale, too. Normally what Allan MacRae and others refer to are historical temperature records. You can see here that CO2 follows temperature, but at times there is a short term divergence.

And we see that on longer time scales, CO2 always follows temperature:

But what we DO NOT ever see is that ∆T is caused by ∆CO2. Therefore, it is hard to argue that a rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming. If there is any such effect, it is simply too small to measure.

• Has ∆T been zero for the past 15-18 years?

Close enough.

• Don’t you think ∆CO2 would have followed ∆T in the past 15-18 years and remained zero (close enough) instead of increasing by over 8% ?

Not necessarily. As explained, there are sometimes short term divergences. In the chart below you can see temporary divergences around 2003 – 2004, around 1961, and at other times:

A temporary divergence would be expected. But as explained above, there are no instances where ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T.

That fact destroys the climate alarmists’ case. They have based their argument on demonizing “carbon”, by which they mean CO2. But all real world evidence shows that there is no such cause and effect.

• I’m glad you agree with me that MacRae is incorrect…

I agree with Allan MacRae. Take some time to read up on the subject here, including the comments. You will learn a lot.

Next, your chart of Mauna Loa data means nothing. It does not show causation, which is the basic debate. Here is a better chart.

Finally, the fact that CO2 follows temperature — not vice versa — destroys the alarmist argument. The chart below is from Wikipedia, hardly a skeptical blog:

Note the “Note” in the chart.

• How do you explain…&etc.

Also, you have causation backward: the real question is: why doesn’t ∆CO2 cause ∆temperature? Because that is the central premise of the alarmist crowd.

The question concerns causation. The alarmist folks want us to believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming. But as we see, empirical evidence only shows the opposite: that ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is NO real world evidence showing that CO2 is a driver of global temperature. [CO2 may affect temperature. I think it does. But the effect is so small that it can be completely disregarded.]

Once again I suggest you go back and read the WUWT article and comments that I linked for you. You will learn a lot.

• Your claim that CO2 follows temperature doesn’t work for the past 15-18 years.

That is not even the question. I’ve provided you with an easy to understand explanation, which you are free to accept, or reject. I don’t care whether you learn or not. I’ve also explained that the central question is not whether temperature always, in all cases, controls CO2. Obviously it doesn’t; only in almost all cases, from centuries to hundreds of thousands of years. The central question is whether a rise in CO2 will cause global warming. You always deflect from that.

Allan MacRae has also explained for you. I agree with Allan. I do not see why you refuse to understand (actually, I think I know). He has provided you with study materials, but you’re uninterested in them.

I’ve posted explanations for you using various links, which you disregard and refuse to read, even though I am sure your answers are there. I’ve told you that. But you state that you refuse to read either my links or MacRae’s. I’ve posted links to charts, showing that what you seem to believe is wrong. You refuse to acknowledge them. Then you pompously proclaim:

Please try to stay on topic.

First, the central topic is always this: the alarmist cult has stated their conjecture that a rise in CO2 will cause global warming. That’s what they hang their collective hats on. Without that premise, there would be no topic at all. There would not even be a WUWT to comment on. So you don’t get to define a topic to the exclusion of everything else.

It is the job of scientific skeptics like myself to deconstruct conjectures. I’m doing my job. And skeptics are good at it: the “carbon” scare has been booty-kicked out of the realm of science, and into politics. Their conjecture has been falsified by Planet Earth.

Second: You do not decide what I will post. I decide what I will post. You just don’t like the fact that the charts I posted debunk the alarmist narrative. There is no verifiable, testable, measurable evidence that a rise in CO2 will cause global warming. That’s what the charts I posted show conclusively.

And you are still bird-dogging my comments. Why? Here I am, responding to your last two unfriendly posts in a row. All your comments responding to my posts are unfriendly. Why is that? Who got you so wound up? I patiently tried to respond ever since you showed up a few weeks ago, attacking my comments. But you’re not interested in explanations. You never accept them. Every explanation is met with an objection.

You have no interest in learning anything, you are only interested in running interference. Allan MacRae was correct when he pointed out that you are trolling. My advice: stop it. You are not interested in learning. If you were, you would have read the article I provided, and the hundred-plus comments under it. As I told you, your explanation is there. I don’t care if you read it or not. If you don’t it’s your loss.

I am happy to help you or anyone else understand the basics. But when I see someone like you endlessly bird-dogging my comments with your inane questions, always deflecting, and always moving the goal posts, I know what’s up. You are not here to learn anything. You are here to attack. To run interference. My advice: find someone who won’t put you in your place. It will be much easier on you. Because I won’t roll over, and you are not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to get the upper hand.

• Robert B says:

Ron

The plot shows that the rate of CO2 level change correlates reasonable well with the the RSS data. The rate has been constant while the temperatures have been constant. It shows that the equilibrium CO2 concentration for the current temperature is a lot higher and still more than 8 years away.

Before there is an argument as to why, I looked at how well they correlate by subtracting a line of best fit, taking 0.68SD of each to work out the lower and upper quartiles and when one is in the upper or lower quartile, the other is also twice as often as you would get by chance (about 0.45 rather than 0.25). So the correlation is not because I chose an arbitrary offset and scaling.

Also, I have zero faith in those numbers so I’m not going to argue about what it means.

• Robert and db,

There is a lag in the variability of the rate of change of CO2 after temperature changes, but that says next to nothing about the cause of the increase as by taking the derivative, you have effectively detrended the curve of the original increase. That there still is a slop is because the human emissions and as result the increase in the atmosphere are slightly quadratic, which gives a linear slope in the derivative.

The short term effect of temperature on CO2 levels is +/- 4-5 ppmv/K, the long term effect over ice ages is 8 ppmv/K. Humans have emitted twice the amount as seen as increase in the atmosphere, which is far beyond what temperature can do…

• richardscourtney says:

Allan MacRae

You say

The earliest Murry Salby presentation on CO2-lags-Temperature was (I believe) at the Sydney Institute in August 2011:

and

My similar January 2008 paper predates Salby by more than three years.

But the similar finding by Kuo et al. predates you by nearly two decades.

Their paper is
Kuo, C., Lindberg, C., Thompson, D.J., 1990. ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’. Nature 388, 39-44.

In 1990 that paper reported atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature cohere such the changes to the CO2 lag changes to the temperature by 9 months. Subsequently, other papers indicate that the time of the lag varies with latitude.

Richard

• Agreed Richard.

You kindly referred me to that Kuo et al 1990 paper and also a Keeling et al 1995 paper some time after I wrote my 2008 paper.

My 2008 paper pointed out the closer coherence of dCO2/dt with temperature, which results in the ~9 month lag of CO2 after temperature.

The close dCO2/dt relationship with temperature points to the causal mechanism and should be investigated further.

I believe the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 is photosynthesis and oxidation of plant matter, driven primarily by the larger Northern Hemispheric landmass; lesser drivers include dissolution/exsolution of CO2 from oceans, fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc.

It is clear that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Best personal regards, Allan

• However Richard, isn’t it interesting that the conclusion of Kuo and Keeling that CO2 lags temperature was apparently forgotten to mainstream climate science, since both sides of the fractious mainstream debate have focused almost exclusively on the magnitude of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), with the warmists say it is high and the skeptics saying it is low.

Since 2008, only a few individuals have been willing to discuss this lag, which implies that ECS is so low as to be irrelevant or even nonexistent. Most professionals on both sides of the mainstream ECS debate are so uncomfortable with the lag they will not even publicly discuss it, and yet I suggest it will become the conventional wisdom in climate science within ten years, and many will then say of course they knew it all the time…

Best personal regards, Allan

• richardscourtney says:

Allan MacRae:

I agree all you say. However, in my own defense, I point out that I have been consistently pointing out this lag since 1990.

Another issue I have been trying to promote for years is the effect of cloud cover variations on radiative forcing. Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
(ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)

Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 Watts/sq metre).

Put the CO2 lag of temperature together with the effect of cloud cover and it is very hard to dispute your assertion that

Since 2008, only a few individuals have been willing to discuss this lag, which implies that ECS is so low as to be irrelevant or even nonexistent.

Regards to you.

Richard

• Thank you Richard,

Great to hear from you.

Interesting points on cloud cover – seems to relate well to Svensmark. I must read further.

I wonder if cloud cover is increasing again with declining solar activity?

Best, Allan

• Robert B says:

Ferdinand, I’m not referring to the slope when I say correlation. When one goes significantly positive from the slope, the other does more often than it would randomly (and vice-versa when it goes negative)

‘Slop’ is probably the correct word though. Even if it was physically true, its strange that it shows up in the data.

• Robert B,

Everybody agrees that the variability around the CO2 increase is caused by temperature: indeed there is a (for a natural process) quite good correlation between temperature rate of change and CO2 rate of change (also between temperature and CO2 rate of change, but that is because taking the derivative shifts a sinusoid back in time without much change in variability). See e.g. what Pieter Tans says about the influence of temperature on the CO2 rate of change (from slide 11 on):
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

The point is that Dr. Salby and others use the high correlation between the short term (2-3 years) variability of temperature and CO2 to assume that temperature also is responsible for the bulk of the increase over the past 55 years of accurate measurements.

That is a bridge too far: the variability is clearly caused by the influence of temperature variations on (tropical) vegetation, but the trend is certainly NOT caused by vegetation, as that is a net increasing sink over time. Variability and trend are caused by different processes and not necessarily by temperature for the trend.

As human emissions are twice the increase in the atmosphere and both show a slightly quadratic increase over time and human emissions fit all known observations, there is little doubt that humans are directly responsible for the recent increase…

• Ah Ferdinand,

Again with the mass balance argument, which may or may not be correct.

Richard S Courtney has argued this question far better than I can, on wattsup and elsewhere.

Best personal wishes, Allan

• Please note that the annual range of atmospheric CO2 varies from about 16ppm in the far North (Barrow Alaska) to near-zero at the South Pole.

The annual growth rate of CO2 is only about 2ppm. This 2ppm annual growth rate may be primarily caused by fossil fuel combustion (the “mass balance argument”), or it may be primarily caused by other factors either humanmade or natural.

However, this mass balance argument about the Earth’s carbon cycle, while of great academic interest, can be viewed as irrelevant to the question of manmade global warming, because it is clear that Earth’s climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2.

Furthermore, it is also clear that Earth’s atmosphere is CO2-deficient. More atmospheric CO2 is clearly beneficial for the environment and for humankind, whatever its source.

CO2 is naturally sequestered by coral reefs, such that ultimately, all carbon-based life on Earth’s surface will disappear when atmospheric CO2 falls below certain levels.

• Hello Allan,

Some time ago…

Your argument doesn’t hold: because the tide gauges show meters of change with waves and tides, that doesn’t exclude that tide gauges can be used to show a few mm sea level change per year, even if you need 25 years of data to make the change statistically relevant.
For the increase in CO2 it is much easier: the seasonal variability is globally around +/- 4 ppmv, while the 2-3 years residual variability is +/- 1 ppmv. Human emissions are ~4.5 ppmv/year and the increase is about 2 ppmv/year, surpassing natural variability in only a few years…

As Dr. Singer, Dr. Spencer and several others said some time ago: it is a quite bad argument from skeptics to even allude that the increase of CO2 as not from human origin. It undermines the rest of the arguments which are much more solid, like the cause of the pause (directly linked to the sensitivity of temperature for the CO2 increase)…

• Alan,

One can hardly say that CO2 lags temperatures over the past 160 years. At minimum both parallel each other and in some periods temperature goes down or flat (1945-1976 and 2000-current) while CO2 goes up unabated. Moreover, the increase is far beyond the historical changes of 8 ppmv/K and far beyond the solubility of CO2 in seawater for the current temperature.

As for your “mass balance argument”, it relies on a “fixed pie” concept that is probably not applicable in this case, as in other fields where factors are inter-dependent:

I never trust any economical projection, as that never takes into account the unpredictability of human behavior, but I still trust the behavior of carbon atoms, that they don’t disappear in space neither are created from nothing (except 10^-22 of all carbon in the atmosphere by cosmic rays…)
If humans add 9 GtC/year as CO2 and the measured increase is 4.5 GtC/year, somewhere somehow there are 4.5 GtC/year more natural CO2 sinks than sources on earth, whatever mathematical thought experiments try to convince me from the opposite… Thus indeed an ever changing mass balance which must balance for each year between human and natural emissions and natural sinks.

The atmosphere is just a dump site for all CO2 of all sources. The sinks just grab what they need, if they are temperature dependent (seasonal to 2-3 years) or they grab more CO2 if they are pressure (difference) dependent. The latter is mainly the case for the oceans: besides a rather fixed temperature dependency, their CO2 balance between ins and outs is heavily influenced by the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which is caused by the emissions, not temperature…

• Hello Ferdinand,

I should be more clear on this subject. Based on your last post, we really do not disagree on what I consider to be the important point.

I have repeatedly stated that I am an agnostic on the “mass balance argument”. Furthermore, I do not even view it as necessary in this debate about manmade global warming.

As I said previously:

“The annual growth rate of CO2 is only about 2ppm. This 2ppm annual growth rate may be primarily caused by fossil fuel combustion (the “mass balance argument”), or it may be primarily caused by other factors either humanmade or natural.

However, this mass balance argument about the Earth’s carbon cycle, while of great academic interest, can be viewed as irrelevant to the question of manmade global warming, because it is clear that Earth’s climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2.

It is clear that temperature and other factors drive atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.”

We agree that ECS is quite low – and that is all that matters at the practical and political level of this global warming debate.

At the scientific level, I suggest that ECS is very low or even insignificant, since the only signal we can detect in the modern data is that CO2 lags temperature.

• A note to the moderators and Ferdinand..

The green slime are increasingly infiltrating wattsup and deliberately disrupting valid and interesting conversations on important subjects.

I correctly identified the impostor as a troll on April 9, 2015 at 12:34 pm after reading his post regarding “peer review”, only his second post that I recall ever reading.

Ron’s appeal to the alleged absence of “peer review” is a typical Troll Mantra which, I suggest, could be added to the spam filters here at wattsup.

There are several other Troll Mantras – perhaps contributors to wattsup would be so kind as to propose a list of Troll Mantras for our edification and amusement.

Ladies and gentlemen, faites vos jeux!

42. It seems to me that one important question is missing from the mountain: “Is the science actually valid?” Back in 1900, Knut Angstrom conducted careful experiments to test Svante Arrhenius’s novel idea that absorption of infrared Earth radiation by carbon dioxide would produce a greenhouse warming effect, and concluded that any such effect was insignificant. Some 30-odd years later, a British engineer named Guy Callendar revived Arrhenius’s concept on little more than a conviction that it should work, but neither he nor anyone else has seen fit to repeat Angstrom’s careful experiments or to concoct new ones to test the theory, so here we are, just taking it on faith. It seems rather odd, nay, damned odd, however, that life on Earth, which is so fundamentally dependent on carbon dioxide, should have failed to evolve mechanisms to defend itself against any fortuitous, and possibly deleterious, excursions of that vital gas. In fact, life on Earth has indeed done just that with such well-documented mechanisms as the production of dimethyl sulfide by marine phytoplankton, and of carbonyl sulfide by soil microorganisms, in response to increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. The sulfur ends up as sulfuric acid condensation nuclei on which clouds form, increasing albedo and thus cooling the planet. Of course, such mechanisms don’t appear in the climate science models, but never mind. Consensus can always compensate for such shortcomings.

• David, I can be wrong, but as far as I know, Callendar was mainly interested in the accuracy of CO2 measurements, based on stringent pre-defined criteria to weed out data taken in the middle of towns, etc. He and many others at that time and later assumed that more CO2 would be beneficial for agriculture and the world in general. The extreme scenario’s only emerged in the late 1980’s with the first climate models and the warming after 1976, not in the 1940’s…

• I think it was Budyko in the late 60’s who hiked up the CO2-alarm with his unrealistic climate sensitivity of 6 degrees per CO2-doubling in his crude model.

43. warrenlb says:

You’re still citing this guy? : ‘In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby’s federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed “a pattern of deception and a lack of integrity” in his handling of federal grant money. He resigned his position in Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 he was dismissed by the university on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources’

• Charlie says:

regardless of where his funding comes from, why has popular culture accepted this flawed logic. If somebody or some political faction says anything funded by this group or this corporation then the science and reporting is automatically fraud and contrived? That is circle reasoning. Why would a corporation commit fraud if it didn’t have to? The science speaks for itself. No need to practice junk science here. Why is government funding left of the hook? Oh yeah because the government never lies. It is gospel sent from higher life forms.

• AB says:

Why don’t you focus on Salby’s science, or is playing the man the only thing you have left?

• warrenlb says:

His “Science” is worthless.

• Brandon Gates says:

Playing the Mann, I think you mean.

• warrenlb has no credible facts or evidence. That’s why he always engages in ad hominem fallacies to make his quack arguments.

I have no doubt that if we scrutinized “warrenlb”, there would be plenty of skeletons in his closet that would make Salby look like a saint by comparison.

warrenlb: if you cannot argue facts and evidence, go away. We don’t need your kind of personal denigration of people you have never met, and who have forgotten more than you will ever know about the subject. Your crusade of personal destruction via innuendo reflects very badly on you, and it doesn’t help this excellent site, either. Be despicable somewhere else.

• mikewaite says:

An arrogant dismissal of someone who , to judge by his textbook open before me , has outstanding mathematical ability – the quality of intellect necessary for establishing the details of radiative transfer and convective models for input to any advanced modelling. Is climate science so full of bright people that it can dismiss his contributions as ” worhless”.
OK then , if you are so much more brilliant than Salby that you can dismiss his work so contemptuously show us how good you are . His chapter on atmospheric radiation has 34 problems of increasing complexity. Pick one in the middle of the range , and solve it for us – in public , on the blog . And dont say that you cannot locate a copy of the work , it is available as a free pdf book , as I am sure that you know. .
Up for it?

