Feet of clay: The official errors that exaggerated global warming

Part I: How the central estimate of global warming was exaggerated

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In this new series, I propose to explore the sequence of errors, large and small, through which the climatological establishment has – until now – gotten away with greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity.

The errors have an unholy, cumulative effect, conspiring to bring about an exaggeration that is grievous.

The focus in this series will be on describing each error clearly, so that the commenters who have so vigorously had their say on my earlier descriptions of the current method of determining climate sensitivity can examine them and say whether they think the climatological establishment has come to the right conclusion.

I shall do my best to make it clear when I am describing the official position and when I am describing a proposed alternative view.

By all means criticize me if you think I am wrong about the errors I have identified, or if you think my description of the official position is wrong. But do not hold my feet to the fire for the official position itself: address your criticisms of it to the IPCC secretariat. I am here not to argue for the official position, but rather to raise certain very specific questions about it.

And please read these head posting carefully before you rush to comment. In my last posting, for instance, a commenter wrote that only at a late stage in the follow-up conversation had I introduced the notion that the emission temperature formed part of the basis for determining the reference sensitivity parameter λ0 (see Fig. 2 for an illustration of how the official equation uses this parameter). In fact, the emission temperature had been explicitly determined in the head posting. There is a lot of detail in these postings. Read them carefully.

I shall not be considering the vexed question whether any or all of the errors the climatological establishment have insouciantly perpetrated and then sullenly perpetuated are deliberate, nor the related question of the extent to which certain leading members of that establishment know about the errors but find it socially convenient, politically expedient and, above all, financially profitable to look the other way. I shall merely report the errors as I find them, and invite your comments.

This is Part I of the series. In this first article, I shall describe a rather small error that arises from a consideration that will eventually be seen to have a very large influence on official exaggerations of predicted global warming. You may not think, at this stage, that it is really an error at all. Be patient. As this series unfolds, the full horror of what the climatological establishment has done will be exposed, step by ineluctable step.

Here and throughout the series, temperatures on the absolute or Kelvin scale will be given and anomalies stated in Celsius degrees will be presented as anomalies in Kelvin. Also, for simplicity, the IPCC’s Assessment Reports of 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013 will be labeled AR1-5. The series will concern itself chiefly with equilibrium sensitivity.

Let us begin at the beginning. Almost 40 years ago, Charney (1979, p.2), in a report for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, concluded: “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3 [K], with a probable error of ± 1.5 [K].”

AR1 (p. xxv) concluded that “the models[’] results do not justify altering the previously accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 [K]”, but added that, “Although scientists are reluctant to give a single best estimate in this range, … a value of climate sensitivity of 2.5 [K] has been chosen as the best estimate.”

AR2 (p. 34) and AR5 (p. 16) concurred, though AR5 declined to provide a central estimate.

Later in this series I shall address the remarkable fact that, after almost 40 years and tens of billions in taxpayers’ dollars, the climatological establishment has been unable (or unwilling) to narrow the interval of official global-warming predictions. So broad is the interval of those predictions that the “settled science” of how much global warming our sins of emission may cause is no more “settled” now than it was in 1979.

For now, however, let us focus on central estimates of climate sensitivity. Since there is now broad agreement among official circles that the radiative forcing in response to a CO2 doubling is 3.7 Watts per square meter (an agreement that we shall in due course find unjustifiable, but that is not for today, so we shall accept it for now ad argumentum), the major reason for the large differences between models’ global-warming predictions is the great variation in estimates of temperature feedbacks – the additional forcing that are thought to arise as a result of the direct warming of the atmosphere caused by the original forcing and are expressed in Watts per square meter of the reference warming that triggered them.

Fig. 1 shows that indeed it is differences in feedbacks that are the cause of the broad interval of “settled-science” climate sensitivities. For climate sensitivities on 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K imply unitless temperature-feedback factors f on 0.60 [0.23, 0.73] – an interval that is egregiously inconsistent with the remarkable near-thermostasis of the climate evidenced by the ice-cores over the past 810,000 years (see e.g. Jouzel et al., 2007).

The central feature of Fig. 1, for present purposes, is that the climate-sensitivity response ΔT to various values for the feedback factor f is very far from linear. This non-linearity will crop up again and again as this series unfolds, for the modelers, as will be seen in due course, understand it poorly.

Anyone who has ever built an operational-amplifier circuit intended to operate stably will know that a designed-in maximum feedback factor of not more than 0.1 (or 0.01 if possible) is desirable to ensure that anomalies in componentry, assembly, operation and ambient conditions do not induce unwanted runaway responses. The climate is remarkably stable: global temperatures have varied by little more than 3.3 K either side of the period mean for 810,000 years.

Given this near-perfect thermostasis, it is improbable a priori, and will later in this series be demonstrated to be impossible a posteriori, that true feedback values can fall anywhere in the zone marked “unstable” on the graph. The shaded zone, equivalent to an interval [1.5, 4.5] K for final or equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT, is thus squarely in forbidden territory. But more of that another day.

clip_image002

Fig. 1 The response curve of equilibrium post-feedback climate sensitivity ΔT for feedback factors f on [–0.5, +2.0], showing the singularity at f = 1.0 and the design maximum at f = 0.1 generally adopted by process engineers for electronic circuits intended to perform stably. The shaded region covers the interval 0.60 [0.23, 0.73] of feedback factors f for AR5’s climate sensitivity ΔT on [1.5, 4.5] K, with the central estimate 3.0 K given in Charney (1979).