• Brandon Gates says:

mikewaite,

Is climate science so full of bright people that it can dismiss his contributions as ” worhless”.

Prestige for-profit journals likely aren’t motivated to publish the work product of blithering idiots. The whole point of that heuristic is to save we arm-chair experts the effort of learning everything.

• FrankKarrvv says:

Warrenlb when you write an equivalent to Salby’s 660-page peer reviewed textbook
‘ Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate’ published by Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76718-7 will people start to consider your verbal diarrhea (VD).

See the definition of VD in the Urban Dictionary:

• FrankKarrvv says:

It depends how you define “Peer Review”. From Salby’s book.

Praise for Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate

“Salby’s book is a graduate textbook on Earth’s atmosphere and climate that is well
balanced between the physics of the constituent materials and fluid dynamics. I
recommend it as a foundation for anyone who wants to do research on the important
coupling'” -Professor Jim McWilliams, University of California, Los Angeles

“Salby’s book provides an exhaustive survey of the atmospheric and climate sciences.
The topics are well motivated with thorough discussion and are supported with
excellent figures. The book is an essential reference for researchers and graduate and
advanced undergraduate students who wish to have a rigorous source for a wide
range of fundamental atmospheric science topics. Each chapter ends with an excellent
selection of additional references and a challenging set of problems. Atmospheric
and climate scientists will find this book to be an essential one for their libraries.”
-Associate Professor Hampton N. Shirer, Pennsylvania State University

“Murry Salby presents an informative and insightful tour through the contemporary
issues in the atmospheric sciences as they relate to climate. Physics of the
Atmosphere and Climate is a valuable resource for educators and researchers alike,
a physics or mathematics background and as an excellent reference and refresher for
practitioners. It is a welcome addition to the field.”
-Professor Darin W. Toohey, University of Colorado at Boulder

Salby’s earlier book is a classic. As a textbook it is unequalled in breadth, depth, and
lucidity. It is the single volume that I recommend to all of my students in
atmospheric science. This new version improves over the previous version, if that is
possible, in three aspects: beautiful illustrations of global processes (e.g. hydrological
cycle) from newly available satellite data, new topics of current interest (e.g.
interannular changes in the stratosphere and the oceans), and a new chapter on the
influence of the ocean on the atmosphere. These changes make the book more useful
as a starting point for studying climate change.”
-Professor Yuk Yung, California Institute of Technology

• FrankKarrvv says:

Apologies the text was OCR-ed.

Thank you Frank and others for your defence of Murry Salby.

• warrenlb says:

@FrankKarrvv.
Are you appealing to Authority?

• warrenbot,

Boy, you simply do not understand the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

• As I explained, he doesn’t understand the ATA fallacy. It’s clear from your comment that you don’t, either.

None of this surprises me. I’m used to dealing with alarmist ignorance.

• FrankKarrvv says:

Re the ‘latest research’ comment. Goodness me. Ron I suggest you go to Salby’s book to learn some basics. Go through the book and do the exercises and then come back to indicate you understood all that was in the book and that you completed all the exercises.

Then you will have more authority than you have now.

• FrankKarrvv says:

I forgot to mention Salby’s preface.
” This book has benefited from interaction with numerous colleagues and students. In addition to those received earlier….etc”. He goes on to name the individuals who provided contributions and feedback.
Seems to me that’s close to peer review.
:

• Tucci78 says:

Writes FrankKarrvv:

I forgot to mention Salby’s preface.
” This book has benefited from interaction with numerous colleagues and students. In addition to those received earlier….etc”. He goes on to name the individuals who provided contributions and feedback.
Seems to me that’s close to peer review.

Well, no.

Not to reflect ill on Dr. Salby, but that’s pretty much the definition of “pal review.”

Peer review requires “blinding” by referees – usually the editorial staff of a periodical or a conference’s proceedings – so that the comments and responses are “anonymized.”

If your “colleagues and students” know you, and you know who they are, it ain’t “peer review” in the strictest sense at all.

What ought to help preserve a textbook from error is editorial review, with the editors’ objective being to ensure that the book is perceived as a reliable element in education – and will therefore sell well.

Of course, that’s not a guarantee.

Just ask anyone who’s gotten stuck with any of the editions of Samuelson’s Economics in an Econ 101 course.

44. TRBixler says:

With the Obama administration it is not about the science it is all about the control. Remember at the moment they are still in charge and forget the science.

45. Village Idiot says:

Poor Mr. Monckton, Falling at the first fence with his smoke and mirrors RSS faux pause trick. Of course he well knows that surface (where most of us actually live) data shows a different story:

http://www.climate4you.com/

And then there’s that inconvenient Ocean heat content. Remember? The place where more than 90% of the heat goes?

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

And that sea level rise. Just what is causing that if no land ice is melting, and the oceans aren’t Warming:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Please, Sir Christopher, don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that there’s been a 20 year pause ;-)

• Charlie says:

what’s next a link to skeptical science?

you give a link to climate journalism for evidence of heat in the oceans when the extensive float data proves this wrong. Then you give a link about sea level rise when all the sea level assessments the ipcc uses comes from giss data that has never been made public in the raw form. In previous ipcc assessments they admit no rise in sea level rate in the 20th century. now noaa, CU and the rest of the giss gang claim a sudden rise in rate in the last 12 years. No added heat in the atmosphere or ocean in over 18 years yet the sea level suddenly shoots up. no massive melting of ice caps either. Doesn’t seem suspicious at all. I mean until now this has been painfully ethical science. I don’t know what I was thinking

• MarkW says:

How can this be, a different idiot has been telling us that the satellite data and ground data are in perfect agreement?

• Robert B says:

That’s a concern rather than reassuring.

• Ben Palmer says:

“And then there’s that inconvenient Ocean heat content. Remember? The place where more than 90% of the heat goes?” If 90% goes into the ocean, there’s only 10% left to heat the atmosphere, so it must virtually be cooling. It’s easy to estimate the amount of heat that would have to go into the ocean to increase the ocean temperature by say 1 K. Neither you nor your descendents will be around when this happens, should it happen.

• Bruce Cobb says:

What intelligence?

• CodeTech says:

You would first have to demonstrate intelligence before complaining that it is being insulted.

• Pachauri and Slingo, two eminent warmists, both publicly acknowledged the existence of the pause (or as it will in future decades be called, the peak).

The problem with dealing with village idiots is that they aren’t very well-informed. They comment caustically on topics they have no clue about.

• Village Idiot continues to live up to its name. It mentions the “missing heat” notion. If it had read the head posting it would have realised that the ocean is warming at a rate equivalent to 0.2 Celsius per century. Hard to make a climate crisis out of that.

• swordfishtrombone says:

In his first paragraph, Village Idiot claims that satellite temerature data somehow doesn’t count because it’s not measured at the surface “where most of us actually live”. In his second paragraph he wheels in the “ocean heat content” meme. Most of us don’t actually live in the ocean so that too is clearly irrelevant.

46. For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the1000 year and 60 year natural cycles in solar activity see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
We have started the general cooling to the depths of the next LIA in about 2650.
For the temperature peak of the millennial cycle in about 2003 and the subsequent cooling see
see

47. Excellent post as always Christopher, thank you!
I would like to add that during the General Election campaign here, not one of the political leaders came close to telling the electorate, that due to diktats from the EU our way of life has to change to pre-industrial times. Why? Because we rely on fossil fuel for our economy and the EU want us to cut our fossil fuel consumption to levels that would have a huge adverse effect on our economy. We rely totally on information technology, which in turn relies on dependable electricity production, which we will not have when the wind fails to blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Ironically there was an item on the radio just now confirming an oil find of a projected 150 billion barrels crude in the south of England,which if the EU has their way we will not use!

The reason “why, in the teeth of the scientific and economic evidence, nearly all of the global governing class were so easily taken in or bought out or both” is simple; to the last member of the team, they all WANT to believe it, because it promises them what they want. What it is each one wants is highly individualized, from opportunity for vast wealth, to a means for re-engineering society to suit their utopian fantasies, to ego enhancement and approbation on the public stage, there is something to feed every vanity.

49. Raykra says:

“Why…nearly all the global governing class..?” Isn’t the answer simple? They are following the “golden rule” of politics – get power and increase power. In the US, the corollary is get elected and get reelected. Science, logic, economics, demagoguery are all tools to use or discard depending on effectiveness of achieving result. Climate alarmism gets more votes than rational scientific investigation and debate. The result is predictable.

50. An excellent accessible and amusing summary to no avail I’m afraid. The Mannikins &#169 march on in lockstep tuned to hear only their master’s voice.

51. Tetragrammaton says:

“The question is why, in the teeth of the scientific and economic evidence, nearly all of the global governing class were so easily taken in or bought out or both by the strange coalescence of powerful vested interests who have, until now, profited so monstrously by the biggest fraud in history at such crippling expense in lives and treasure to the rest of us, and at such mortal threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of science itself.”

No! The real question is who can present to the “global governing class” a better phantom crisis than the “climate change” meme. For a politician, a phantom crisis is much better than a real crisis. The phantom crisis can be skillfully guided and extended by public-relations professionals, and big chunks of the population can be duped for lengthy periods. A real crisis, by contrast, can be unpredictable and destructive. Moreover, a real crisis is typically recognized and embraced by both the politician and his opponents. With a phantom crisis the (more clear-eyed) opponent can be vilified as a “d*nier” or worse.

But this post clearly indicates that the “climate change” crisis is pushing up against its sell-by date, and may have a limited future unless Mother Nature or NASA can quickly engineer some more convincing heat. Candidates for new phantom crises include “Species Extinction” — a scare which has a nice ring to it, but is probably not as lucrative as global warming. “Sustainability” just won’t hack it, and “Asteroid Collision” lacks that air of verisimilitude. But don’t worry! The politicians need their new sources of slush funds; if scientists don’t provide another good phantom scare, someone else will.

52. Tom J says:

Ok, people at this blog who have an inate desire for self flagellation may wish to painlessly satiate that masochistic tendency by merely reading my comments. I can live with that. But I can no longer live with myself for having misled readers. From the comments I’ve made readers may assume I drive vehicles such as 1970 Chargers with 426 HEMIs under the hood. Or, in a sign of sophistication, I may tool about in a Porsche 911S.

With my tail between my legs (which is the only place it ever is anyway), and my head bowed in shame, I must admit that I drive no such things. Not even close. I … I … drive … a 2002 dinky, first generation (God this is hard), 2 seater, Honda Insight hybrid. In fire engine red no less. I can’t even try to blend in.

My sister. My older sister (a vampire who has the unique ability to come out in daylight) refers to it as Tom’s Cute Little Red Car. She knows I hate that. I hate it. Hate it. So, of course, she zaps that at me at every opportunity. And, in fact, so as to increase her productivity at humiliating me with it she’s shortened it to Tom’s CLRC. That way she can get it out in greater frequency in the time I have remaining.

And that brings me to this: ‘Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, the advantage is more than canceled by the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years.’

And that brings me to a feature of my CLRC (see, she’s got me doing it) that I, like any other Insight hybrid owner dreads. They talk about it in online Insight forums guardedly, and in hushed tones, terror present in their words. It’s called the … IMA warning light. In long term it means Integrated Motor Assist. And every owner knows that eventually, but without warning and out of the clear blue, those three hideous, demonic red letters are going flash on in the dash board. It’s like a diabolical thief pointing a 357 Magnum right at one’s head saying; “I want \$2,500 to \$3,500 dollars from you, NOW.”

And may I say that “the advantage is [not just] more than canceled by the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years” it is also canceled out by one’s vampiric older sister screeching CLRC, CLRC!

• TRBixler says:

Try a 1974 International Scout for longevity. It even has a 6 for greenness. Well I must admit that it is a bored and stroked 6 but does not use rare earths to keep it going.

• Alan Robertson says:

It’s worth reading through acres of other posts, just to get to what you’re on about. C’est magnifique.

In other news, I have 2 sisters (one older,) who live far away.

• Carbon500 says:

Tom J; You should get that classic Porsche – I owned one some years ago. No electric junk such as motors in the doors to wind down the windows and adjust the mirrors, no power steering, no silly electric catches for opening the engine cover or luggage compartment, and no baleful lights on the dashboard because the electronics have gone haywire.
You’ll get a terrific motoring experience, feeling connected to the road in a truly exciting car. – and before anyone complains, no, you don’t need to drive like a maniac to enjoy such a machine – nor do you need a degree in computer science to appreciate its construction!

• Tom J says:

A good friend of mine has a 1984 Porsche 911 Targa. I think it’s an E but I’m not sure. His late father had a 912.

I joke with him about taking some Porsche medallions and putting them on my Honda and calling it a little known Europe only low volume (of course they’re all low volume) pre-production model. We figure about 90% of the people we see would believe it. Of course the Porsche people would strip me, cover me with honey, and bury me in an ant hill

• Carbon500 says:

Tom J; Mine was a Targa, a 3-litre 911SC built in 1982. With the roof off, out in the country on a summer’s day, and that sound of that magnificent engine behind me, it was motoring joy. The gearbox wasn’t wonderful however, it would sometimes baulk, and it was slow. Mazda’s little MX5 has a much better one. The Porsches of that generation, the so-called ‘impact bumper’ cars remain relatively affordable – less than some new Fords here in the UK (and I’m also a Ford fan, having found the four I’ve owned to be sturdy, reliable and sensible money to run). Maintenance costs were the problem with the old 911, that’s why I sold it when I retired. They’re now old cars after all – it’s better to leave the rose-tinted spectacles off.
All the Porsche people I’ve met are friendly enthusiasts – I think the ‘warmists’ would be more likely to (as you so colorfully put it) strip you, cover you with honey, and bury you in an ant hill!

53. Coeur de Lion says:

I had an argument the other day and was asked what my qualifications were. I told a lie and said “degree in railway engineering”. (Actually history of Palestine in the Roman period )

54. William Astley says:

Excellent summary of the issues and the questions that need to answered.

Question 1: Has any climate warming beyond natural variability taken place?
Answer: No. Prediction due to the logical implications of ‘NO’, Planet cools due to the interruption in the solar cycle.

There has been no warming for 18 years. There is now record ocean ice cover in the Antarctic all months of the year and there is a recovery of ocean ice in the Arctic. There is cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record, same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 150 years that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The solar cycle has been interrupted. The pattern of warming in the last 150 years (high latitude warming) does not match the profile if greenhouse gas was the forcing function. There is almost no observed tropical troposphere warming while the GCM predict this region of the atmosphere should experience the most greenhouse gas warming. If greenhouse gas was the forcing function the majority of the warming should have been in the tropics as this is the region of the planet where the most amount of long wave radiation is emitted to space.

The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that latitudinal pattern of warming does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the increase in temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism. Base on how the CO2 mechanisms works the entire planet should have warmed with the majority of the warming occurring in the tropics. As noted below that is not what is observed. The amount of CO2 warming is logarithmically proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (which after a 12 month delay is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere) and the actual forcing is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question prior to the CO2 increase. As the planet is warmer in the tropics than at higher latitudes, there is more long wave radiation emitted to space in the tropics than at higher latitudes, therefore the majority of warming due to CO2 warming should have occur in the tropics. As noted below in this paper that is not what is observed. The general circulation models used by the IPCC to predict CAGW are incorrect based on observations
.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
3.2 Latitude effect
We have examined the temperature anomalies at the various latitudes enumerated above for three data sets: HadCRUT3v, and MSU_LT from UAH and from RSS. All show similar behavior. However, as explained above, we only present the results from MSU_LT_UAH. Figure 2 shows the UAH_LT anomalies for NoExtropics, Tropics, SoExtropics and Global. The average trends over the range 1979-2007 are 0.28, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.14 ºK/decade respectively. If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 (William: CO2 is after a lag of 12 months evenly distributed in the atmosphere) a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

55. usurbrain says:

How can anyone with even an ounce of “scientific intelligence” in their brain believe the propaganda, misinformation, unsubstantiated “facts,” massaged data, just plane garbage that the AGW fear mongers propagate? They have been pushing this for at least 30 years and still with the same arguments and the same unsubstantiated “proof.” Even some of the founders of this garbage have changed their mind and it still persists.
Look at what has happened over the last thirty years when REAL scientific processes are followed: Thirty years ago an astronomer that claimed there were or they found a black hole would have lost their tenure or at least been laughed out of their job. Today it is a PROVEN fact. Thirty years ago an astronomer that claimed there were or they found a planet circling another sun would have lost their tenure or at least been laughed out of their job. Today it is a PROVEN fact. Same with the cause of Ulcers, the dangers of Saturated Fat, Eggs, Salt, and a thousand other truly life threating problems. Where is the TRUE, unbiased, scientific endeavor of finding the PROOF and not the pseudoscience, support the desired conclusion that we now have.
E.g. Recently the state offered a fairly large grant to the state agriculture university to perform a study to determine if there was a periodic nature to the droughts in the state. This study would help farmers plan on which crop to plant. Not a single academician in the state would take on the project. When asked by state legislators the response was that “such a study would ruin their career” and thus they could not be involved with such a study. Think about that response. What other studies are not being performed? Their career is more important than the farmers and the food they provide!

56. Have you a citation or citations, or perhaps links, for the Salby graphs? I know of a couple of papers that demonstrate a lag (citations below) but I’m not familiar with Salby’s work. Thank you.

Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg & David J. Thomson, “Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, Nature 343, 709-714 (22 February 1990).

Jeffrey Park, “A re-evaluation of the coherence between global-average atmospheric CO2 and temperatures at interannual time scales”, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 22, November 2009.

• William Astley says:

In reply to Lane Core Jr.’s question.

Salby’s analysis is phase analysis also. Salby looks at C13 changes (where the other phase analysis is only CO2) and finds that the low C13 pulses occur after there is a rise in temperature rather than before and finds there is no correlation of the change in C13 with anthropogenic CO2 release.

The key theoretical component that rom Salby’s analysis/theory (explanation as to where is the source of low C13 carbon is coming from) is a discussion of and the implications of the late Nobel prize winner Thomas Gold’s theory that the origin of hydrocarbons (all water on the surface of the planet and CO2 in the atmosphere) is due to deep core release of CH4 when the core solidifies. As the core solidifies it extrudes liquid super high pressure CH4. This super high pressure CH4 is low in C13. The super high pressure liquid CH4 provides the force to move the ocean floor, explaining why the oldest ocean floor on the planet is roughly 200 millions old. The ocean floor is pushed under the continents leaving a portion of the CH4 under the continents.

The following peer reviewed published paper provides direct support for Salby’s assertion that the majority of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to the warming of the planet, rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This paper examines short term changes in atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature to determine cause and effect. This analysis technique is called ‘phase analysis’ is a standard technique used to understand processes (it is used to determine order of occurrence, what observed changes lead or lag in the process).

Curious that there is no discussion in the IPCC documentation that phase analysis supports the assertion that temperature increases and then CO2 increase which is the opposite of what one would expect based on the IPCC assertion that the increase in planetary temperature is caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. Also the increases in atmospheric CO2 always occur in the southern hemisphere rather than northern hemisphere which does not make sense if anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
…As cause always must precede effect, this observation (for seven of eight times in the record temperature rises first and then atmospheric CO2 increase, i.e. effect cannot come before cause, so the cause of the temperature rise is not the increase in atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.

As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment.

Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….

…A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011).
…Analyses of a pole-to-pole transect of atmospheric CO2 records suggest that changes in atmospheric CO2 are initiated south of the Equator, but probably not far from the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two poles within a year or so (Fig. 13). This observation specifically points towards the oceans at or south of the Equator as an important source area for observed changes in atmospheric CO2. The major release of anthropogene CO2 is taking place at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 12), but the north–south transect investigated show no indication of the main change signal in atmospheric CO2 originating here. The main signal must therefore be caused by something else. A similar conclusion, but based on studies of the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, was reached by Segalstad (1998); Essenhigh (2009).
Over the entire study period atmospheric CO2 shows a continuous increase, when annual variations are ignored. This might also be interpreted as being the result of the release of anthropogene CO2, but the observed propagation of the main atmospheric CO2 change signal along the pole-to-pole transect (Fig. 13) seems to argue against such an interpretation. The signal propagation instead suggests a possible connection to especially the southern oceans and their surface temperature, but a detailed analysis of this falls beyond the present study.

• Charlie says:

it’s amazing how long the ipcc assessment is and they don’t really discuss much at all. The graphs are pretty though

• William,

All what a study of the variability of the CO2 rate of change can show is the cause of the variability. There is no link between the overall variability of the rate of change and the trend of the same: they are caused by different processes.

Thus Humlum e.a., Salby, Bart and many others are right that the variability in CO2 rate of change is caused by the temperature variability, with a lag, but all are wrong that the bulk of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by temperature.

The variability of the CO2 rate of change is mainly caused by the influence of temperature and precipitation (El Niño) on tropical forests (there is a peer reviewed article on it somewhere):

Which indeed is mainly South of the equator.

The trends in CO2 start in the NH and lag with altitude and latitude farther South:

The same for the δ13C changes: both recent and fossil vegetation have a low 13C/12C ratio, but the current biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 and preferentially of 12CO2, thus not the cause of the drop in δ13C. Thus the drop in δ13C is all from fossil fuels:

Again starting at sea level in the NH.

Thus their conclusion is based on the variability caused by temperature variability, while the bulk of the increase has nothing to do with temperature…

The origin of CH4 may be organic or from deep earth, I have no opinion on that, but that doesn’t explain the same problem as for natural CO2 emissions: CH4 starts to rise with CO2 at the moment that the industrial revolution gets in full speed. Would be a lot of coincidence that the deep earth (or surface) seeps a lot of extra CH4 in complete lockstep with human emissions…

• Bernie Hutchins says:

William –

Small correction. Tommy Gold never received a Nobel Prize. Much as I admired him as a brilliant thinker, and as a friend, I think he was generally satisfied to make people think, and to be usually right. Perhaps the day will come when his abiotic gas/oil/coal theories will seem obvious. Read his “Deep Hot Biosphere” book. You wouldn’t have wanted to debate against him in science. For example, when asked if it were the case that coal was really NOT produced by decaying leaves why people sometimes found fossil leaves in a lump of coal (gotcha!) he would turn it around and ask how it was that MOST of the leaves were changed to a homogeneous black coal matrix except one particular leaf which was not (with twinkle in eye). OUCH! Here was a man who did not have a unswerving regard for a consensus. Sadly missed.

• Thank you.

• Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling et al (1995) discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature.

Thanks to Richard S Courtney for mentioning these papers to me several years ago..

• Hello Ferdinand and thank you for your above post.

I fear our friend Richard S Courtney is not well, because he seldom posts anymore. I miss the spirited but civilized debate between Richard and you on the “mass balance argument”.

I have been occupied with other matters for the past few years so have adopted an agnostic view on this question, which I recall was Richard’s stance.

I expect the “mass balance argument” will become clear in the fullness of time.

Here is my hypo on the future of the catastrophic humanmade global warming nonsense promoted by the IPCC and its minions:

Best personal regards, Allan

Hypothesis:

1. The next act of this farce will be characterized by global cooling starting by about 2020 or sooner, cooling that may be mild or severe. Global cooling will demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is so small as to be insignificant. The scientific credibility of the warmist gang will be shattered and some may face lawsuits and/or go to jail.

2. The scientific community will gradually accept the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and that temperature (among other factors) drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

3. The foolish green energy schemes to “stop global warming” will be shelved and dismantled, but not before they contribute to a significant increase in Excess Winter Mortality, especially in Europe and to a lesser extent in North America, where energy costs are much lower (thanks to shale fracking).

4. The warmist thugs will still be bleating about a warmer world, wilder weather, etc., all caused by the sins of mankind, but nobody will listen.

**************

57. rogerknights says:

The likeliest cause of the diminution in the diurnal temperature difference is UHI. This has been frequently stated on WUWT. I’m surprsed Christopher nodded.

• Charlie says:

We don’t have to worry about the funny business in ground station recording pre 1998. When the first slight breeze hits the house of cards all of this stuff will be coming out like hot cakes at the corner store. The alarmists made the mistake of running the biggest scientific fraud scam in history during the internet age. and NSA age.

I think Mr Mockton enjoys this. He is a crafty man and surely enjoys watching a good scam. I wouldn’t want to play cards against that bloke. He will enjoy it when the cards come tumbling down.

You can’t write this stuff

58. rogerknights says:

I was surprised the rebuttal comments on the Reason site were not very well-informed. I worry that our side may not be making a good enough impression in the comment wars.

can they be proven to be accurate and should we alter global economy based on their (to me) dubious data.
massage a proxy and get the data you want seems to be a desired skillset in the agw crowd.
good post Mr Monckton. thank you.

• Charlie says:

more importantly as pertaining to giss they don’t supply the raw data or methodology. If anybody has access to this data I would love to see it. The sea level assessment from places like Noaa seems suspicious to say the least. If they don’t show the raw data we are putting the power to change the world’s economy in a very small group of people that are allowed to see this data and an even smaller amount who know how to decipher it.

60. Marlo Lewis says:

An outstanding rebuttal. As for the graphs, I wonder whether Lindzen and Choi (2009) is an appropriate source. In response to criticism, the authors retracted that paper. They later published Lindzen and Choi (2011) http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf, which also concludes most models overestimate climate sensitivity. However, the later study does not include either the ERBE/CERES graph from the 2009 paper or an updated version of it. Do we know that the graph is not implicated in the errors that required a retraction of the 2009 study?

61. MarkW says:

On step one, the chart shown does not prove that current temperatures are outside the range of natural variation.
A chart showing temperatures for the last 10,000 years however would do just that. There have been many instances during the last 10,000 years when temperatures were well above what are seeing today. Indeed, most of the time over the last 10K years, temperatures have been higher than what we are seeing today.

• Charlie says:

has any credible scientist or scientist come to an agreement what the extent of natural variability is? or even what climate is?

was it a 97% consensus? i only trust those and guys like Bill Nye

62. MarkW says:

Battery charging is about 90% efficient, but battery discharging is also about 90% efficient. That would make electrics less than 27% efficient. And gas engines have been improving tremendously in the last few decades.

• Mike Rossander says:

No, you are double-counting. Battery efficiency is actually two different ratios – coulombic efficiency (defined as the ratio of coulombs in vs usable coulombs out) and voltage efficiency (defined as the voltage difference between the charging voltage and voltage of the battery during discharging). In both cases, both the charging and discharging cycle are included so a statement that a battery is 90% efficient means you multiply by 0.9 only once.

• ChrisQ says:

On charging, you typically have to put in ~110-115% of the ampere hour capacity to get a full charge, while on discharge, you have to take account of the internal resistive losses of the cells, which is significant and more so where the drain current is high in relation to the capacity..Even worse at low temperatures. I don’t have figures to hand, but no real world battery is 90% efficient overall, or anywhere close. Estimate at least 20% losses overall…

Chris

63. Kevin Kilty says:

Here, in ten steps, is the entire issue. In fact, a person could combine ten and nine into a single step. A nine step program to sanity. The cost/benefit ratio tells us if we can “afford” a course of action. For example, we can probably find the money to pursue CCS, but a cost benefit ratio probably says it is an economically stupid program to pursue.

64. Gary Pearse says:

Clausius-Clapeyron relation. I recall recently the mysterious finding that this relation in practical climatology needed to be divided by two to fit observations of water in the atmosphere (sorry no link). As some readers know, I have been suggesting that the Le Chatelier Principle (LCP), which has much broader application than in chemistry where it was defined by Le Chatelier (he trained as an engineer but experimented in and taught chemistry). The principle: If a dynamic (chemical equilibrium) is perturbed by changing the conditions (temperature, pressure, concentration, etc), the position of equilibrium moves to partly resist the change – a classic negative feedback governing physico-chemical systems (like climate!).

I would point out two things: one, the change is countered even if the system hasn’t reached equilibrium and two, it has been noted by others that LCP seems to be a much broader principle, permitting prediction of changes to perturbed thermodynamic systems and even has been noted as showing similar behavior in economics – the dynamics of supply/demand/price equilibria .

I contend that it is even more universal than this. One could invoke it (admittedly in a simplistic way) in the stretching or compression of a spring – it resists the compression or extension. If you exceed the range of elasticity of the spring, then you have overpowered the principle (that’s the ‘partly’ caveat). Newton’s third law could have been derived using LCP (and possibly his other two laws). When you switch on an electric motor, first, it resists turning because of inertia and then it is constrained by ‘back EMF’ – it acts like a generator and causes a current to oppose the applied current (partly) – your lights dim in the struggle. LCP can be invoked in heating an ice water mixture, or heating the water surface of the ocean – the system’s ‘agents’ resist the heating by changing state.

I think it unnatural to start off an inquiry about climate or anything else without having LCP at least part of the first brush of assumptions one might make. I propounded a hypothesis of the “geochemical concentration of the earth’s elements” that permits calculation of the tonnages of elemental concentrations (ore bodies of metals and other elements) found, and to be found (primordial concentration) in the earth’s crust, starting with this and observations. One day I will dust this calculation off and feed it to the WUWT wolf pack to be savaged.

65. c1ue says:

I am curious – what is the prediction on CO2 levels in the next 10 years based on Dr. Salby’s hypothesis? It seems that this should be something testable.

• Good one. I also like the one where the mathematician is asked to be “a little more explicit” in the step in his proof where it says “and then some magic happens”. (all from memory so I might be a tad off)

• Here it is …

(One of my all-time favorites.)

66. Max Sargent says:

Figures w.r.t. EVs are laughably inaccurate. And you’re conveniently forgetting the 7.5 kWh of electric used to refine 1 gallon of gasoline. That energy alone with take an EV ~20 miles.

But keep on being ignorant, chaps.

• FrankKarrvv says:

Does it help to have a hybrid ‘Prius’ because the battery cant get me up the hills we have around here.!

67. How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong?

Wrong about what? Being skeptical? There is very good reason to be skeptical.

1) Explain to me what the hell an “average temperature” of a non-equilibrium system means in physical terms.

2) Explain to me how the hell one could ever possibly separate out man-made variation from natural variation.

3) Explain to me how precise forecasts of a highly nonlinear system can be made out to the distant future.

Anyone who claims to have rational explanations for these is .. well … a total %\$#@! idiot.

Am I wrong?

• Chris says:

1) A system that is non-equilibrium will still have an average temperature if is taken at a specific point in time. The definition of “average temperature” needs to be defined, but as long as the definition does not change it is a useful tool.
2) By understanding the causes and amplitude of natural variations, and then in effect subtracting those from the average temperature and seeing what remains.
3) The forecasts are given in a band of ranges.

I will address your overall point from another angle. Why is it essential that they be completely accurate? It’s like someone refusing to buy insurance until they know with 100% certainty that they will get sick, and exactly what will happen, and when it will happen. The vast majority of peer reviewed climatologists believe that AGW is real. That in and of itself is not a reason to take action, because it of course depends on whether the impact is harmful or beneficial. But the majority climatologists believe that there will be more adverse impacts than beneficial. For example, while it’s great that Canada will see a longer growing season, it’s not great that many parts of Africa will see more occurrences of drought.

• Thank you for validating my point.

• Larry in Texas says:

“Why is it essential that they be completely accurate? It’s like someone refusing to buy insurance until they know with 100% certainty that they will get sick, and exactly what will happen, and when it will happen.”

You buy insurance because someone with considerable experience in the subject of insurance underwriting calculates the KNOWN risks that can happen (say, with respect to either your health or something less controversial as your house), the cost of those risks to you, the policy holder, and the best likelihood of what can happen, within a certain range. For example, I know that neither a health or home insurance company will insure you for the “risk” of being struck by an asteroid (even now, when we know more about asteroids), or the risk of getting caught in the midst of a nuclear war. This is because either the risk is so infinitesimal as to be meaningless, or that the cost of the risk happening is so great and catastrophic that it really won’t matter either way to anyone if it happens or not. In the case of AGW, we have an absolutely insufficient understanding of what exactly is happening, why it is happening, and the probabilities of what will happen in the future. The notion of the “uncertainty principle” and saying that policy needs to be of an order analogous to “insurance” has been nicely shown to be extremely expensive and without clear proof of what it would accomplish. Therefore, I would suggest that your analogies to “insurance” are misplaced in this situation. No reputable insurance company of any sort would place a “bet” on something like this, and neither should any government policy-maker.

• Michael 2 says:

Good analysis but neglects an important consideration: What if someone else pays for the insurance? Then you insure everything! and pray for disaster.

• Max says:

Am I wrong?

No, Max, you’re right.

I see that not one of your points was properly addressed. As usual, your questions were deflected.

#1, #2, and #3 are excellent points. But the alarmist clique can’t answer them without self-debunking. So they deflect instead, nitpicking some minor thing that couldn’t matter less.

Photon – 3

House — 0

Game, Set, Match.

68. Christopher Monckton,

Well done on your climate focused point by point discussion of a rational basis that can be considered as helping to increase objectivity in science. Thank you.

I am interested in beginnings, i.e. the premises, that influence what path a logical thought process would follow and of course what constraints on outcomes are caused by premises. So, I wonder about both the general lead question by Bailey and your general lead question.

Ronald Bailey (@ Reason.com) asks the general question, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

Alternately, you (Christopher Monckton) ask a general question, “[H]ow much global warming [. . .] emission[s] [of CO2 from fossil fuels] may cause, and whether that warming might be more a bad thing than a good thing [?]”

You both concede to a premise that we must see a net warming from emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. That is quite a different premise from one that states there is a possibility that CO2 can (all things in the Earth Atmosphere System being equal) theoretically cause some warming. To me, this latter premise is more circumspect for a less biased basis of the research on climate science as we go forward.

John

69. Charlie says:

But Bill Maher keeps telling me climate change skeptics live in a bubble. How do I achieve the know it all greatness of Bill Maher? is that achievable by regular humans? .

70. SteveAstroUk says:

What’s the story with the “entire Silver mine” ? I missed that coming out from under a glacier. Where ?

• MarkW says:

It was from a few years ago. Somewhere in the Alps. A Roman era silver mine was uncovered by retreating glaciers.

• Carbon500 says:

SteveAstroUk and MarkW: I haven’t heard about a silver mine, but on the internet you’ll find the following by Albert Hafner on archaeological discoveries at Schnidejoch and other ice sites in the European Alps .
He says: ‘Only a few sites in the Alps have produced archaeological finds from melting ice. To date, prehistoric finds from four sites dating from the Neolithic period, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age have been recovered from small ice patches (Schnidejoch, Lötschenpass, Tisenjoch, and
Gemsbichl/Rieserferner).
Glaciers, on the other hand, have yielded historic finds and frozen human remains that are not more than a few hundred years old (three glacier mummies from the 16th to the 19th century and military finds from World Wars I and II).
Between 2003 and 2010, numerous archaeological finds were recovered from a melting ice patch on the Schnidejoch in the Bernese Alps (Cantons of Berne and Valais, Switzerland). These finds date from the Neolithic period, the Early Bronze Age, the Iron Age, Roman times, and the Middle Ages, spanning a period of 6000 years. The Schnidejoch, at an altitude of 2756 metres above sea level, is a pass in the Wildhorn region of the western Bernese Alps. It has yielded some of the earliest evidence of Neolithic human activity at high altitude in the Alps. The abundant assemblage of finds contains a number of unique artifacts, mainly from organic materials like leather, wood, bark, and fibers. The site clearly proves access to high-mountain areas as early as the 5th millennium BC, and the chronological distribution of the finds indicates that the Schnidejoch pass was used mainly during periods when glaciers were retreating.’