Back to today, when I am approaching the first little error toe-in-the-water [in passing, you will be delighted to know that the charming Latin adverb for “toe-in-the-water” is pedetemptim].

At present, official climatology tends to take the inter-model mean climate sensitivity as the central estimate of ΔT. However, as Fig. 1 shows, this approach implies a central estimate for the feedback factor f that is a great deal closer to the upper than to the lower bound of the interval of feedback factors f; and it is f that chiefly determines final sensitivity ΔT.

The correct approach, therefore, is to determine the inter-model mean feedback factor f and then to plug that value into the official climate-sensitivity equation (1), illuminated in Fig. 2, to determine the central estimate of final or equilibrium sensitivity.

In the current understanding, the pre-feedback or reference sensitivity determined from the left-hand or feedback part of (1), encompassed by the pale green brace, is 1.16 K. This, too, will turn out to be an exaggeration, but we shall deal with that in future articles.

clip_image004

clip_image006

Fig. 2 Illumination of the official climate-sensitivity equation (1)

From that value and from the predicted upper and lower bounds [1.5, 4.5] K of final or equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT, it is a simple matter to rearrange the official equation to determine via (2) the feedback factors f corresponding with those bounds:

clip_image008

Thus, for ΔT on [1.5, 4.5] K, the feedback factor f falls on [0.23, 0.73]. The multi-model mean value of f will generally be close to the mean of the upper and lower bounds: thus, the central estimate of f will be about 0.48, from which (1) can be used to approximate the proper central estimate of climate sensitivity corresponding to the interval [1.5, 4.5] K, as (3) shows:

clip_image009

Charney’s central estimate ΔT = 3.0 K is more than one-third greater than this. The central estimate ΔT = 2.5 K in AR1, AR2 came closer to the true central estimate, but is still overstated by 12.5%, or one-eighth. As we say in Scotland, mony a mickle mak’s a muckle, and this apparently insignificant exaggeration is the beginning of the sequence of excesses that compound into a very large exaggeration indeed.

What of the vaunted ensembles of expensive models with which the climatological establishment has attempted to overcome the Lorenz constraint (Lorenz, 1963) on the reliable long-term prediction of future climate states that arises from the extreme sensitivity of the evolutionary path of objects such as the climate to very small variations in the initial conditions (AR3, §14.2.2.2)?

For the CMIP3 and CMIP5 model ensembles, the feedback sums c = Σici, expressed in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, are illustrated graphically in AR5, fig. 9.43a, of which an enhanced detail is shown at Fig. 3.

clip_image011

Fig. 3 Feedback sums c = Σici for CMIP5/AR5 and CMIP3/AR4

The published CMIP3 climate sensitivities are 3.3 [2.1, 4.4] K (AR5, p. 820, §9.7.3, for the bounds; AR5, p. 83, box TFE.6, for the central estimate). As Fig. 3 shows, the interval of feedback sums c in the CMIP3 ensemble was 1.93 [1.53, 2.35] W m–2 K–1. The product of the reference sensitivity parameter λ0 = 0.312 K W–1 m2, determined as shown in Fig. 2, and these values of c is the interval 0.60 [0.48, 0.73] of feedback factors f. Then the final-gain factor G = (1 – f)–1, the ratio of final sensitivity ΔT to the reference sensitivity ΔT0, falls on 2.51 [1.91, 3.74], whereupon equilibrium post-feedback climate sensitivity ΔT = ΔT0 G obtained using (1) accordingly falls on 2.9 [2.2, 4.3] K. The bounds are near-coextensive with those of the published CMIP3 equilibrium-sensitivity interval (assuming just a 3% variance in ΔT0 they would be exact), but the published central estimate is shown to have been overstated by about one-eighth.

For the CMIP5 model ensemble for AR5, a similar analysis may be performed. The published CMIP5 equilibrium-sensitivity interval is 3.2 [2.1, 4.7] K (AR5, p. 83, box TFE.6). The interval of feedback sums c was 1.53 [1.00, 2.25] W m–2 K–1. The product of the reference sensitivity parameter λ0 and these values gives the interval 0.48 [0.31, 0.70] of feedback factors f. Then the final-gain factor G = (1 – f)–1 falls on 1.91 [1.45, 3.35]. Vial et al. (2013, fig. 5a), the official paper analysing the CMIP5 models’ output for AR5, somewhat arbitrarily raises reference or pre-feedback sensitivity ΔT0 from 1.16 to 1.42 K on the ground that some of the tropospheric changes caused by the CO2 forcing do not affect sea surface temperatures and should thus be counted as part of the reference sensitivity. On this basis, equilibrium post-feedback climate sensitivity ΔT = ΔT0 G obtained using (1) falls on 2.7 [2.1, 4.7] K. As with the CMIP3 models for AR3, the bounds determined from (1) are coextensive with the published CMIP5 equilibrium-sensitivity bounds, but the analysis shows the published central estimate to have been overstated by 18.5%.

Table 1 summarizes the overstatements of the central estimates of climate sensitivity:

Table 1

Exaggerated central climate-sensitivity estimates

Official source Interval of ΔT Erroneous Corrected Exaggeration
Charney (1979) [1.5, 4.5] K 3.0 K 2.2 K +35%
AR1, AR2 [1.5, 4.5] K 2.5 K 2.2 K +12.5%
CMIP3 for AR4 [2.1, 4.4] K 3.3 K 2.9 K +12.5%
CMIP5 for AR5 [2.1, 4.7] K 3.2 K 2.7 K +18.5%
AR5 [1.5, 4.5] K None 2.2 K n.a.

The official central estimates are exaggerated because the modelers have failed to take proper account of the exaggerated non-linearity of the temperature responses to linearly-increasing feedback sums. They have allowed that non-linearity to drag the central climate-sensitivity estimates erroneously upward by 12.5-35%.

Ø Next: How reference climate sensitivity ΔT0 was exaggerated


References

Charney J (1979) Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment: Report of an Ad-Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington DC, July, pp. 22

IPCC (1990-2013) Assessment Reports AR1-5 are available from www.ipcc.ch

Lorenz EN (1963) Deterministic nonperiodic flow, J. Atmos. Sci. 20: 130-141.

Vial J, Dufresne J, Bony S (2013) On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates, Clim Dyn 41: 3339, doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9

0 0 vote
Article Rating
553 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kim
August 27, 2016 11:03 am

Exponential, unsustainable. So, there’s hope.
=========

Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 11:18 am

gotten away

Doesn’t seem likely that a British Public School educated member of the British aristocracy would used an Americanism which grates on the ear of any Briton over the age of 50.

kim
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 11:44 am

It grates on me, too, and I use it, I use it.
==========

mike
Reply to  kim
August 28, 2016 9:49 pm

Hey Sandy! What you said–YOU BETCHA!!!

Martin Hovland
Reply to  kim
August 28, 2016 10:49 pm

But the best statement is this one: “Anyone who has ever built an operational-amplifier circuit …”: – it clearly demonstrates that the Lord is a very practical man and has hands-on experience, which is totally in contrast to the persons writing AR5, etc. As a boy, I sat watching my father making ‘operational-amplifier circuits’ with his soldering kit as a radio ham and enthusiast. I never got to that stage myself, as the Technology changed and was far from as exciting as when everything was analog and with glowing tubes, condensators and resistors, etc.

BobG
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 11:50 am

Sandy In Limousin, what grates on the ear is someone using “would used” in a sentence! Ouch!

kim
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 11:54 am

To have and to halt.
===============

H.R.
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 4:01 pm

From this day forward, kim.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 11:55 am

Some have forgotten where ‘gotten‘ comes from.
“That gotten is primarily used in North America has given rise to the mistaken belief that it is American in origin and hence new and inferior. But gotten is in fact an old form, predating the United States and Canada by several centuries. It fell out of favour in British English by the 18th century, but it was eventually picked up again on the other side of the Atlantic, perhaps by analogy with forgotten.”
“The vehemence of some Britons’ scorn for gotten likely has to do with the fact that it has gained ground in British English over the last couple of decades. Many English speakers from outside North America resist the encroachment of so-called Americanisms (many of which, like gotten, are not actually American in origin) on their versions of English, and, for mysterious reasons, some feel especially strongly about gotten.”

http://grammarist.com/usage/got-gotten/

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 12:00 pm

PiperPaul: Yes, there are some words that people believe are ‘Americanisms’, which are, in fact, old English. The one that surprises everyone is ‘Fall’ for Autumn. ‘Fall’ is mentioned in Henry VIII’s time.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 12:45 pm

Full marks to Piper Paul for not having forgotten that the history of past participle forms in the strong verbs predates the founding of America, and that words such as “gotten” were begotten in the Old Country.

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:03 pm

Well said, but “gotten” wasn’t eventually picked up here again. We never quit using it.
“Gotten” was still standard in 17th century English, when all the colonies except Georgia (1733) were founded (North and South Carolina separated in 1712, but the Province of Carolina was named in honor of Charles II).
Shakespeare uses “gotten”, as in Richard II, Act V, Scene V (c. 1595):
“Groom
“I was a poor groom of thy stable, king,
When thou wert king; who, travelling towards York,
With much ado at length have gotten leave
To look upon my sometimes royal master’s face.”
Received pronunciation lost “gotten” about the same time, in the 18th century, that it lost its rhoticism, ie sounding final “r”. Shakespeare would have pronounced “water” as it’s spelled. Modern Americans pronounce it “wadder”, where “dd” indicates “flapping”, while RP renders it “watuh”, keeping the crisp “t” but losing the “r”.