71. HankHenry says:

Furthermore it’s up to the catastrophists to prove the case. From the proposition that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas it does not follow that the world is headed for doom. For me the failure of the models is the failure of the whole theory of the catastrophe… Saying that I admit there is a certain irresponsible allure upon one’s imagination of a global catastrophe, but reason and history instructs that doom prophesy is weak theology. See Millerism and the Millerites.

72. Hazel says:

“The question is why, in the teeth of the scientific and economic evidence, nearly all of the global governing class were so easily taken in or bought out or both by the strange coalescence of powerful vested interests who have, until now, profited so monstrously by the biggest fraud in history at such crippling expense in lives and treasure to the rest of us, and at such mortal threat to the integrity and trustworthiness of science itself.”

Hmmm, because people who are elected to office or appointed to office are stupid and venal?

Just a question, not a statement!

• Yes, perhaps the elected politicians are a rather stupid bunch of people.
But they are not the only ones being fooled; most of the journalists in the world must also be quite stupid, and nearly all the university professors and research scientists of course.

But the mostly self thought laymen using most of their time on blogs are so incredibly intelligent that they have revealed the truth. Soon will the rest of the world follow and thank them.
Yes, that is how it must be.
Or …?

Just a thought

/Jan

• Charlie says:

well you can study the science for yourself and find out the truth or you can take a “consensus” propaganda as gospel.

just a thought and no passive aggressiveness intended

ps. most scientists don’t buy this. journalists? did you ever consider environmental journalists have a conflict of interest in political bias and the fact the supporting AGW is the only way to get their story published? Donna Laframboise was able to put that aside even though she was a feminist liberal. She found some interesting stuff to say the least.

73. Jquip says:

Lord Monckton, your central error is in assuming that logic has any place in the era of Truthiness.

74. Instead of either Bailey’s general lead question* or Monckton’s general lead question** I offer the following general lead question. General lead question: Doesn’t the corroborated climate evidence show that “[w]hat we have seen is that the climate is probably insensitive to increases in greenhouse gases, and that there is little reason to suppose that a warmer world will be notably characterised by storminess and extremes though both are part of normal weather variability“***?

* Ronald Bailey (@ Reason.com) asks the general question, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

** Christopher Monckton (lead post) asks a general question, “[H]ow much global warming [. . .] emission[s] [of CO2 from fossil fuels] may cause, and whether that warming might be more a bad thing than a good thing [?]”

*** quote from Dr Richard S. Lindzen in his conclusion to his chapter in the book ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ (Kindle Locations 810-812). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

John

75. I would replace question (step) #5 with “Has any concentration of CO2 ever driven global temperatures to the exclusion of natural drivers?”. The answer of course is “No”, and that alone nullifies any argument that Bailey et al. may offer.

76. Mike in Chile says:

I’m a BSEE who has done considerable RF/Microwave/mmWave modeling on active and passive circuitry and built hundreds of amplifiers, filters and oscillators. From experience I can say that circuits built with no feedback tend to match the simulations quite nicely provided all elements and parasitic values are entered into the model. As soon as feedback is added (especially with positive gain) the difference between the model and the actual circuit can become quite different. When building these circuits one must remember there is “The Rule of Oscillation: Oscillators won’t. Amplifiers will.” The physical circuit is, of course, doing exactly what it is supposed to. The problem is that when the feedback loop is closed every parameter in the model of the circuit (especially the loop components) needs to take every variable into account. Only until the unknown variables are added to the simulation, and the simulation matches the observed output can the model be trusted. Even then, there are no assurances that everything has been accounted for (i.e. that the simulation is valid over other initial conditions). Any loop equation for modeling the atmosphere has to actually contain hundreds or thousands of variables that the models can’t possibly account for. Until the simulation output can match the observed output the models are little more than an interesting exercise.

• Charlie says:

in plain English we have almost no idea how our climate works. That is the most important part of this debate that rarely gets addressed. Even if the temperatures have been closer to computer model prediction there is no valid evidence it correlates to raised levels of co2. if the temps start to downtrend as some people predict the alarmists will just change the narrative to fit that change. This whole thing is a narrative..a religion..not science

• Warren Latham says:

Quite so. The so-called, self-appointed I.P.C.C. railway engineers have created computer “models” which cannot even “predict” what has gone before, never mind what may happen in the future. Their religion (created by Albert Gore et al) is based upon TAX-GOBBLERS MONEY as Lord Monckton so aptly puts it.

PS: it was “cooling” in the 1960’s from the U. K. and the U. S. A., then “warming” in the 1970’s emanating from Sweden, then Albert Gore made proclamations in 1989; he then abused science with his hockey stick lies; now the BBC and other so-called main stream media and certain universities and hangers-on receive millions of pounds and dollars of OUR MONEY with the support of government.

Have a look at this and see what you think …

• Charlie says:

that is creepy. i have thought for a while that this is the biggest scam since ww2 germany. the Western world really think that these things can’t happen anymore. The government would never do such a thing., well an environmentally friendly liberal government wouldn’t

When the poop hits the fan myself and all the sane people from this website will be locked to the useless media outlets that dragged this along for over 20 years. They will have to turn coat on the dime and the fireworks of blame are going to be incredible. This is possibly the the most bizarre worldwide plunder of fraudulent science in history

It’s all BS and it’s bad for you folks
– George Carlin

• Warren Latham says:

This is only the beginning: they won’t stop now.

• Alan Robertson says:

I’d ask you for a link to any alleged failings of “Jim”, but your post provides all I need to know about you.

• Warren Latham says:

Your comment is too plebeian for words. (Use a dictionary if you have one).

• Reg Nelson says:

You have to remove the period (full stop) in the surname, but don’t bother it’s just a tin foil hat site with personal attacks against Mr. Monckton, Dr. Spencer, Mark Steyn and others, by someone who claims to be a concerned Republican. No discussion of science whatsoever.

• warrenlb says:
• Michael 2 says:

Warren, citing Barry Bickmore’s blog is NOT the way to convince a skeptic he’s wrong.

• warrenlb says:

@Michael 2.
?? I’m not the one that cited Bickmore. Check links before posting.

77. Mike Rossander says:

I must disagree with the assumption of “the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years”. I’ve been driving a Prius for 10 years and 220k miles so far. I’m still on the original batteries and have no indication that the batteries will need replacing anytime soon. The body is likely to fail before anything in the drivetrain, including the batteries.

Anecdotes are not data but neither is there any evidence in the Toyota maintenance documentation or history to suggest that my experience is unusual. I am all for a proper accounting of the full costs – just don’t overcount costs without evidence.

• Robert B says:

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/20/nissan-leaf-battery-replacement-will-cost-100-month/

Nissan have brought in a replacement battery program for the Leaf where you pay about \$100/month for a replacement battery that you should expect to need after 60 000 miles. There is a big difference in battery life depending how much you discharge the battery. its shorter when discharged completely often.

Driving 220K miles in 10 years suggests that you are cruising most of the time in the Prius and not draining the batteries often like in stop start driving.

• warrenlb says:

My neighbor has a Prius –same experience. He’s long passed 200K miles with heavy commuting in the DC metro area, with no battery problems or replacement.

• FrankKarrv says:

warrenlb re the Prius.

Yes true to a certain extent. But it is a hybrid not a true all battery motor. Yes I own one as a second car. Its economical on fuel but it still needs the power of the petrol engine to recharge the battery on the go most of the time.

• FrankKarrvv says:

Oh and nice to know my Prius can probably achieve 200K ! Did I buy it to mitigate my ‘carbon’ print NO I bought it for my wife after she ‘dinted’ my highly prized Jag. She loves the Prius and I admit so do I for local shopping , parking but not on extensive trips.

78. Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.

There are several problems with the quoted calculation:
Firstly 30% more power per mile because of battery weight. I drive a Corolla and a Nissan Leaf, similar sizes, the Leaf slightly bigger, but that is quite negligible. The Leaf is 25% heavier (1505 vs. 1280 Kg). That means that it would require less than 30% extra power even if the power consumption increased linearly with weight, but it does not. A 25% heavier vehicle uses less than 25% more energy because much of the energy goes to air resistance and friction which is independent of weight.

Secondly you have to count in the regeneration of braking power in electric vehicles. I measure my Leafs’s energy use to 1.4 KWh/10 km, similar to 0.16 liter /10 km, or a mileage of 147 miles gallon. That is approximately one fifth of my energy use with the Corolla.

Thirdly, “transmission to end user is 67% efficient, where did you get that number? According to US Energy Information Administration the average transmission loss in US is only 6%. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

Lastly, all energy sources are not born equal. Energy sources for electric power generation is abundant and produced locally, but petroleum is a scarce resource which for a large part is produced in hostile countries.

/Jan

• MarkW says:

If we were to increase the number of electrics on the road to 10% of the fleet, we would have to more than double the amount of electricity generating capacity in this country and almost all of that additional power will be coming from “hostile countries”.
Electric plants may be local, but the fuel to run them isn’t always.

• I am afraid you are ill informed there Mark.

Us electricity generation was 4 093 Billion KWH in 2014
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Vehicle miles travelled in the US annually is 2,953 billion miles
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/11factsfigures/table3_6.htm

Passenger cars 2,630 billon miles
Trucks and vans 323 billion miles

The electricity consumption if 10 % of the passenger cars were converted to Nissan Leaf would be
263 billion miles * 2.24 KWH/mile = 589 Billion KWH. That is an increase of 13%, which is far from a doubling.
If you also count in the trucks and vans, you just get another 5% increase.

Besides, even if we replaced all fossil fuel vehicles with EV, which would indeed require that the electricity generation were more than doubled, there would still be no need to import the energy sources. The resources of nuclear and eventually renewables could easily cover this increase.

/Jan

• Jake J says:

If the whole fleet went electric, we’d need to add 20% to generating capacity.

• Jake, I get a higher number when I compare the US statistics with my own statistics form use of Nissan Leaf.
I measure 2.24 KWH/mile.

The US fleet of passenger car travel 2,630 billon miles (link above)
This gives 5 890 Billion KWH

The US electricity generation was 4 093 Billion KWH in 2014 (link above)
That means that we would need to increase the electricity generation by 143%

It is a huge number, but it can be achieved by using either coal, gas, nuclear or renewable as a source.
The electricity could even be produced from approximately 60% of the petroleum saved by elimination the combustion cars. Oil as source for power production is probably the most expensive alternative, but we would save 40% of the crude even if we produced it with this way.

I would prefer a combination of nuclear and renewable though.

/Jan

• Larry in Texas says:

“. . . petroleum is a scarce resource which for a large part is produced in hostile countries.” Of course, the USA has, in spite of the efforts of our benighted President, has increased domestic production of oil to the point where our imports have dropped to a fraction of what they were about 10-15 years ago. In addition, most of our imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico these days. I remember reading US Energy Information Administration statistics at least 7 or 8 years ago indicating that annually, we only imported about 11% of our foreign oil from the Middle East. That percentage has likely decreased significantly in the past two years alone – and would be even more so if our President would open up federal lands to drilling. I am also aware that the UK has discovered billions of barrels of oil in southern England, which they will have to consider exploiting as their North Sea wells production slowly reduces; I think they will do it exactly because it is good for their economy to do so. So I am not as anxious as you are about sources of energy being “unequal.” The internal combustion engine will continue to be a strong player both here in the USA as well as around the world, because it is still, relatively speaking, the cheapest energy we can use.

• Good point Larry

But imagine if most of the combustion engines were replaced with EV, the US could then switch from being an oil importer to an oil exporter.

This will lower the world’s oil price and leave more of the oil to the next generations.

/Jan

79. more soylent green! says:

My preference is to include a step asking “Is there conclusive evidence the climate models provide accurate forecasts of the future climate?”

This would short-cut a lot of these steps.

80. Kuldebar says:

Unfortunately, I have been informed that Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a bad person, so I can’t believe anything he’s says even if it true.

• warrenlb says:

It’s not the absurdities in his personal resume that condemn his science — that stands (or rather fails) all by itself.

• u.k.(us) says:

Care to share with us your own “personal resume”, so that we can judge its relevance ?

• u.k.(us),

Good question. You have popcorn, I presume?

• u.k.(us) says:

I’m heavily invested in all the popcorn companies :)

• It seems that warrenlib is hiding out…

• warrenlb says:

[Snip. Final warming: No more ad hominem attacks. ~mod.]

• Michael 2 says:

warrenlb “The resume of an Authority among skeptics.”

So it is. What’s in your wallet?

• Kuldebar,

Your comment is amusing. You forgot the “/sarc” sign-off. As we all know, the truth has nothing to do with whoever posts it.

Of course, Monckton of Brenchley is a very good person — a far better person than any of his detractors. None of them have his character <—[lookin' at you, warrenbot].

On the off-chance that you weren’t kidding, who told you that? Names, please.

81. Good essay. Thank you.

I did like the graphs, and I liked the little “post-it notes”.

Several commenters have already anticipated the doubts I was going to raise about your computations of the energy consumption of electric vehicles. I don’t support the subsidies for them, but I think that your calculations need review in light of the earlier comments.

82. F. Ross says:

Excellent post by Lord Monckton.

Now if the NY Times would just publish it…

83. @Tom in Florida 4/9 at 4:57 am
Perhaps the should be a step 11: Is this the best use of tax payer money?

Absolutely agree.
Step 12: is this the best use of MY money?

Step 13: What happens when government tells you, “No more. That’s enough.”?

84. MarkW says:

How to convince a climate skeptic.

For a start, you could show your data.

85. Steve in SC says:

So the fix for the alleged problem is to use my tax money to further impinge on my standard of living.
Pardon me if I remain unconvinced by the braying of criminals and lunatics.

• Robert says:

[Snip. How many times do commenters need to be told: ad-homs questioning Lord Monckton’s peerage belong on other blogs, not here. Play the ball, not the man. ~mod.]

• Robert says:

Tell Steve. He brought up “the braying of [Monckton].”

Meanwhile the Greenies are attempting to shut down coal fired power and what does this do for us? Do we have replacement energy ready to go online? I agree that we as civilization must be careful with our fuels and greater efficiency is a plus. But this funding boondoggle for non-problem or a modeled problem draining our public treasure on climate studies to drive agenda is plain wrong. Spend the money on decentralized small scale energy production with greater efficacy. We don’t need draconian policies and agendas to promote sanity.
I have complained before to the CAGW Alarmists, I want them to explain exactly : How do you KNOW CO2 is causing the drought in California? I want to know the evidence , the proof CO2 is causation for all things bad in our weather/climate ?

• Robert says:

“CO2 naturally is about .04% of the atmosphere mix and of that human produced CO2 is about 3% , 3% of total volume .04% (correct me if wrong)”

You’re wrong.

Some of the ways in which you are wrong:

1. CO2 is not “naturally” anything. That’s not a scientific concept.
2. Before humans started jacking up the climate, CO2 was about 0.028%, not 0.04%. So if you want to declare something the “natural” concentration of CO2 (in the sense of what it was before we messed with it,) you’re off by a third.
3. Human produced CO2 is thus responsible for about a third of the present CO2 in the atmosphere, not 3%.

“I have complained before to the CAGW Alarmists, I want them to explain exactly : How do you KNOW CO2 is causing the drought in California? I want to know the evidence , the proof CO2 is causation for all things bad in our weather/climate ?”

Don’t complain. Study. Materials on the relationship of AGW to the current drought in CA abound. No one owes you a free education.

• 3% is that portion of total annual flux of CO2 that is attributed to anthropological sources. The net accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to have risen from 280 ppm before emissions from various human sources (such as cement making and fossil fuel burning) to present day net accumulation of 400 ppm.
Monckton has shown that there is another possibility of the increased net accumulation. We do know that CO2 levels have fluctuated largely in the past without humans being around.

• The California drought will end, the rains will return and alarmists will scour the earth looking for weather that is currently dry and then usher cries of global warming causing this new dry event. Droughts are a naturally occurring even that have always happened and always will. I have found no credible study linking current dry conditions in CA to global warming (that has remained not warming for 18 years now).
Take a look at this water level chart for Shasta Lake: It was much drier in the 1970’s (note I can’t get it to load at the moment)
http://www.cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/resDetailOrig.action?resid=SHA

• A screen shot from a few weeks ago:

• Reg Nelson says:

Robert, it is you who are wrong.

Do you know what isotopes are? Scientists can uses the ratio of Carbon isotopes to determine how much of CO2 is man made and and how much is from natural sources.

People in glass houses . . .

• Robert says:

Gary, try to consolidate and focus your rants.

“3% is that portion of total annual flux of CO2 that is attributed to anthropological sources.”

So in other words, a totally irrelevant comparison?

” The net accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to have risen from 280 ppm before emissions from various human sources (such as cement making and fossil fuel burning) to present day net accumulation of 400 ppm.”

That is the fact, yes. It is not “said,” it’s proven.

“Monckton has shown that there is another possibility of the increased net accumulation.”

That’s hysterical. Do you really believe that? Try reading actual science, rather than a serial fabricator with no climate science chops whatsoever.

“We do know that CO2 levels have fluctuated largely in the past without humans being around.”

Irrelevant to our proven role in the present. Your argument is similar to a lawyer defending a murderer who shot a victim on camera in the presence of a thousand witnesses, by asserting “Well, other people have died in other ways without the involvement of my client.”

“Robert, it is you who are wrong.”

Nice argument by assertion, but totally baseless. Learn the basics of climate science, so as not to embarrass yourself.

• Robert, I gather my summation of the total atmosphere CO2 constitutes about .04% is incorrect. Very well, I am aware of the 400 ppm per volume concept, this still qualifies as trace gas. And if you are well educated about the Proof CO2 (man made or otherwise) is driving bad weather and climate change or global warming which has stalled horribly, please inform me. I have been reading tons of material and admittedly I am not a scientist. So much of the deep technical information is very heady for me. That said, I still have not found a clear clean document that proofs CAGW is in fact a fact. As far as I can tell, CO2 driven Climate Change is hypothesis based on models which can not ever predict anything because parameters and variables are chaotic.

• Reg Nelson says:

“Robert, it is you who are wrong.”

Nice argument by assertion, but totally baseless. Learn the basics of climate science, so as not to embarrass yourself.

Really? Prove me wrong. Debate the points I raised. Can you? And can you back it up with science?

• lee says:

Robert, You want us to return to the .028% level before “humans started jacking up the climate”?

You realise that was circa 1700, in the Little Ice Age don’t you? You realise more people die of cold than heat, don’t you?

So if .028% is “natural”, you wish to condemn society to that, without the benefit of fossil fuels?

• richardscourtney says:

Reg Nelson

You wrote

Robert, it is you who are wrong.

Do you know what isotopes are? Scientists can uses the ratio of Carbon isotopes to determine how much of CO2 is man made and and how much is from natural sources.

People in glass houses . . .

Clearly, you don’t know what the isotope ratios indicate.

You are wrong when you say
“Scientists can uses the ratio of Carbon isotopes to determine how much of CO2 is man made and and how much is from natural sources”.
Nobody can do that, but the indication from the isotopes is that most if not all the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is natural.

The observed carbon isotope ratio change in the atmosphere is in the direction which would be expected if the cause of the change were accumulation of the emissions from human activities.

But the magnitude of the change is wrong by a factor of 3 if it were simply caused by accumulation of the emissions from human activities. This discrepancy can be explained by an assumption of dilution of the CO2 in the air from natural sources.

Simply, the isotope changes provide a direct indication that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT accumulation of the emissions from human activities, but this indication may be misleading.

In other words, the isotope changes imply the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT accumulation of the CO2 emissions from human activities, but the isotope changes do not prove the accumulation of the CO2 emissions from human activities are not the cause.

I suggest that you stick around at WUWT and read instead of posting ill-informed nonsense. Many scientists post here and you could learn much.

Richard

87. Bernie Hutchins says:

Lord Monckton (who, by this essay, shows once again his unmatched ability to comment in the political, economic, and social arenas) should appreciate that skeptics have no stronger allies than EEs and control-engineers who understand and recognize dominant feedback effects. As such, repeating (yet again) the faulty-labeled graph “Bode does not apply to climate” is particularly disappointing, especially in light of the fact that his multiple misconceptions have been pointed out on a previous thread not far below.

The yellow double-arrow (+0.1 < g +0.1 and is stable, even against noise burst larger than the step size; and it just amplifies by 8.

Lord Monckton (and others!) seems to conflate “loop gain”, “open-loop gain”, and “closed-loop gain” in various permutations. I don’t think he understands the difference between impulse response and step response. Neither does he appreciate that the fact that the “Bode curve” has a singularity at g=1 means that even g=0.1 (while positive) is well negative of that singularity.

Instead we were told (previous threads) that there is a limit that a “process engineer” uses: of g<0.1, for stability. If this is a “safety margin” (possibly a sensitivity to parameter drift here?) than it should be called that – not an unstable region. He apparently has a consulting “process engineer”, a profession I am not familiar with. Monckton can be impatient with others when they do not give citations or not use actual names. But this consulted person he never names, although this person supposedly has three PhDs; nor does he give citations.

To be clear, Monckton is quite correct (for several reasons) to state that the Bode equation likely misleads if one applies it to climate. But it helps the skeptics not at all if he confuses the engineering ideas other know so well.

• Bernie Hutchins says:

——Reposting of Above – Part lost apparently due to inequality signs interpreted as html ! ——

Lord Monckton (who, by this essay, shows once again his unmatched ability to comment in the political, economic, and social arenas) should appreciate that skeptics have no stronger allies than EEs and control-engineers who understand and recognize dominant feedback effects. As such, repeating (yet again) the faulty-labeled graph “Bode does not apply to climate” is particularly disappointing, especially in light of the fact that his multiple misconceptions have been pointed out on a previous thread not far below.

The yellow double-arrow (g between 0.1 and 1.0) is NOT unstable. It does amplify, and as g approaches +1 even closer, it amplifies even more and will soon “clip” against a power supply rail or otherwise run out of “fuel”. But it is not unstable.

The figure below:

shows the step response of a positive feedback of g=7/8, thus between g=0.1 and g=1, and it is stable, even against noise burst larger than the step size; and it just amplifies by 8.

Lord Monckton (and others!) seems to conflate “loop gain”, “open-loop gain”, and “closed-loop gain” in various permutations. I don’t think he understands the difference between impulse response and step response. Neither does he appreciate that the fact that the “Bode curve” has a singularity at g=1 means that even g=0.1 (while positive) is well negative of that singularity.

Instead we were told (previous threads) that there is a limit that a “process engineer” uses: of g less than 0.1, for stability. If this is a “safety margin” (possibly a sensitivity to parameter drift here?) than it should be called that – not an unstable region. He apparently has a consulting “process engineer”, a profession I am not familiar with. Monckton can be impatient with others when they do not give citations or not use actual names. But this consulted person he never names, although this person supposedly has three PhDs; nor does he give citations.

To be clear, Monckton is quite correct (for several reasons) to state that the Bode equation likely misleads if one applies it to climate. But it helps the skeptics not at all if he confuses the engineering ideas other know so well.

• I have been considering doing a Finite Element Analysis of an electrical feedback circuit and a similar analysis using a water pressure (piping) system and comparing how feedbacks differ. This difference is similar to how the climate system is different than an electrical analogy.

• Gary Pearse says:

I’m not and EE but what limits the Bode equation as an analogy is all the other things brought on with initial temperature increase. A host of thermodynamic responses – temperature-caused, enthalpy consuming, evaporation and convection up from the water surface, creation of low pressure and causing winds to blow, cloud formation, rain and hail, ocean currents. The gain gets smothered by large external factors that don’t allow the gain to go anywhere near as far as the IPCC would like. Probably you can use the analogy ceteris paribus to try to understand the basic shape of the process but should also keep in mind that only a small part of the “circuit” response is sensible to use.

Indeed, I accept you are probably correct, the subject being your area of expertise. Perhaps Monckton should have simply used it as an analogy to get the sensitivity ball rolling but not gotten into unnecessary detail on the electronics itself. The Bode equation is widely used in climate science but probably not as well as Monckton used it. I believe we are going to know who has dealt with CO2 climate sensitivity better in the coming 5 years or so.

Me, I’m possibly more heretical in that I believe the Le Chatelier Principle (LCP) (in chemistry, it states a change in condition of temperature, pressure, concentration or etc causes a shift in chemical equilibrium of a system such as to resist the perturbation (say resist the temperature increase). It is my contention that LCP is broad enough to inform us that any gain in climate (and maybe even in electronics) is resisted and limited by agents set up by the conditions (back EMF in motors is a good example). It anticipates Newton’s third law (and perhaps the other two!), it anticipates the necessity for entropy. It is perhaps the perfect fit for climate which is pure physical chemistry and thermodynamics. To me, it may be the holy grail for understanding chaos – the attractors (in climate ‘cold’ stability state alternating with ‘warm’ stability state) the LCP resistance to change setting up an oscillation between cold glacial and warm interglacial as the limits. Oh, they are coming to take me away!!

• Bernie Hutchins says:

Gary and Gary –

You might find a couple of my postings useful – full of actual examples. The first goes back to Nov. of 2013

http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN219.pdf

The second is very recent, and was inspired by Joe Born’s circuit example:

http://electronotes.netfirms.com/ENWN25.pdf

In a few days, I expect to post a follow-up which will be the same URL as just above except 26 instead of 25. The figure above came from that draft note.

Nothing beats actually doing examples!

Bernie

• KevinK says:

Bernie, what you show is correct.

But there is a much larger issue when attempting to apply electrical / electronic closed loop feedback equations to a system comprised of passive thermal elements. An electronic feedback system requires amplification (like an op-amp or servo amplifier) which further requires an external source of energy to power the amplifier. This external source of energy adds to the feedback signal to create a more energetic drive signal.

No source of energy, no application of any of the traditional “sparky” (slang for an electrical engineer) feedback stability equations.

The climate science community found some equations that looked like they would “prove their case” and applied them all willy-nilly. Of course, knowing which equation applies is much harder than simply “plugging the equation in”.

Cheers, KevinK.

• Bernie Hutchins says:

Thanks Kevin –

I quite agree. I think this is related to what I have said about being “fuel limited”, eventually, in all cases. But perhaps it is in fact never really “powered” at all as you seem to suggest.

• KevinK says:

Bernie wrote;

“Thanks Kevin –

I quite agree. I think this is related to what I have said about being “fuel limited”, eventually, in all cases. But perhaps it is in fact never really “powered” at all as you seem to suggest.”

Exactly, the climate is like an amplifier where the power cord has been pulled out of the outlet and it is quite dead.

The only electrical circuit elements that are analogous to the climate are resistors, capacitors and inductors. It is possible to create filters that pass/attenuate some frequencies, and perhaps display a resonance, but there is never any GAIN in the climate system. The Sun acts as a source of electrons/photons which get absorbed by the surface (like a capacitor absorbs electrons) and then later discharged (as IR radiation). The gases in the atmosphere act like capacitors which charge/discharge with photons. It is simply all a question of “RC” time constants that apply to the Sunlight after it reaches the surface.

Cheers, KevinK.

• Bernie Hutchins says:

Thanks again Kevin – the ominous ring of truth.

But I doubt it is possible to get a resonance unless you have a passive way of getting an inductive flow. One such is Newton’s second law, but I think this would require a charged particle in an electric field. Not likely.

• Joe Born says:

KevinK:

I’ve never been as put off as you have by the “gain” terminology; I think it’s just the way you look at it, at least when we’re restricting ourselves to the linearized approximation.

For example, you could look on the sun as a current source, the earth as a capacitor, and feedback as the capacitor voltage’s controlling the current source. In other words, something like Fig. 3 of my post about Monckton et al.’s transience fraction, with the “current” from the addition block being controlled by feedback. Is there “gain” in the forward path from the input current to the output voltage?

We could argue all day about the semantics, but I don’t see that it makes any difference in the math that we do or do not call it “gain”; if linearity were to persist, the (forgive my nomenclature) loop gain could in theory exceed unity, the system would blow up, and we’d all boil away. (I think we all know why that couldn’t happen in real life, but we’re talking about nomenclature to be used for a fictional linearized system.)

• Joe Born says:

Bernie Hutchins: “Monckton is quite correct (for several reasons) to state that the Bode equation likely misleads if one applies it to climate.”

The problem is that the “Bode equation” can also mislead if one applies it to electronics. I don’t think he’s made a very clear statement of the distinction on which he’s relying. (If I recall, he said something about “restorative” or something like that, which could be interpreted as applying also to a typical negative-feedback amplifier or PID controller.)

I agree it’s annoying that he presumes to prescribe nomenclature to the tens of thousands who design this stuff all the time. But the real difficulty is how impressionistic he is about the manner in which he contends modelers are using the “Bode equation” incorrectly and how the way they use it would be perfectly fine if it were being used for electronics.

This is among the many cases in which his position boils down to a you’re-wrong-and-I’m-right argument with no reasoning to back it up. My experience is that he almost invariably the nature of his response to people who try to throw him a line when he’s in over his depth.

88. Mike Jonas says:

“As temperatures increase by 1 Celsius degree, global average water vapor in the atmosphere is expected to increase by around 7%. No, the carrying capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere for water vapour is expected to increase by 7% per Celsius degree, in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Just because the atmosphere can carry more water vapor, that does not mean it will.“. Actually, my understanding is that it will carry the extra 7%. Susan Wijffels did a study on heavy rainfall events which showed a 7% increase in heavy rainfall per 1 deg C. There was some effort among the warmists to discredit the finding, because a 7% increase as per Clausius-Clapeyron is embarrassing for the warmists. The climate models allow only 2-3% increase, and depend on this for their high climate sensitivity – the point being that at 7% much more energy is needed to evaporate all that water and the climate sensitivity is then necessarily less.

• Robert says:

“the point being that at 7% much more energy is needed to evaporate all that water and the climate sensitivity is then necessarily less.”

No, that is the opposite of what that would imply. Water is itself a powerful greenhouse gas. More evaporation implies a higher climate sensitivity.

89. Robert says:

The potty peer, asks the right questions, unfortunately he gets all ten answers wrong.

F- for you, Chris. Better go back to working on that AIDS cure.

• Gary Pearse says:

childish

• Gary Pearse,

Let him be, he is invisible intellectually . . .

John

• Robert says:

Me and 97% of publishing climate scientists. Kinda makes you wonder about the quality of the “intellects” that can’t see us, doesn’t it?

• DirkH says:

Robert
April 9, 2015 at 6:46 pm
“Me and 97% of publishing climate scientists.”

A person who identifies himself as a believer in Cook’s idiot paper discredits himself.

• Venter says:

Which 97% Robert? The 97% from Cook where he chose 11,664 papers and rated only 64% of them? That fraud? What an uninformed idiot you are.

• Venter says:

I meant Cook rated only 64 of the 11,664 papers which equals to 0.55%. From these 64 he claimed 97% were positive. So you believe in 97% of 0.55%? See how stupid you look?

• M Courtney says:

I know this I missing the point but…

Why do people who believe in the end of the world from manmade climate change also oppose curing AIDS?

The two issues aren’t related. Except in the hatred of humanity and a desire to see us suffer.

So, here’s the rub, why do such people believe that 97% of scientists are so wicked? Most people are nice.

90. BLACK PEARL says:

STEP 11. When do I get back all the fraudulent CO2 based Vehicle Excise Duty I’m being fined on two older low mileage vehicles currently running at £730 annually Thanks to Ed Millibands 2008 Climate Change Act

91. ulriclyons says:

“He concedes that the warming rate since 1979 is 0.12-0.16 Cº decade (RSS and UAH respectively).”

From a cold AMO mode with wet continental interior regions to a warm AMO mode with dry continental interior regions. That will tell you more about natural variation than it will about any GHG forcing. The only valid trend is with respect to AMO phase. Looking at global 65 year SST trends which are not contaminated by land rainfall effects, and which do not diverge from UAH lt, from cold AMO years 1991 to 1976 and warm AMO years 1945 to 2010, I don’t see any significant increase in warming rates in the latter period. And it’s only ~0.57°C per century.

• ulriclyons says:

typo sorry: from cold AMO years 1911 to 1976

92. Cube says:

Paul April 9, 2015 at 7:17 am
. “An enclosed garage isn’t too uncommon either. ”
You must live in a nice neighborhood. Is that where all the guilt comes from? In my neck of the woods the cars live outside.

• Paul says:

“You must live in a nice neighborhood. Is that where all the guilt comes from?”

Guilt? How do you see guilt, you don’t know me at all. I’ve worked hard for everything I have, and have no reason to feel guilty about having anything, including an attached garage.

93. Walt D. says:

“What Evidence,” asks Ronald Bailey’s headline (www.reason.com, April 3, 2015), “Would Convince You Unicorns are Real?”

• Charlie says:

The sad answer is no evidence at all If you told them unicorns were created by man and destroying the environment. just add a commercial by an American Indian whose last name is Gallo.

94. William McClenney says:

“What Evidence Would Convince You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

1. Well, not with well-massaged temperature data, or a desktop study discounting UHI vs. Anthony’s Surface Stations project.

2. Evidence that the prognosticated effects of AGW can ever trump the climatic madhouse of glacial inception which is what might be happening at this very moment. This is about as simple a signal to noise ratio problem as has ever been! Not one single prediction/estimate/prognostication/whatever gets anywhere near the astonishing climate changes that attended the ends of most of the post-MPT interglacials when they went unstable and fell off into the next ice age.

3. And last but by no means least, I need to see the evidence that there is a third climate state, other than glacial and interglacial, which removal of GHGs to whatever concentrations would land us. At present, we know we are living at yet another probable end of an interglacial. In fact the lofting of the term Anthropocene carries with it the implication that the Holocene is over. In fact, it probably should be as it is now about half a precession cycle old as 7 of the last 8 were when they went kaput. Ruddiman says we would already be several thousand years into glacial inception were it not for anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. So, if I am not to consider anthroglowarmies totally insane, you need to convince me that by ending the Anthropocene we will not be tipped into an already overdue glacial. Because, as far as I know, that is the only climate state left after decay of an interglacial. And you would have to be certifiable to want to tip us into the next 100kyr ice age.

95. Michael 2 says:

“Do readers like the way the graphs are presented, many of them with a small “Post-It note” highlighting the main point?”

Yes, love the graphs. They will be useful in the unlikely event my brother regains interest in Global Warming after realizing millions of Bangladeshis aren’t actually going to drown this year. Maybe in 500 years if they all stay where they are. But of course by then the delta will have grown and might be some isostatic rebound from all those missing glaciers in the Himalayas so there’s no telling.

96. eyesonu says:

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

Good presentation. It will cause grief to the usual suspects.

97. David Cage says:

Why do you always show the trends as straight line extrapolations? We know for certain that there are at least two major cyclic elements in the temperature graph. Surely we need to see the best fit curve put over the temperature graph and extrapolate this best fit curve.
Importantly we must first ask if the standard of the science is fit for purpose or have they allowed standards to slip thanks to in effect self certification by a group headed by people with things other than work as their priorities for selecting subordinates. A factor we now know even from information available in the public domain, let alone the not hacked but carelessly released information available for some time.