Julian Williams in Wales
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:03 pm

ill gotten as in ill-gotten gains has a sense of obtained in an illegal manner, so to me the associations of “gotten away” with “ill-gotten” gives an added twist of deceit.
There is also “only begotten” as in the Nicene Creed as used in the King James bible (is this the same gotten? before 1000; Middle English begeten, biyeten, Old English begetan, c. Old High German bigezzan, Gothic bigitan): “I believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”

SMC
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:14 pm

And some people wonder why English is so difficult…sheesh. Y’all just need to start talkin’ ‘merican.

kim
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:24 pm

‘Lost Rhoticist’. Gotta remember that one.
============

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:32 pm

We Americans are indeed mostly rhoticists, although some Southern accents mimic what by the 18th century had become fancy, plummy speech in London (can’t say posh yet), ie dropping final “r”.
But also mostly not rotters.
Shakespeare may well have had a West Country accent, to boot, which he might have had to suppress for the stage.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:33 pm

I read a linguistic study on the prime accent of the Brits versus American. It turned out that the American accent (primarily New England) is actually the older, as is the Appalachian/Southern variation. It seems that the British affectation came about in the 18th century and was not adopted for the most part by America, Canada, and Australia. Only the smaller and richer colonies of New Zealand and South Africa adopted it, as their intercourse with Britain was much greater, per capita. And contrary to modern thinking, the Canadian accent is not a result of the large American media presence, we always spoke with the same accent.

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:46 pm

I looked for late literary uses of “gotten” in English English, and found Pope’s Iliad, which translation he wrote c. 1715-20. He may have used “gotten” for its meter in this heroic couplet, but there’s still no compelling reason to think that the form was archaic at that time.
“Haste to the ships, the gotten spoils enjoy,
Nor tempt too far the hostile Gods of Troy.”

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 1:48 pm

Pat Ch
August 27, 2016 at 1:33 pm
Also a great many English-speaking Canadians were American royalist refugees from the Revolutionary War.

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 2:02 pm

Shades of Castilian v. Latin American “Spanish”. In Iberia, the court took to lisping so that Carlos V wouldn’t feel bad, which affectation spread to the middle classes, at least.
Meanwhile, in the Americas, colonists continued speaking “normally”, so that for them the word “civilización” is pronounced “see-bee-lee-sah-see-own” rather than “thee-bee-lee-thah-thee-own”. Also, a lot of the conquistadors and settlers came from Extremadura, where a dialect of Asturian-Leonese was spoken rather than closely related and largely mutually intelligible language Castilian.
Some Spanish-speakers insist on using “Castilian” because Spain has six languages: Basque and five Romance tongues, from Galician (ancestor of Portuguese) in the NW, to Asturian-Leonese, to Castilian, to Aragonese, to Catalan in the NE, the central three of which are very close. Aragonese also shades into Catalan, but the latter is generally considered in the Gallo-Romance group rather than Ibero-Romance, its closest kin being the endangered Occitan dialects of southern France.

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 4:27 pm

Essayist Francis Bacon, c. 1601 wrote in “Of Envy”:
“This envy, being in the Latin word invidia, goeth in the modern language, by the name of discontentment; of which we shall speak, in handling sedition. It is a disease, in a state, like to infection. For as infection spreadeth upon that which is sound, and tainteth it; so when envy is *gotten* once into a state, it traduceth even the best actions thereof, and turneth them into an ill odor. And therefore there is little won, by intermingling of plausible actions. For that doth argue but a weakness, and fear of envy, which hurteth so much the more, as it is likewise usual in infections; which if you fear them, you call them upon you.”
In “Of Cunning”:
“And because it works better, when anything seemeth to be *gotten* from you by question, than if you offer it of yourself, you may lay a bait for a question, by showing another visage, and countenance, than you are wont; to the end to give occasion, for the party to ask, what the matter is of the change? As Nehemias did; And I had not before that time, been sad before the king.”
And in “Of Riches”:
“Meaning that riches *gotten* by good means, and just labor, pace slowly … Riches *gotten* by service, though it be of the best rise, yet when they are *gotten* by flattery, feeding humors, and other servile conditions, they may be placed amongst the worst.”
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/bacon/bacon_essays.html

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 4:43 pm

English is anything but consistent.
We have beget and begotten, forget and forgotten, get and gotten and got, and regret but not regrotten or regrot.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 6:01 pm

Indeed:
c 1340 Cursor M. 4913 (Trin.) We haue wiþ vs trussed nouȝt But þing þat we truly bouȝt And so is oure trewe geten þing.    
c 1380 Wyclif Sel. Wks. III. 302 Sathanas‥to whom þei maken sacrifice and omage for þis falsly geten lordischip.
1477 Earl Rivers (Caxton) Dictes 64 Pouertee is better than euyl goten richesse.    
1548 Hall Chron., Edw. IV, 231 The gain of the nyne gotten battailes.    
1580 Sidney Ps. x. iii, This gotten blisse, shall never part.    
1603 Knolles Hist. Turks (1621) 59 Three or foure yeeres passed in great quietnesse, to the great strengthening of him in those new gotten kingdomes.    
1665 Manley Grotius’ Low C. Warres 265 They should not endanger their gotten Honour.    
1715–20 Pope Iliad x. 596 Haste to the ships, the gotten spoil enjoy.    
1820 Chalmers Congreg. Serm. (1838) II. 54 He is apt to be satisfied with the triumphs of his gotten victory.
1894 Gladstone Horace’s Odes 36 On gotten goods to live Contented.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 8:13 pm

Gabro’s examples of “gotten” in Francis Bacon’s essays are interesting, though Bacon wrote the essays in Latin. They were splendidly translated by -if memory serves – a 17th-century schoolmaster. The point is well made either way.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 27, 2016 8:15 pm

And full marks to Alan Ranger for his fascinating list of “gottens” over three-quarters of a millennium.