What would it take to make me believe in climate change?
For me it would be to make the climate scientist have to pass the quality control assessment that any engineering product would have to. Ideally to the standards of life critical applications, given that climate taxation causes at least a hundred deaths a year of old people for every one that Harold Shipman murdered and that made headlines here.
The projection of normal climate used by climate scientists is based on methods that became obsolete three hundred years ago.
The measuring stations make no attempt to get annual certification of both instrumentation and environment. Where reference quality data is available as in the USCRN this is not also compared with the equivalent data from the used network and the difference added to the uncertainty figures.The raw data is never displayed alongside the “adjusted “data and compared with best and worst predictions as would have been demanded by our QA team.
As to the computer model failings. What are the known factors affecting weather and are all of these present properly in climate modelling? If not then add this to the uncertainty.
Does the computer model include all natural CO2 both biological and geological in the model and does this model produce better than 95% correlation with “unadjusted” data until recently when claimed warming exists.

98. harrytwinotter says:

• richardscourtney says:

harrytwinotter

Is anyone keeping track of which points have been refuted so far?

Yes, I have.

Incidentally, none of the points in Lord Monckton’s article have been refuted so far.

The total of refutations is none, zero, zilch, nada. I hope that is as clear as the factual and accurate points made by Lord Monckton in his above article.

Richard

• harrytwinotter says:

I have enough time to have a crack at a couple. I usually ignore Gish Gallops as they are too easy for someone to write, and take forever to rebut point by point – that is the point.

“Step 1. Is global warming exceeding natural climate variability?”

I suspect this is a poorly-framed question. But the chart is a cherry-pick that ignores the other global temperature datasets that show warming and no zero trend. That large el nino spike throws off the trend calculations. I can pick later years than 1998 and show a warming trend.

“Step 3. Are we all guilty of increasing CO2 concentration?”

Yes we are. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 30-40% since pre-industrial.

“Step 4. Is CO2 concentration rising to dangerous new levels?”

Yes, the rise in CO2 is causing global warming. The chart shown is meaningless, very brave to compare 600 million years to the last 250 years. Also the chart does not take into account the fact that the sun has become hotter in the last 600 million years.

• richardscourtney says:

harrytwinotter

It is obvious that my attempt at clarity failed because you have not understood that there have been no refutations of any of the points made by Lord Monckton in the above article.

The lack of refutations is why you cite no refutations.

Indeed,you are so sure Lord Monckton’s for Point 1 is right that you try to discuss something else and use as an excuse for doing that your assertion

I suspect this is a poorly-framed question.

And you follow that with statistical nonsense.

Your response to Step 3 says in full

Yes we are. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 30-40% since pre-industrial.

Such argument by assertion is also nonsense.

Nobody disputes that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by the slight amount of from ~280 to ~400 ppm. At issue is the CAUSE of that rise.

I refer you to one of our 2005 papers
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).

The study provides six models of carbon cycle behaviour with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of the models matches the available empirical data from Mauna Loa (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ) without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.

So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.

Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above demonstrates that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause are

(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,

but

(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.

Hence, it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.

It is perhaps interesting to note that the IPCC has also reported that it is not known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR) says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.

And your response to Point 4 is plain daft. It says in total

“Step 4. Is CO2 concentration rising to dangerous new levels?”

Yes, the rise in CO2 is causing global warming. The chart shown is meaningless, very brave to compare 600 million years to the last 250 years. Also the chart does not take into account the fact that the sun has become hotter in the last 600 million years.

The issue is “dangerous new levels”. There is nothing to suggest that the CO2 is reaching “dangerous new levels” because there were no known harmful effects when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now.

The continuing increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration has NOT resulted in any global warming this century so it is NOT true that “CO2 is causing global warming” although it may have in the past (e.g. the last century).

It is not “brave” to “compare 600 million years to the last 250 years” when demonstrating the present CO2 level is very low compared to the known history of CO2 concentrations in the absence. The presentation is something called ‘evidence’ and you really need to discover what evidence is.

Your point about the Sun increasing its heating is true. Indeed, the solar radiance has increased by ~30% since the Earth obtained an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The oceans would have boiled to steam if radiative forcing had a direct result on the Earth’s climate temperature. You assert that the ~0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would provide a “dangerous” effect while yourself raising the issue that a ~30% increase in radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effects.

I conclude by giving you some advice.
Your copying talking points from warmunist web sites does not wash in an informed forum such as this. I strongly suggest you do some studying before again making a post because you have made a fool of yourself in this thread. A good starting place for your studies would be the WUWT information pages that provide source data.

Richard

• harrytwinotter says:

richardscourtney,

“Nobody disputes that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by the slight amount of from ~280 to ~400 ppm.”

It’s around a 43% increase – and you call that “slight”.

I conclude by giving you advice: don’t Gish Gallop in your responses. TL;DR

• richardscourtney says:

harrytwinotter:

Oh dear! I took the trouble to correct your errors and offered you some friendly and helpful advice.

You have ignored that advice and continued digging in violation of the First Rule Of Holes. You say

“Nobody disputes that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by the slight amount of from ~280 to ~400 ppm.”

It’s around a 43% increase – and you call that “slight”.

Yes, it is slight and it has been beneficial. The only reason this slight increase is not trivial is because it has been beneficial.

The rise has increased crop yields but has had no other observed effects.

Furthermore, stomata data indicate such rises have been common throughout the holocene (i.e. since the last glaciation). Ice cores don’t indicate such rises because they lack the temporal resolution.

harrytwinotter, your untrue soundbites from warmunist web sites don’t wash in an informed forum such as WUWT.

Richard

99. AlexS says:

Doesn’t matter if we are right.

The Warmists dominate the media- so they dominate the politics and culture.

The culture is obviously Marxism inducing Guilt.

100. Daniel says:

Monckton LOL, after the Dr, Pinker case? you will hardly convince anyone of anything, how is the alleged cure for MS and HIV going?

101. Daniel says:

• M Courtney says:

This is a good example of how not to persuade people.

Playing the man not the ball. There is no attempt to address the science – because he’s right, of course.

If Dr. Soon was irrelevant he would be ignored. But instead there are insults and scorn poured forth like torrents of fear-fuelled diuretics in the general direction of the man.

They know he’s right, of course.

• Daniel says:

“like torrents of fear-fuelled diuretics in the general direction of the man.”

like claiming Scinetists are liars?`Climate modelers are teenagers playing on their XBox?
calling young people that are interested in AGW mitigation “Hitleryouth”?

or is it only playing the ball when your opposition does it?

• Daniel says:

man, not ball. :)

• Daniel, Two wrongs don’t make a right. That said, there actually are young people being taught to be the equivalent of Hitler youths, and there are plenty of scientists who lie for money and status.

• Daniel says:

atleast we agree that it was Despicable of Monckton to say thsoe things.

• FrankKarrvv says:

thsoe ; scinetists ? Its confirmed

102. basicstats says:

One way Mr. Bailey and others might strengthen their arguments is to try multiple independent lines of argument, not just the same argument (it’s got hotter) dressed up in multiple different ways. There is an obvious belief that finding different forms of evidence for the planet having become warmer over the past century is very convincing. It does not though provide evidence for CO2 being responsible. It’s actually possible to construct examples (theoretical) where multiple lines of closely related evidence in fact reduce the inductive probability for a theory being true. You need independent lines of argument for CO2 being the climate controller, not multiple, closely related, red herrings.

• Daniel says:

“. You need independent lines of argument for CO2 being the climate controller, not multiple, closely related, red herrings.”

has been provided. the evidence that the main cause for the observed warming since 1950 is the enhanced Greenhosue effect do to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is overwhelming.

you know which line of evidence i talk about, right? what are your objections to those papers?

• M Courtney says:

That they don’t exist.
The rate of warming in the first half of the 20th Century is the same as the second. But CO2 emissions have increased exponentially. Of course, the impact of extra CO2 declines exponentially too but… it’s one very big coincidence. What perfect balance, except in the middle of the 20th century when the temperature dropped a bit.

Far more logical is the null hypothesis: Two things are not related until they are proven to be so. The Pause provides support for the null hypothesis – so why reject it?

• M Courtney says:

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I’m just saying its impact is shown to be negligible compared with all the other forcings.

• Daniel says:

You have no clue what line of evidence and papers i talk about. Right?

• richardscourtney says:

Daniel

You ask of nobody in particular

You have no clue what line of evidence and papers i talk about. Right?

Right, because you have not cited and/or referenced them.

I do know that those “lines of evidence and papers” are not in the IPCC documents.

The IPCC has not published any evidence – none, zilch, nada – of any kind that anthropgenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) exists to as discernible degree.

Personally, I think your assertion of “lines of evidence and papers” for AGW is ‘blowing smoke’. At least one Nobel Prize would be awarded to anybody who found any evidence for discernible AGW: no such evidence has been found by three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost over US\$5 billion per year. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found such evidence but that was soon shown to be a result of his having selected a part of a data set when the entire data set disproved his claim.

Richard

• Daniel says:

“I do know that those “lines of evidence and papers” are not in the IPCC documents.

The IPCC has not published any evidence – none, zilch, nada – of any kind that anthropgenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) exists to as discernible degree.”

lol. really?
actually the papers i talk about have been cited in the IPCC ARs.

i debate so often with people that reject AGW. and they never, not once are able to name me the evidence the scientific community has presented.
i don’t ask them to accept that line of evidence or the papers, just to cited what the scientific community presented as evidence…..

everytime the same.

even on WUWT, where they so often claim to accept AGW and are just Lukewarmers not deniers.

• I see that Daniel asserts that the IPCC has shown that AGW exists.

Care to link to those papers? Keep in mind that models prove nothing. What we keep asking for are measurements that quantify the fraction of global warming attriutable to human CO2 emissions, out of total global warming from all sources.

So post your IPCC papers containing those empirical measurements. Betcha can’t.

• Daniel says:

“I see that Daniel asserts that the IPCC has shown that AGW exists.”

yes they have. you are not even aware of what the scientific community presented as evidence for AGW?

every time the same. one would expect that those that argue agaisnt a consensus position are atleast informed about what scientists presented as evidence.

but you are absolutely clueless?

amazing.

from someone arguing against the consensus position of AGW. i expect that he can list the papers that were provided as evidence and that you are able to point out exactly why you do not regard it as evidence.

but i have not met one that was able to do that. only after i cited the papers they will start moaning that it is not evidence at all, but are not able to explain why. or like in most cases, just disapear …..

• Daniel says:

the evidence that the main cause for the observed warming since 1950 is the enhanced Greenhosue effect do to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is overwhelming.

I challenge you to produce even one empirical, testable measurement quantifying man-made global warming. If you can, you’re right. If you can’t, you’re wrong. Simple as that.

• richardscourtney says:

Daniel:

I pointed out

The IPCC has not published any evidence – none, zilch, nada – of any kind that anthropgenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) exists to as discernible degree.

You have responded saying

lol. really?
actually the papers i talk about have been cited in the IPCC ARs.

i debate so often with people that reject AGW. and they never, not once are able to name me the evidence the scientific community has presented.
i don’t ask them to accept that line of evidence or the papers, just to cited what the scientific community presented as evidence…..

everytime the same.

even on WUWT, where they so often claim to accept AGW and are just Lukewarmers not deniers.

OK. That proves you know the IPCC has not not published any evidence – none, zilch, nada – of any kind that anthropgenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) exists to as discernible degree.

If you knew of any such evidence in the IPCC Reports then you would have cited it instead of arm waving about unspecified “papers” “cited in the IPCC ARs”.

Incidentally, I am very, very familiar with the contents of all the IPCC ARs and it is obvious that you have not read any of them.

Oh, and it is you – not me – who fails to “name … the evidence the scientific community has presented”. l cite papers all the time. Try this one
Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ, ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’, Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990).

Its abstract says

The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.

Subsequent research has confirmed the finding that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide lag changes in temperature by months but the length of the lag varies with latitude.

Perhaps you can explain how a cause can follow its effect by months in the absence of a time machine. Surely, your “papers” “cited in the IPCC ARs” provide that explanation.

Richard

• [Snip. No more ad hominem attacks. ~mod.]

• Warren, if you have ever asserted an hypothesis and assembled evidence for it on here, I missed it.

I’m not saying you didn’t but, if you did, could you please cut and paste it in this current thread please ?

If you didn’t ever (on here) could you formulate one, and make it falsifiable per accepted scientific practice.

• warrenbot:

Sonny, I will accept any and all empirical, testable, verifiable evidence that shows a measurement quantifying MMGW: the fraction of total global warming attributable to the fraction of global warming from human emissions.

No insults there. Simply produce a measurement of MMGW — IF you can. I’ve asked for such a measurement for years now. So far, you are long on assertions, but short on evidence. You have never provided a single measurement. You talk the talk, but you can’t walk the walk.

Finally, as a scientific skeptic I do not have to propose a hypothesis. I do not have to produce any evidence. The onus is 100.0% on YOU to produce those things. But as usual, you try to weasel out of it, for the simple reason that you are incapable of producing any measurements.

Thus, everything you assert is nothing more than a baseless conjecture.

Prove me wrong: post your measurements — if you can. Otherwise, you lose the debate. And we already know which side is winning this debate.

You can go home now. John Cook is waiting for you.

• Daniel says:

indeed. cast doubt is the only goal here.

• Daniel says:

“one empirical, testable measurement quantifying man-made global warming. If you can, you’re right. If you can’t, you’re wrong. Simple as that.”

you think complex system science is that easy?
no wonder you are so confused.
you will not learn that here.

• In one sentence you demonstrate that you know nothing of the Scientific Method.

Skeptics have nothing to prove. But you keep trying to paint skeptics into that corner.

You are just not smart enough to do that.

• Daniel,

With your last comment you forfeit the debate. This issue isn’t complicated at all. Well, maybe to you it is.

Science is all about measurements. If you have measurements quantifying something like the fraction of global warming due to human emissions, then everyone is satisfied. You will be the first to have produced those measurements, and on the short list for the next Nobel prize.

But without measurements, you are just speculating. Making baseless, unquantified assertions. Emitting opinions. Making unfalsifiable conjectures.

In other words, everything you’re doing is 100% unscientific. It is pseudo-science, with a thin veneer of sciencey-sounding assertions. That’s clown talk.

Without simple measurements, you fail. Big time. You are asking folks to believe that unicorns human emissions cause global warming. But you have zero measurements.

You’re a noob; you really need to get up to speed on the Scientific Method.

• Skeptics have nothing to prove. But you keep trying to paint skeptics into that corner. As I pointed out, you are not nearly smart enough to do that. And yes, I am a scientific skeptic — one who is solidly thrashing your pseudo-science.

If I propose a conjecture or a hypothesis, that becomes my onus to defend. But note that MMGW is your conjecture. See the difference? Probably not.

For open minded readers this explains it:

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

As to the hypothesis that CO2 produced by humans is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so.

The onus is on you, pal. MMGW is your conjecture. You’re just whining because scientific skeptics like me have so thoroughly debunked it. You cannot mount a credible defense, so you attack me. No problem, I can easily handle a dozen of you. I have facts and evidence. But all you have is your eco-religion.

• warrenlb says:

@PhilinCalifornia.
Here you go:
My hypothesis is that of all peer-reviewed science — ‘Earth is warming, Man is the cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative.’ Supported by overwhelming evidence as compiled in 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers, summarized by the IPCC, and at climate.nasa.gov. Or you can go to the website of the NAS, the AAAS, or any of the World’s Science Academies. But I doubt you’ll do that, since in your prior posts you’ve indicated you reject all peer-reviewed science on AGW.

• warrenlb April 10, 2015 at 2:44 pm
@PhilinCalifornia.
Here you go:
My hypothesis is that of all peer-reviewed science — ‘Earth is warming, Man is the cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative.’ Supported by overwhelming evidence as compiled in 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers, summarized by the IPCC, and at climate.nasa.gov. Or you can go to the website of the NAS, the AAAS, or any of the World’s Science Academies. But I doubt you’ll do that, since in your prior posts you’ve indicated you reject all peer-reviewed science on AGW.

I think I managed to follow that gobbledegook somehow.

My falsifiable hypothesis is as follows:

In all of the literature described above by warrenlb, there does not exist a falsifiable hypothesis for AGW, CAGW, ACC, CACC, dangerous AGW or dangerous CC. Furthermore, in neither all of the literature described above by warrenlb nor in the entire body of science written in the entire history of humanity that he may have missed, does there exist unequivocal evidence that atmospheric CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has caused any measurable change in any global climate parameter.

• Daniel says:

“This issue isn’t complicated at all. ”

it evidently is for you guys.

103. “What Evidence,” asks Ronald Bailey’s headline (www.reason.com, April 3, 2015), “Would Convince You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

The first thing would be answering the question in reverse: what, if observed, would lead to the conclusion that the so-called theory of man-made climate change is false? Because until you can answer that, you aren’t making testable predictions. And until you’re making testable predictions you’re not doing science.

• thewriter,

Get a grip. The job of skeptics is not to prove anything. The onus is entirely on the ones making the man-made global warming conjecture, to produce convincing evidence that it exists.

They have failed completely: there isn’t a single measurement quantifying MMGW. And skeptics have nothing to prove.

• warrenlb says:

You assert this preposterous argument because you have nothing to SAY or CONCLUDE about the behavior of the atmosphere–so you get off the hook by saying ‘not my job’. You’d last less than 10 seconds in any half decent peer-review or thesis defense.

• “Preposterous argument”?? That’s how it works, son. Someone makes a conjecture or a hypothesis, and the job of skeptics is to deconstruct it if they can. Whatever remains standing after the smoke clears is accepted as current theory. If we did things your way, by skeptics having to prove a negative, we would be back in witch doctor territory.