Leo Smith
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 28, 2016 2:42 am

Elizabeth the first quite famously said “My Lord, I had forgott the Fart.” If a Queen can use that as a past participle, its obviously The Way To Go, except we didn’t, We stuck with forgotten, but ditched gotten…
Actually it is still in use outside the USA. ‘I have gotten used to it’ scans slightly better than the stumbling ‘I have got used to it’. But once you start the elisions ‘I’ve got used to it’ seems to be beater.
Of course the US is famous for always preferring the longer form of any words, an intellectual inferiority complex one surmises…;-)

Phil's Dad
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 28, 2016 3:25 pm

Nothing intellectually inferior about the USA dialect.
English is and should remain ever changing (much like climate)
I have become used to it.
(Now, what was this post about?)

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 28, 2016 4:00 pm

Leo Smith
August 28, 2016 at 2:42 am
Our English is the language of William Shakespeare. Yours is that of Stephen Merchant.

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 28, 2016 4:02 pm

If Shakespeare were alive today, he, like Merchant, would live in Los Angeles and have an American girlfriend.

Gabro
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 28, 2016 4:08 pm

She might not be a fashion model, however, as Will would have been lucky to reach 5’7″, while Steve is 6’7″.

Hoser
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 31, 2016 12:51 pm

It bothers me they say the past tense of go is “went”. Went is the past tense of wend. Go and gone are perfectly wonderful siblings. The English at some point decided to replace the black sheep of the family, goed. I happen to like the slightly celtic version gaed. I go, yesterday I gaed to work, and I have gone to work all week. But I don’t use it. Wish we did. What really burns me now is an Okie version: I go, i went, I had went. THAT one hurts. Others like “I had ran that program several times yesterday” are just as painful. The Okies among us are almost outdone by the Germans who say, “that’s how the data look like”. I’m afraid it’s spreading among non-Germans now. Ack!

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 31, 2016 9:08 pm

Hoser August 31, 2016 at 12:51 pm
“It bothers me they say the past tense of go is “went”. Went is the past tense of wend. Go and gone are perfectly wonderful siblings. …”
Ah, another person who wishes that English were logical … not gonna happen. English is not now, nor has it ever been, logical. I also note people above bemoaning the changes in the language over time.
Here’s the deal. Languages evolve. That is why they work so well, because we get replace the words and constructions that don’t work or are clumsy with words that do work and are shorter and easier.
In general, the evolution is in two directions—towards greater simplicity, and towards greater certitude. When you want to tell someone that there is a snake behind him, you don’t use the word “ambulate” or the like, you say “run!!!”. It’s simpler, and there’s no mistaking the meaning.
This means that in general a shorter word will eventually supplant a longer word with the same meaning. For example, you say that in place of “I went to work all week” you’d say:

I have gone to work all week

However, no matter how proper and right and correct it might be, it’s shorter to say “I went to work”, and so it has supplanted the more cumbersome phrase. Not only that, but that’s how it should be—if the language stops evolving it will no longer be relevant to the modern world.
However, it’s always fun to discuss.
w.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 11:58 am

Sandy: Yes, and I’m English…and 57. It is actually getting worser!

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  bazzer1959
August 27, 2016 2:10 pm

bazzer, progressing, one thing about the English Language is that it will take words from any language and add them to the national vocabulary. That’s probably why there are more words in an English dictionary than in most other European languages. I still don’t like “gotten” as a word, there are more elegant sentence constructions. Despite my typo strewn writing I try and remember that my English teacher spent four years attempting to make me write in a way that was understood and flowed in a smooth fashion.

Reply to  bazzer1959
August 28, 2016 1:35 am

“…try and remember…”
Sandy, I hope that was a deliberate word choice? That one has caused dent formation in many an English teacher’s forehead.

usurbrain
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 12:45 pm

Gotten does not grate near as much as the supposedly educated (teachers, professors, educators, journalists, etc.) using the word “bring” or “brought” when it is abundantly clear to the person that take or toke should be used. Worse yet is the fact that children’s shows, preschoolers shows, etc also are simply eliminating the use of take, taken, took, from the English language!
Example: ” When you go to the meeting next Friday, please bring your department’s current budget report.”
Like fingernails on a chalk board.

kim
Reply to  usurbrain
August 27, 2016 12:54 pm

Yes, but I believe once a regionalism.
=========

cbr
Reply to  usurbrain
August 27, 2016 2:03 pm

Depends. I think the example should be “when you come to the meeting, bring your report”, since this seems to be from the organizer. Bring to our (really brmy) meeting. Take to theirs.

kim
Reply to  usurbrain
August 29, 2016 3:38 pm

Hmmm, I was thinking of ‘carry’ for either ‘bring’ or ‘take’ and right now can’t remember which way was which.
=================

BFL
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 1:06 pm

Ahhh, so, what we appear to have here is a group of over educated grammar SJW elitists. For “Pete’s Sake” just what the “frick” does it matter as long as the intent is understood. Or maybe prefer typical politician babble where the “run-on” can last hours without saying much of anything “concrete”. Yes the English language has been going “downhill” and “to pot” for a long time, but it’s futile to try and return to those olden “gay” days. I’m satisfied that there is still much clarity in articles like this one.

RoHa
Reply to  BFL
August 28, 2016 1:41 am

But all too often poor grammar obscures the message. My own pet peeves are (a) comma after subject clause, and (b) “would have” in the protasis (“if” clause) of conditionals.
The first makes me think that the subject clause is a subordinate clause, so that I am the left trying to parse a sentence without a subject. The second causes a bit of confusion between protasis and apodosis. Of course, I can usually resolve these problems, but with correct grammar they would never have arisen. And it is not difficult to learn correct grammar.

Leo Smith
Reply to  BFL
August 28, 2016 2:54 am

just what the “frick” does it matter as long as the intent is understood.
Well that is of course the point. Your cry echoes that of the generic Liberal tendency. “What do standards. moral or actual, or precisions actually matter’
Well, wait until someone starts driving in the wrong side if the road, because its ‘their culture and they are entitled to’ …
In Ernest K Gann’s ‘Fate is the hunter’ The author is berated by the senior pilot for failing to keep his altimeter exactly at a given level, he complains ‘but it doesn’t matter’ ‘One day it will, and you need to be in the habit of it’ A sentence that he finally understands flying at zero feet under a cloudbase of 50 feet over a wartime North Atlantic..
Standards are there for a reason. They allow a generic unified set of rules that, if everybody understands and follows them, make for lack of ambiguity and allow people to operate in harmony rather than in dissent.
It doesn’t matter so much what they are, and they may over time change, but they cannot be abandoned. Some countries drive on the left, others on the right. No country drives on both….

John Finn
Reply to  BFL
August 28, 2016 5:07 am

Ahhh, so, what we appear to have here is a group of over educated grammar SJW elitists. For “Pete’s Sake” just what the “frick” does it matter as long as the intent is understood.

John Finn
Reply to  BFL
August 28, 2016 5:13 am

Ahhh, so, what we appear to have here is a group of over educated grammar SJW elitists. For “Pete’s Sake” just what the “frick” does it matter as long as the intent is understood.

It probably doesn’t matter – most of the time. However, if someone is putting their name to a piece of work which they clearly haven’t written then it may have implications.
PS Sorry – I posted the quote twice.

James Francisco
Reply to  BFL
August 28, 2016 4:27 pm

Well BFL, I have gotten a lot of knowledge about the English language from this blog.

george e. smith
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 1:51 pm

Well I’m not exactly a “Briton”; not even sure what that means, but I use gotten freely and often.
I presume that the accepted alternative would be “got” ??
That grates on me even more.
So what then is the approved King’s English word to use where Americanismization uses gotten.
Much more egregious in MHO is the American usage of “momentarily” when they really mean “soon”.
So why are they saying in fact: ” I will be with you for a moment (and then I;m gonna split). ”
” Momentarily ” is the adverbial form of the adjective ” momentary ” meaning a very short period of time.
And why use five sillables instead of one (soon) ??
G

pochas94
Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 3:55 pm

Actually, we’d probably say “I’lll be right with you.”

John Harmsworth
Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 5:32 pm

That same person probably agrees with you “at this point in time”. Lol! Maddening!

Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 5:35 pm

@ pochas, “I’ll be right with you” is my code for ” I won’t be there anytime soon” and is the most annoying phrase ever invented.

Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 5:39 pm

@ pochas : “I’ll be right with you” to me is code for ” go look for it yourself’ and ‘you will never see me again”, frankly that is the most irritating phrase anywhere!

RoHa
Reply to  george e. smith
August 28, 2016 1:49 am

On the matter of usage, I find myself constantly grinding my teeth at hearing people say that they refute a claim, when they are merely denying it.
However, this is common among politicians, and, as far as they are concerned, making and denying claims is all that matters. Proof is irrelevant.