You are just whining because skeptics have done such an excellent job of debunking the runaway global warming scare. But we didn’t do it alone. We had help from Mother Earth. She stopped global warming many years ago, which confounds the alarmist cult to this day.

• Warren, there is no evidence for any change in any global climate parameter as CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm that can be unequivocally attributed to said rise in CO2 levels. A scientist is not obliged to make things up in order to pass peer review or pass a thesis defense.

• warrenlb says:

Not your son. You might be mine, although I’d not admit to it.

• warrenlb says:

You’re been in Witch doctor territory for some time, Stealey.

• warrenlb,

Ooh! You insulted me! WAH! I’m gonna demand that a moderator ban you! Bad boy!

See, it works both ways, son.

• Warren, DB must find you attractive, since he seems to follow you around a lot.

In that case, Bird Dog, you must be flat out in love with me.

Of course, you are wrong as usual. Most of the time the warrenbot is also bird-dogging my comments — far more often than I respond to his. You could look it up.

So as usual, psychological ‘projection’ is the tactic of the alarmist clique: imputing your own faults onto others.

I remind you once again that you came out of nowhere a couple weeks ago, and started bird-dogging my posts in a most unfriendly manner. I tried several times to hold out an olive branch, because I saw no reason for your attacks.

But since you kept it up, you get it back doubled and squared:

Treat me good, I’ll treat you better. Treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse.

• I was replying to Warren.

No, bud, you were being deliberately unfriendly again for no reason. You clicked on “In reply to dbstealey”. And you used my intitials: DB. You were replying to me, as usual. You follow me around the threads like a chihuahua.

You’re deliberately being a pain in the butt. You have accused people here, including our host of cheating to win the Weblog Awards, you never offer anything constructive, you ignore links posted to help answer your questions, you argue incessantly, you bird-dog my comments and accuse me of ‘following’ you around when that’s what you’ve done from the start, you run interference like any garden variety troll, you project all your own faults onto others, and no one but my adopted son agrees with you. I’d tell you to get a life, but I think this is your life. That’s pretty pathetic, no?

• Any evidence that man-made climate change was real would convince me that man-made climate change was real.

The fact that there’s zero evidence after 40 years and after a longer-term increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, is more than a teeny weeny problem, eh ?

• Yeah right – vast clouds of immeasurable bullsh!t trump actual measurements.

…. only in lousy scientist-land. Thank you for raising your hand re. the lousy scientist issue.

• warrenlb says:

He’s the premier example why metrology lab techs make lousy scientists

warrenbot ha sunk so low that he trashes an entire profession because he’s being out-argued every time he pops his head out.

Whack-A-Mole!

104. cainthaler says:

Your estimates of transmission conservation are way too low. High power transmission per electrical engineering friend is in the 90% range.

Efficiency of an electric vehicle is probably in the range of high 30% to low 40%, well above a gas engine.

My understanding though is that gas engines are becoming way more efficient and there are some papers working on attaining 50%.

105. The cost of electricity is 1/3 – 1/4 of gas per mile driven which contradicts the fuel cost calculation above. Electric utilities not only can be more efficient in generating power from oil but they can utilize other sources of evergy that are less costly. The result is the benefit from driving an electric car is increased substantially making them actually substantially cheaper than ICE cars/mile today even when you consider battery costs and assume a similar maintenance cost to ICEs which is unlikely to be the case.

I otherwise agree substantially with everything else the post has to say. The likely tcs in my opinion is likely to be less than 1C for a doubling of co2. It could even be 0C. We can’t place a lower bound until we understand more about oceans and clouds and interaction with the sun and earth mantle etc. however we can say that under very powerful stimulation essentially a 50% gain in co2 the climate system has moved since 1945 by at most 0.3C and this is likely to have been caused by a combination of factors that makes the contribution of co2 half or less the total temp rise. This means tcs is likely 0.3C or less. A 50% rise in co2 should have caused already 70% or more of the total rise we will get from a doubling of co2 because co2 operates logarithmically. We have already gotten most of the rise we should expect from a doubling. The amount of temp gain we can get from another 150ppm of co2 cannot be more than 0.3 and is more likely 0.1c or so.

• Hello Logic,

First, I like the concept of electric cars, and have for a decade or more. I think they will be an economic success as battery technology continues to improve – I hope so.

Several years ago, I proposed that a distributed “super-battery”” might be practical by leaving electric cars programmed and plugged in during the day, and this super-battery could help to make renewables like grid-connected wind power economically competitive – which they are NOT at this time.

My problem with electricity may seem petty, but here it is:

In my Alberta location, it costs about 5 to 7 cents per kWh to produce electricity, typically from coal or natural gas generating systems.

However, my household electricity bill is tripled by various distribution and administrative charges. How much does your electricity cost per kWh, all-in at your location, and how do your above numbers work in this case?

I expect that, in the future, more and more companies and even individuals will opt off the grid and produce their own electricity from natural gas using new-tech generating systems.

Regards, Allan

• Larry in Texas says:

If those new-tech generating systems can produce enough electricity with maximum efficiency, I’d be all for that. Even though I am NOT a big fan of electric cars. I don’t know how much it costs for the utility that serves my part of Texas pays to produce electricity; all I can tell you is that I pay a monthly average of anywhere from \$0.10 – \$0.12/kWh for my electricity right now, in large part because the Obama administration has not yet imposed its carbon dioxide regulations (which will, like in Europe, triple the cost of electricity for the average household in no small part because of all of the alternative energy subsidies that have been and will be given to the unproductive wind and solar power sectors) and because we have been fortunate to still have a market for natural gas that is abundant and relatively cheap. I suspect that the energy policies of the Canadian government have something to do with your high electric bill as well, but I won’t presume it – yet.

106. James Ard says:

Here here, Lord Monckton! Bailey has had it coming for a long time, and Reason should reconsider having a token climate warming, change, disruption propagandist on their staff.

107. Well, many climate skeptics cannot be convinced that they are wrong just because they were already paid by the extracting industry to combat any development of the renewable energy sector,
Sadly, even the governments of some of the developed countries (Australia), have chosen to use coal as the main energy source in the future.

• Dave claims

Well, many climate skeptics cannot be convinced that they are wrong just because they were already paid by the extracting industry to combat any development of the renewable energy sector,

However, ALL Big-Government-paid Government “scientists” ARE PAID 100% of their salaries, lab budgets, travel, research budgets, and energy budgets to promote Big Government’s, Big Academic, and Big Finance’s need for 30 trillion in carbon futures trading and 1.3 trillion in new carbon taxes!

• u.k.(us) says:

Lie is a big word.
Misinformed might work better.
Unless you are looking for a duel.

• lee says:

Misstatement of fact works well.

• richardscourtney says:

u.k.(us) and lee:

Yes, “lie is a big word” but its use by RACookPE1978 was true and accurate.

Why be ‘mealy-mouthed’ when confronted with such outrageous and deliberate falsehood as was posted by Dave?

Richard

• @Dave.
Note that the only recourse these individuals (the sk**s) have is to accuse all the World’s Institutions of Science (which conclude AGW) of being corrupt or in a conspiracy to defraud the public. That’s IT. They have nothing else. It’s a pretty sad bunch.

• Reg Nelson says:

I don’t know if they are corrupt, but certainly they are incompetent. Every single prediction they have made has turned out wrong, for well over 30 years. And that’s all that I am concerned about.

Show me one model that has successfully predicted the Global temperature over any length of time and then we can have a discussion about science. And if you can’t, then the theory is wrong. That’s how science and the scientific method work.

108. warrenlb says:

Actually false. Show me one prediction made by the IPCC that DIDN’T turn out to be understated. What you’ve posted is a MYTH, repeated so often on this forum that no one remembers its completely false.

• Actually true, warrenbot:

Almost every prediction has been OVERSTATED. And your batting average remains at .000; you have been wrong about everything else, too. You’re either lying, or deluded. Maybe both, son.

• db

There are actually two model projections that are close. I’m curious as to what those are.

• warrenboi,

Just because you assert something, means nothing. You’re always making baseless assertions.

• richardscourtney says:

warrenlb:

I am offended that you demand others read the IPCC Assessments when it is very clear that you have not read them your self.

Please desist from this until you have read them yourself because the need to correct your untrue assertions of IPCC statements is becoming tedious.

Richard

• warrenlb says:

@RicahrdSSCoutnry.
You can correct your problem of being offended by simply reading the 4th Assessment discussion of the models, or read the link I posted to WiIliam Nordhaus’s essay on model accuracy. You might clear offending cobwebs by reading these two sources.. And once you think you’ve found something in those two sources that you disagree with, post it for discussion. I agree with the information in both, but you apparently do not. So cite what you disagree with

• richardscourtney says:

wearrenlb

You say to me

You can correct your problem of being offended by simply reading the 4th Assessment discussion of the models, or read the link I posted to WiIliam Nordhaus’s essay on model accuracy.

As I explained to you on another thread here,

I have studied every word of every IPCC Report. I provided expert peer review of two of the IPCC Scientific Reports, and the IPCC asked me to review two others but I rejected those requests because the IPCC had used my name while ignoring my critiques of the Reports I had reviewed.

The AR4 was one of the Reports for which I provided expert peer review.

When you have read the AR4 then, and only then, will I discuss your untrue assertions about its contents.

You don’t want to correct your ignorance of model performance but those who want to know about it can read my assessment
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)

and that of Kiehl which finds the same as my analysis but assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).

Please stop wasting space on WUWT threads with your untrue assertions that you cannot substantiate when called on them.

Richard

• Reg Nelson says:

Which IPCC report predicted the 18 year pause?

I would be grateful if you can provide a link. The burden of proof is on you not me. That’s how science works.

But to prove you wrong here you go:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Figure 9 on page xxiu

Figure 9: Simulations of the increase in global mean temperature from 1850-1990 due to observed increases in greenhouse gases, and
predictions of the rise between 1990 and 2100 resulting from the IPCC Scenario B,C and D emissions, with the Busmess-as Usual case
for comparison.

The “Best As Usual Scenario” which we have exceeded in terms of CO2 emissions, predicted as rise in temperature of over 1 C for the time period 1989 to 2015. There has been no increase in temperature during that period.

• Michael 2 says:

Reg Nelson says “Which IPCC report predicted the 18 year pause?”

It is a matter of curiosity only; what wasn’t known THEN was which one was correct. In retrospect it is easy to pick one that is “less wrong” but whether it will continue to be “less wrong” seems uncertain.

One of my favorite magic tricks has a guy hiding money under many things in a room. He then asks a volunteer to choose something in the room and he’s going to mentally suggest to the volunteer what to pick, it has money under it.

Upon choosing something, the magician picks it up and behold, there’s the money! Good guessing! That there’s also money under everything else in the room isn’t explored.

• richardscourtney says:

Michael 2:

A set of, say 4, different investment plans is devised.
Each investment plan is sent to, say 4000, random people.
At a later date one (or more) of the plans has provided a very good return.

Those who were sent the ‘successful’ plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with another investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 1000 people each obtains one of these second plans.

Again, at a later date one (or more) of the second plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ second plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with a third investment plan. These new investment plans are another 4 different investment plans so 4 groups each of 250 people each obtain one of them.

Yet again, at a later date one (or more) of the third plans has provided a very good return.
Those who were sent the ‘successful’ third plan are now sent a report of its ‘success’ together with an offer to invest \$10,000 in the next investment plan which uses the astonishingly accurate prediction method that has apparently been successful three times without fail.

If 100 of the 250 targeted people invests then the scammers gain an income of \$1,000,000.

This is, in fact, the same ploy as is used when the ‘best’ climate modes are selected after the event.

Richard

• richardscourtney says:

Ooops! In my post that is waiting in the bin I wrote
“This is, in fact, the same ploy as is used when the ‘best’ climate modes are selected after the event.”

Of course I intended to write
“This is, in fact, the same ploy as is used when the ‘best’ climate models are selected after the event.”

Sorry. I was not writing about fashion models.

Richard

• donaitkin

On Greenland ice, readers will enjoy the story of the missing squadron, here:

The unexplained issue is: If Greenland’s icecap is losing so million billions and billions of tons of ice every year, how did these very, very light aircraft with very wide flat wings (that allow the plane to “float on” (not sink into!) ice), get covered by over 250 feet of “new”: ice in only 50 years?

• Michael 2 says:

“If Greenland’s icecap is loosing so million billions and billions of tons of ice every year, how did these very, very light aircraft with very wide flat wings (that allow the plane to “float on” (not sink into!) ice), get covered by over 250 feet of “new”: ice in only 50 years?”

Obviously the ice is melting from the *bottom* while new ice is forming at the top.

• Michael 2

Obviously the ice is melting from the *bottom* while new ice is forming at the top

Conceivably true for a small, very heavy dense object with very, very high heat conductivity (an anvil for example) set on top of an icefield; but invalid for an empty, very light object with almost no wing loading such as an out-of-fuel, unarmed WWII fighter.

109. Bobl says:

Lord M,
Hope you get down this far, whenever claims like this are made you need to check causality.

1. By my calculation, melting of 215E14 kg of ice over 2.1 million square km requires 1.13 Watts per square meter 24 hours a day 365 days a year, even when the atmosphere is below freezing. If we assume that melting can only occur over say 33 % of the year when the air temperature is above zero accounting for night time below zero temps and winter then the power requirement when it IS melting is 3 times that at 3.42 Watts per square meter Since the forcing is only 0.6W, the melting is non causal, that is it does not satisfy the law of conservation of energy. Beside if ice is absorbing all the 0.6W there can be no energy accumulating in the atmosphere for warming, how then can melting be happening, one must also consider that snow and ice refects radiant energy so some portion of the CO2 emission toward the ground gets reflected back into space and the melting is not 100% energy efficient.

2. Let’s look at that rainfall claim of an average of 2″ a year or 50mm, that is an increase of 50kg per square meter which would require extra evaporation of 2250e3 x 50 = 1.12e8 joules per square meter per annum, if we divide by the 31566926 seconds in a year we get the power requirement in joules per second (ie: watts) = 3.56 watts per square meter which is about 6 x the imbalance energy attributed to CO2 therefore this rainfall estimate is also violating energy conservation. Once again, if all the warming energy is absorbed in evaporating water there can be no warming of the atmosphere to evaporate the water so the energy requirement is even higher than that, also evaporation doesn’t happen over the entire earth, as you constrain the area evaporation is sourced from then the kg per square meter to get the additional average rainfall must rise ( for example if the evaporation were sourced from 75% of the earths surface then the evaporation must be 66kg per square meter to deliver that 2″ average rainfall increase over the full surface). The energy also can’t be in two places at once, indeed if evaporation (rainfall) has increased by 50mm per square meter then the extra evaporation MUST be cooling the earth by -3 odd Watts per square meter minimum.

Let’s combine the claims, the implication here is that the snow is meting AND there is 50 kg or more of evaporation per square meter over greenland, so the power requirement is 3.42 + 3.56 = 6.98 call it 7 watts per square meter; thats twice ALL the backradiation from CO2 let alone just the difference between backradiation from 270PPM and backradiation from 400PPM which must be some fraction of that (Hansen says 0.6W). The power requirement of these claims is MORE THAN TEN TIMES the power claimed to be causing it.

Your arguments while excellent are unnecessary, this garbage can just be put down by checking their energy requirement.

110. Warren Latham says:

Three months ago, Christopher as lead author, together with co-authors Dr. Willie W-H. Soon and David R. Legates and William M. Briggs had their paper published by “Springer” (springer.com and also scibull.com) the Chinese Science Bulletin.
For the benefit of those who have not yet seen it I attach here the relevant, thirty-six (36) minute part, of the interview given by Christopher on that day, to Alex Jones of the digital broadcasting channel “InfoWars” of 12th. January in Texas, U. S. A..
I should point out that Christopher was the one who ALSO warned us about “biodiversity” (a new word which seems only to be employed by governments and tax-gobbling “quangos” for spending other people’s money) and yes, you can see the vast waste of our money by reading the Final Report of July 2010 to eaga Charitable Trust written by Ian Preston and Vicki White of the so-called Centre for Sustainable Energy (Bristol) and also Pedro Guertler of the so-called Association for the Conservation of Energy (London) in the report headed “Distributional Impacts of UK Climate Change Policies”. You will be amazed and mistyfied by it all … then, after all that, and when you read the very last two paragraphs of the eighty-nine (89) page report you will be screaming at their highly pontificated arrogance. (Oh yes and … I wonder who paid for it all ?) Hmmmm and that’s only the tip of the …………

111. chrisyu says:

Of course manmade climate change is real. No not joking. If I stand outside and light a match I have changed the climate. Yes, the change is so infinitesimally small that it cannot be measured, but change it did. So the question is really what is the magnitude and consequences of manmade climate change. And in the answer is where all the ambiguity and uncertainty of the climate change disagreement occurs.

112. Jake J says:

Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.

Um, not even close. Sorry.

1. Most gasoline engines run at a thermal efficiency of 20-22%, not 27%. From time to time, you’ll see higher claims, but the average is what I stated.

2. The average U.S. thermal efficiency in electricity generation is 43%. Coal and uranium generate 58% of our electricity at 33% efficiency. Another 2-1/2% comes from petroleum and burning of municipal waste and wood, also at 33% efficiency. Natural gas is 28% of the generating mix, at 41% efficiency. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal comprise the remaining 11-1/2%, at 100% efficiency (“thermal efficiency” is a tough concept for the renewables — I use 100% because these methods don’t use any fuel input)

3. Electricity transmission loss is 6.5%, not 33%. We don’t know how much energy is used to ship gasoline from refineries to gas stations. When I consider the issue, I set them equal and therefore cancel out this factor.