Leo Smith
Reply to  george e. smith
August 28, 2016 3:03 am

Yeah and no one says ‘gone to meet (with) his Maker’…
‘Going forward’?
ITYM ‘in future….’
But its all part of the emancipation of the uneducated.
Those in the UK today can have the pleasure of hearing English spoken correctly, by the EX F1 drive Karun Chandhok: Like most foreigners who learn to speak English in formal schools, he has actually learnt English grammar, and probably knows what a past participle is.
Its a sad reflection of a generation of ‘socialist’ public education that none of his fellow commentators do.
I regularly hear even singular and plurals being arbitrarily mixed by supposedly educated people on TV and as for whoever writes the stuff for news papers…

rtj1211
Reply to  george e. smith
September 4, 2016 4:17 am

Well, the Glaswegians (and maybe all the Scots for all I can remember) have a quaint way of saying when they will be ready to go:
‘Just got to do the dishes and then that’s me!’
Translation: ‘I’ll be ready to go when I’ve done the dishes’.
Broadly, they are too lazy to say ‘and then that’s me finished/ready to go!’
As an Englishman with Welsh ancestry in my maternal lineage, it was not for me to ask belligerent Glaswegians what the blazes they were talking about in my first weeks and months living north of the Border.
In the end, I came to understand Scottish dialectic, even when spoken with a guttural Glaswegian accent after 5 pints of Heavy (that’s bitter ale to the rest of us).
But it wasn’t exactly the Queen’s English and no doubt the locals still continue speaking that way…..

Warren Latham
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 2:07 pm

Dear Sandy In Limousin,
I think you’ll find that everything comes from somewhere else.
Regards,
WL

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  Warren Latham
August 27, 2016 2:18 pm

It was really a query as to whether someone educated at Harrow School would use that particular phraseology, as it is a boarding school I doubt it was learnt at home. As someone educated in a state High School in Scotland I know that it wasn’t part of my education.
I’m not really worried if the article was co-authored.

Reply to  Warren Latham
August 27, 2016 8:21 pm

No, the head posting is not co-authored, though some crucial points at later stages of the argument will be attributed to their originators.
And yes, anyone educated at Harrow will be familiar with the strong verbs and their historical as well as current usages.

Greg
Reply to  Warren Latham
August 27, 2016 11:23 pm

This linguistic argument, while very interesting, is distracting a lot of attention from the scientific point of the article.
What I find grating is that it is quite clearly not COB’s natural language but an attempt to sound more american which he presumably believes will somehow endear him to a majority of his target audience. There are also tortuous phrases like “sensitivities on 3.0” instead of sensitivities of 3.0 , this presumably being an extrapolation of the americain usage “on the order of” whereas british scientists/engineers would say ‘of the order of’.
In short it is affected and comes over as disingenuous play acting.
This kind of trick is pretty pointless in the context of numerous latin hurdles that constantly trip up the reader. He would do well to stick with his natural, rather eloquent English which has a certain charm and appeal, rather than making these silly gamits to americain English.
Clearly it has been a distraction so far, rather than an aid to communicating his arguments.

Reply to  Warren Latham
August 28, 2016 2:44 am

Greg is his usual sour, whining, negative self. His knowledge of English is as poor as his knowledge of mathematics. Let him read some of the fascinating and learned contributions on the word “gotten” that more learned and more positive commenters than he have contributed.
He also whines that I have talked of “equilibrium sensitivities on 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K. Here I use the language of mathematicians in these islands, where we say “on” meaning “on the interval”. I am sorry if this usage is not instantly comprehensible.

Warren Latham
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 2:26 pm

… and another thing (please “think” of that famous popular song) …
“I’ve Gotten You – Under My Skin”

Gabro
Reply to  Warren Latham
August 27, 2016 4:10 pm

In North American English, there are two past participles of the verb “to get”, ie “have got” and “have gotten”. They’re used in different ways.
For instance, “I’ve got you under my skin” means I have you there (and have had for some time), while “I’ve gotten you under my skin” means you’ve recently arrived there.

Gabro
Reply to  Warren Latham
August 27, 2016 4:16 pm

“Gotten” has the sense of acquiring something, while “got” suggests already having it.
A teacher could ask a student, “Do you get this?” or “Have you gotten this?”, ie understood, to which the student might reply, “Yes, I get it” or “I’ve got it,” unless just now having “gotten it.”

Menicholas
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 27, 2016 4:16 pm

Wow, dozens of comments in and we have yet to progress to talking about the article by Christopher Monckton…being stuck firmly in a discussion of the word “gotten”.
And the discussion was solden to us by someone who has broughten it up in a typo plague sentence yet.
This whole conversation has punchen me silly.
Irregardless of the origin or legitimacy thereof, count me on the side of those who classify such nit-picking as a pure waste of time, and she should never have brang it up!

Gabro
Reply to  Menicholas
August 27, 2016 4:28 pm

Bring, brang, brung!

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
August 27, 2016 5:44 pm

I had meant to make the entire comment a string of malapropisms, nonwords, errors of punctuation, typos and such, but the ironing was too much for me.

Sparks
Reply to  Menicholas
August 27, 2016 6:55 pm

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 27, 2016 7:17 pm

Well said, Menicholas. It’s a derailment of the thread, nothing more.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Menicholas
August 28, 2016 4:22 am

“irregardless” Menicholas.. Ugh.
No longer considered correct in English because the “ir” is an excessive negative.
But I DID read your comment (which is deliberately funny by the way) and I concur with your conclusion. Has the scientific discussion in this matter been vacated?