4. An electric car converts 75%-80% of the energy at the plug to power to the wheels. Thus 43% (x) 77.5% = 33% thermal efficiency. This makes an EV 1.57 times as thermally efficxient as a gas car

5. Now, here’s the kicker: An EV will go 3-1/2 times as far as a gas car will on the same amount of energy. I have directly observed this with my own EV. This makes an EV about 5-1/2 times as efficient as a gas car.

CO2 emissions from domestic transport account for 24% of UK CO2 emissions, and cars, vans, and taxis represent 90% of road transport (DfT, 2013). Assuming 80% of fuel use is by these autos, they account for 19.2% of UK CO2 emissions. Conversion to electric power, 61% of which is generated by fossil fuels in the UK, would abate 39% of 19.2% (i.e. 7.5%) of UK CO2 emissions. (etc.)

I don’t accept the AGW hypothesis, because I think the data has invalidated the models. So I don’t especially care about CO2 emissions. I don’t have U.K. numbers, but I have looked up similar U.S. numbers. At the national average electric fuel mix, an EV will emit about 40% less CO2 than a gas vehicle will. If the whole vehicle fleet went electric, we’d need about 20% more electricity generation.

Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, the advantage is more than canceled by the very large cost of total battery replacement every few years.

The jury’s still out on the durability of EV batteries. The current rule of thumb is 2,000 charge cycles until you degrade 30%, the typical standard for replacement. In the real world, if that 2,000 cycles is true, then a 24 kWh LEAF battery should last about 120,000 miles. The reality for LEAF batteries seems to be about half that, i.e., 1,000 cycles. But this might be a Nissan-only issue, and it also might be that Nissan’s EVs are mainly leased, which gives owners no incentive to follow the most prudent recharging techniques.

The average EV in the U.S. is driven 8,000 miles a year, which would make replacement a 7-1/2 to 15 year affair. Myself, I’m expecting 100,000 miles, which would entail battery replacement at about the 20-year mark.

I’m not an “EVangelist.” In fact, I regularly get in pissing matches with the EVangelists, because I insist on being truthful and factual about every aspect of them. (Side note: I own an EV not to save the planet, but because I’m a typical car nut. I was curious, and when one became available cheap I snapped it up.) I think there are definite problems that must be solved if EVs are ever to become mainstream. In particular, batteries are far, far too expensive, and not nearly energy-dense enough.

That said, I do think that vehicles will eventually be battery powered — all of them. It’ll take a long longer than the EVangelists think it will — at least 50 years, I think — but I do think it will happen, because I think there will be lots of returns to battery research. And it will be a very welcome development. Not because of the CO2 nonsense, but because extraction of oil causes other environmental harm. And burning it in gas engines is wasteful. Even more radically, I also think that, at least in the United States, we’re going to see a revolution in alternative energy, starting in the ’20s. The catalyst will be the cheap, utility-scale molten metal battery that now appears to be in its finishing stages. This will make wind and solar become dispatchable, and that will make all the difference.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29284934

I have mixed feelings about what I see just over the horizon, especially as it regards wind. The turbines are ugly and noisy, but they are also quite cheap. And we’re going to have a few million of them.

113. Bernie Hutchins says:

Jake – you said:

“……5. Now, here’s the kicker: An EV will go 3-1/2 times as far as a gas car will on the same amount of energy. I have directly observed this with my own EV. …”

Sounds very unlikely! Trick question – like you only drive your EV downhill? Since you were going into details to explain most everything else you said, I was expecting some explanation. Do you know or suspect the reason – if this IS true.

• Jake J says:

Sounds very unlikely! Trick question – like you only drive your EV downhill? Since you were going into details to explain most everything else you said, I was expecting some explanation. Do you know or suspect the reason – if this IS true.

No, I don’t only drive my EV downhill. And I am death on people who make up numbers, which is why ax-grinders of all kinds tend to get pissed off at me pretty fast. Anyway, it is always a challenge to know how much detail to go into, especially when I’m late to a comment thread and don’t know whether anyone will even read it. But you asked, so I will answer.

The EPA does fuel economy estimates for all cars. Early on, they were rightly criticized for overly optimistic numbers. That’s no longer the case. Their numbers are pretty good these days. If you go to the site, you can do comparisons. Example: Smart gas car, 32 mpg. Smart EV, 107 mpg-e. (MPG-e is a conversion, based on about 33-34 kWh = 1 gallon of gas.) That’s 3.3x the efficiency for the same car, electric vs. gas. It’s quite typical, and it matches my own experience with the EV that I own.

The reason? Well, I’m not an engineer, but it seems pretty obvious that a gas car sends a lot of energy out the tailpipe and in the forms of noise and vibration, while an EV sends very little outside. This is why EVs do so much worse in winter: They need to run the heater off the battery, and it reduces fuel economy. Depending on how cold it is, the results can be dramatic.

My EV’s best performance in 2-1/2 years was last August 30, at 140 mpg-e. The worst was January 27, 2013, at 66 mpg-e. And that’s in Seattle, where a winter day is cold if it’s much below freezing. Drive one of these things in Chicago, Minneapolis, Montreal, or Fargo, and it’ll be much worse. The one thing I will say is that, at least with my EV, the heater is great. Much quicker than the heater in a gas car, and operates at a lower % of the highest setting after it’s warmed up.

If you have other questions, I’m glad to answer them. By the way, I own two other vehicles at the moment. One is a gigantic diesel one-ton pickup (do a lookup on a 2013 RAM 3500 Laredo), and the other is a 2004 Volkswagen Phaeton with the 12-cylinder engine. I say this not to brag about the vehicles, although they are pretty awesome, but rather to try to establish my credentials as not being some sort of “EVs will save the earth” moron. Trust me, I don’t do cults.

• Jake J says:

I had another thought. A casual reader might say I double counted EV efficiencies by using the gas car comparison twice. But I didn’t double count, and here’s why.

If the thermal efficiency of U.S. electricity production is approximately 43%, and translates to 33% in an EV due to losses between the plug and the wheels, and this is 1.57x the thermal efficiency of a gas vehicle, something is easy to overlook and hard for a non-specialist like me to explain because I lack the engineering vocabulary.

When you produce electricity at a thermal efficiency of 43%, you are left with energy that can be used for all the things we do with electricity. Those things have efficiencies of their own. An EV, as a system, is about 78% efficient. Once you’ve used it, then there’s no more energy to use in the car. It was converted to other energy that’s no longer available to you.

Comparing this to a gas car, once you’ve driven the car, you’re done, energy wise. You used 21% of it to drive the car, and the other 79% is in the atmosphere. Frankly, I probably should’ve incorporated the thermal efficiency of an oil refinery (90%) and deducted that from the car’s efficiency, and started at 90% (x) 21%, and compared a gas car system — including the manufacture of the fuel it uses — at 18% to an EV’s thermal efficiency of 33%. This would make the EV with fuel 1.83x as thermally efficient as the gas car.

At that point, you then compare how far the energy that the two vehicles carry onboard will carry the vehicles, and throw it into the total mix. The EV will carry people 3.3x to 3.5x as far (there have been some incremental improvements in some of the EVs, so some of them have gotten a little more fuel efficient). Take mid-point estimates, and do some rounding: 1.8 (x) 3.4 = 6.12, which translates into an EV having six times the fuel economy as the equivalent gas car.

Either way — 5 times, 5-1/2 times, 6 times — it’s a big gap. Leaving politics and this bogus AGW hypothesis aside, I really don’t think you’d find many people who’d defend using gasoline as an energy source if something else was as practical. The real advantage of gasoline is its energy density, and that’s it’s still pretty cheap. Take either of those advantages away, and it’s done.

• Bart says:

I do believe that hybrid vehicles are triumphs of technology, and all-electric vehicles make sense in an urban environment. I am just against subsidizing them, and providing power to them by “renewables” which are not as environmentally friendly as portrayed, and could not, themselves, compete without subsidies.

Anyway, the problem I have with the statement, “An EV will go 3-1/2 times as far as a gas car will on the same amount of energy”, has more to do with its imprecision. I.e., which gas car? Because, I have driven hybrid vehicles as rentals and was frankly underwhelmed by the acceleration. In my opinion, an apples-to-apples comparison would be with a very weakly powered ICE.

114. Bernie Hutchins says:

Jake – thanks

I was particularly concerned that you tacked that 3.5 on after the 1.57.

If this is the same weight/speed/etc. than that is interesting.

Oh – it’s certainly not the sound. Almost no energy there.

You quoted: “(MPG-e is a conversion, based on about 33-34 kWh = 1 gallon of gas.) ” I’m not sure that means that if you have a gallon of gas, you can charge 33-34 kWh into a battery?

• Jake J says:

I was particularly concerned that you tacked that 3.5 on after the 1.57.

I have struggled with this myself. It’s not the numbers that are hard, but the concepts are unfamiliar so it’s easy for an honest inquirer to still get it wrong. Yeah, I know, it’s the Internet, and we’re never wrong!

You quoted: “(MPG-e is a conversion, based on about 33-34 kWh = 1 gallon of gas.) ” I’m not sure that means that if you have a gallon of gas, you can charge 33-34 kWh into a battery?

The mpg-e conversion expresses the amount of energy contained in a gallon to kWh of electricity. Individuals can’t somehow physically convert one to the other. It’s a theoretical number useful for rendering all this stuff in terms that are familiar to us, and (in particularly) enabling fuel economy comparisons between gas and electric vehicles. I quoted a range of 33-34 kWh because I’ve seen different numbers out there.

A year or two ago, I constructed my own conversion number — 34.8 kWh to the gallon of gas.The reason “my” number is higher is that I did a laborious research project aiming to determine the truth of a claim by EVangelists that it takes 5 to 6 kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gas. I really pored over the Energy Department numbers in a big way. The result was 0.78 kWh of electricity used to make each gallon of gasoline. This is electricity coming from the power grid, or in the form of steam and natural gas external to the crude oil being refined, and then burned to run turbines in a refinery.

I added that to a 34.02 kWh per gallon number that I had obtained at the same time, to get a total of 34.8 kWh = 1 gallon of gasoline. I believe the EPA uses a slightly lower number (33.x), which makes their mpg-e numbers a bit lower than mine. But that’s classic “false precision.” Whether the EV gets 107 mpg-e or 111 mpg-e is, to cite an accounting principle, not material to the analysis. It was worthwhile to get the numbers for the purpose of checking the one claim I mentioned — but whether I use 34.8 kWh to the gallon or 33.x kWh to the gallon is a detail that I mention mainly to illustrate how far I pursued this.

Again, the only ax I have to grind is to say what I honestly think is factual and true. “First you’ve got to get the facts, and then you have to face the facts.”

• Jake J says:

If this is the same weight/speed/etc. than that is interesting.

I’m glad you mentioned that. I absolutely insist on comparing likes to likes. It’s why, in a previous comment here, I looked up a gas-powered Smart and an electric-powered Smart. On EVaneglist sites, I’ve had people make outrageous gas savings claims, only to learn that they were comparing their brand new EV to their 20-year-old 1-ton Ford truck. When I told the guy he was making a false comparison, I became the heretic. One more reason not to bother with Reddit (sigh).

115. Bernie Hutchins says:

Thanks again Jake –

I am only here because I was part of the feedback discussion above, and happened upon your comment down at the bottom. So I appreciate your humoring me, but suspect this is extensively discussed elsewhere prior to you and I. Here is my concern.

(1) Suppose I have a gallon of gas and put it in my car, and lets suppose that gets me out 32 miles. I walk back.

(2) I take a second gallon and put it in my most efficient generator and charge up (from zero) my most efficient equivalent EV. I drive out at the same speed until the battery is exhausted. I then walk home again. I wager the second walk is shorter! Isn’t this so?

Now, mpg is a fine way to compare gas vehicles. Miles/kWhr would be a good way to compare EVs. But – How do we compare gas to EVs? With GREAT difficulty! I think mpg-e is nonsense. How about a common energy unit of miles-per-jelly-donut for both. Seriously, Phil Morrison used jelly-donuts as a unit of energy on an old Nova program. Since you can’t power a gas or and EV from a jelly-donut, you have to eat the donut, get out, and push. Both cars get the same distance (not far!). Level starting comparison. Go from there.

• Jake J says:

Again, we’re at the tag end of a comment thread here, so I face the issue of how much to write. I accept the mpg-e formula, because it’s based on the energy content of gas and electricity, measured in joules. It makes for useful comparisons, but if someone can make a detailed argument to the contrary, my mind is always and forever open to facts and logic.

Interesting about a generator. I’ve actually wondered something similar in a different context. What if I bought a natural gas-powered generator and used to it produce electricity for my house, given that I have natural gas service where I live? I suspect (but don’t know) that a small generator for my house wouldn’t be anywhere close to as efficient as what the utilities use, and that the combination of relative inefficiency and the mechanical wear and tear would make it a horrendously uneconomical option.

If I powered the house generator [with] gasoline, my lizard brain strongly suggests I’d be really screwed
But I’ve never looked at ether set of numbers. As a general idea, I think there are big economies of scale in the utility business, at least as it pertains to the use of extracted fuel to generate power.

• Jake J says:

Oops, I messed up a tag above. I really wish this site had an edit capability.

• Bernie Hutchins says:

Jake – Thanks for your time – will look for you on later threads. -Bernie

116. Proud Skeptic says:

What evidence would make me believe (or at least make me take more seriously) the arguments of climate alarmists?

Simple…if the models were accurate in their predictions that would be tough to refute. But, as we know, that hasn’t happened, has it?

117. Warren Latham says:

“Climate Alarmists turn back the Clock”

Three centuries ago, the world ran on green power. Wood was used for
heating and cooking, charcoal for smelting and smithing, wind or
water-power for pumps mills and ships, and whale oil or tallow for
lamps. People and soldiers walked or rode horses, and millions of horses
and oxen pulled ploughs, wagons, coaches and artillery.

But smoke from open fires choked cities, forests were stripped of
trees, most of the crops went to feed draft animals, and streets were
littered with horse manure. For many people, life was “nasty, brutish
and short”.

Then the steam engine was developed, and later the internal
combustion engine, electricity and refrigeration came along. Green power
was replaced by coal and oil. Carbon energy powered factories, mills,
pumps, ships, trains, and smelters; and cars, trucks and tractors
replaced the work-horses. The result was a green revolution – forests
began to regrow and vast areas of crop-land used for horse feed were
released to produce food for humans. Poverty declined and population
soared.

But new environmental problems emerged. Smoke pollution from burning
cheap dirty coal in millions of open fires, old boilers and smelters
produced massive smog problems in cities like London and Pittsburgh.

The solution was improved technology, sensible pollution-control laws
and the supply of coal gas and coal-powered electricity to the cities.
The air was cleared by “Clean Coal by Wire” at the flick of a switch and
“Piped Coal Energy” at the click of a gas-lighter. In some places use
of hydro, geothermal and nuclear power also helped.

In recent years, however, affluent urban alarmists have declared war
on the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and gas. They claim
it is a pollutant and it causes dangerous global warming.

The pollutant claims are easy to refute.

The worst air pollution in the world today is the Asian smog. Smog is
very visible – but carbon dioxide is a transparent gas that is exhaled
by all living creatures.

Smog is air polluted with particulates and noxious gases – but there
are no particulates or noxious components in carbon dioxide. Therefore
carbon dioxide plays no part in creating smog.

Smog consists of ash particles, unburnt fuels and noxious gases
produced by the inefficient combustion of anything, usually in open
fires or obsolete boilers engines or smelters with no pollution control
equipment. Wind-blown dust, bush and forest fires, blue haze from
forests and drifting volcanic ash add to the smog. Modern coal-fired
power stations with efficient pollution controls do not release
detectable particulates or noxious gases. Bans on dirty combustion and
more clean electricity will clear the smog of Asian cities.

All gases in the atmosphere have an effect on global climate, usually
a moderating one, reducing the intense heat of the midday sun and
reducing the rate of cooling at night. But only in theoretical climate
models does carbon dioxide drive global warming – real evidence

The unrelenting war on carbon fuels has far greater risks, with some
zealots advocating “Zero Emissions”, while also, incredibly, opposing
nuclear and hydro-power. They would take us all back to the BC Era
(before coal).

Already urban environmentalists are polluting city air by burning
wood (“biomass”) and briquetted paper in stoves and home heaters; and
trying to prevent millions in Asia and Africa from getting cheap clean
electricity. Other misguided nations are clearing forests and
transporting low-energy wood chips to burn in distant power stations.
And the high costs of green energy are already forcing some poor people
to burn old books and strip parks and forests for fire-wood.

In addition, crops that once fed people are now making “green”
ethanol to fuel cars, and native forests are being cleared and burnt to
make way for more fuel crops. Our modern “Iron Horses” are eating the
crops again.

The use of carbon fuels in the production, fertilising, transport and
storage of food has been a major factor in allowing the world
population to grow by several billions since the start of the industrial
revolution. If climate alarmists succeed in turning back the clock,
food and energy will again become reserved for the rich and powerful,
and billions of poor people will die of starvation or exposure.

(The above, fifteen paragraphs have been copied directly, without edition, from the article written on 17th. January 2015 by the writer of the website named, “The Carbon Sense Coalition”). The Carbon Sense Coalition give blanket approval for such copying: they simply request that they be informed of such: this copying has been notified to that website writer.

• WestHighlander says:

Warren — just remember that the real intent of the APGWCIC [i.e. Anthropogenic Global Warming Induced Climate Catastrophists] is to impose on the economy and people of the earth World Government — hence the focus on the UN organized IPCC

However — this is just another variant on Socialism — so aptly described by Sir Winston as ” “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Describes the purveyors of the APGWCIC if you ask me

118. Alarmists, convert skeptics to the MMGW scare by following these simple steps — if you can:

Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
Step 4 – Stop the hate.
Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.