Wrusssr
Reply to  Menicholas
September 4, 2016 9:46 pm

Thank you. Sixty something comments in and still separating English (the language) fly specs from pepper that has nothing to do with the article. A common troll-stall to disinterest casual readers who, about halfway through these in search of opinions, would already have moved on.

David Ramsay Steele
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 29, 2016 6:58 am

I’m a Brit (though a working class one by background), over the age of fifty, and I have gotten so completely used to “gotten” that I use it fairly frequently. I have actually gotten quite fond of it.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  David Ramsay Steele
August 29, 2016 4:47 pm

What fun! A linguistic discussion. And what a lot of interest it has generated.
I have a little English-Latin gripe.
“pedetemptim” is indeed a Latin adverb, meaning “gradually”, but in what English sentence could you possibly use “toe-in-the-water” as an adverb?

Reply to  David Ramsay Steele
August 30, 2016 2:56 am

I agree with Mr Barraclough that the linguistic discussion has been entertaining, and that some commenters have contributed real and delightful knowledge.
Mr Barraclough asks in what English sentence one might use “toe-in-the-water” adverbially. See the use of “toe-in-the-water” in the head posting.
And I’d have lost half a mark at Cambridge for the pedestrian translation of “pedetemptim” as “gradually”. I might well have gained half a mark for translating it as “toe-in-the-water”, or for the Shakespearean “by little and little”.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 30, 2016 5:12 am

”Seems that you would prefer the Cambridge dictionary, which does not “recognise” many American expressions and spelling.
The Oxford dictionary is much more permissive in “recognizing” most American spelling as optional.
We Canadians do “recognize” exclusively some spellings of our southern “neighbours”, but follow British standard spelling .for many words and British pronunciation for many words.
When we travel rural “routes” (roots) we never expect that the rural inhabitants have been “routed” by an approaching army.
No Canadian (or Brit either) seems to notice that their pronunciation of wireless “router” fits, not the definition of “dispatcher” (rooter), but rather maintains the American military connotation by implying that the data is fleeing in disarray.
I wonder how many Canadians possess three spelling checkers?

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
August 30, 2016 5:27 am

”Seems you would prefer the Cambridge dictionary, which does not “recognise” many American expressions and spelling.
The Oxford dictionary is much more permissive in “recognizing” most American spelling as optional or even preferred.
Canadians do “recognize” exclusively some spellings of their southern “neighbours”, but follow British standard spelling for many words (colour, catalogue). Some words are still pronounced the British way by some elderly Canadians (adult, either, neither), but both the young and semi-literate tend to follow American pronunciation.
When Canadians travel rural “routes” (roots) they never expect that the rural dwellers have been “routed” by an approaching army.
No Canadian (or Brit either) seems to notice that their pronunciation of wireless “router” fits, not the definition of “dispatcher” (rooter), but rather has the American connotation which implies that the data is fleeing in disarray.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
September 3, 2016 12:55 pm

I hope my reply is roughly in the right place. You go away for a couple of days and hundreds of new comments appear.
Christopher Monckton – I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to differ on that one, unless we can find an English major to adjudicate?
I’m sure your Latin tutor was fluent in Latin, but I think your extra half-mark would have been swept away by my old English master. He would have had a fit at the idea of hyphenating noun-preposition-article-noun, and calling it an adverb, just because there’s a verb nearby.
Admittedly, I could understand what the author was getting at, but it was expressed as eloquently as your normal style.

Gabro
August 27, 2016 11:19 am

There was no actual science behind Charney’s “report”, which chose 3 degrees C as the central estimate of ECS for a doubling of CO2. It just averaged two guesses.
There was arguably some science behind Manabe’s guess of 2 degrees C and maybe even some support for Hansen’s guess of 4 degrees C. But there was no real basis for the Charney report simply to average these two estimates to come up with 3 degrees C, with a range of 2-4 degrees C.
Correct me if wrong, but then the range was widened by assuming, again without valid justification, that 1.5 degrees C above and below the now “canonical” central figure of 3 degrees C.
Yet even today, decades later, IPCC’s equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C remains an average of guesses, with another guess at the high and low ends. But the more actual observations are made and real data collected, the range looks closer to 0 to 2 degrees C, with a central value around the nominal 1.2 degrees C, without feedbacks, which are IMO more likely to be net negative and positive. Anything above 3 degrees C can effectively be ignored, but “climate science” would then not be scary.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 11:21 am

“,,,that 1.5 degrees C above and below the now “canonical” central figure of 3 degrees C” was the way to go.
Sorry about the incomplete sentence and phrase.

kim
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 11:30 am

Also, ‘net negative THAN positive’ in the last paragraph.
========

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 11:34 am

Thanks. Between my brain and fingers falls the Shadow.

kim
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 11:38 am

You see more of the light than the shadow.
============

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 12:48 pm

Hope so, and that I made the point that there is effectively no science behind the IPCC’s estimated ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Most likely, if it exists, it’s around 0 degrees C to 2.4 degrees C, ie 1.2 degrees plus or minus the nominal 1.2 degrees C.
The “canonical” 3 degrees C is basically just made up.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 1:14 pm

Don’t have a link to Hansen’s WAG of four degrees C per doubling, but here’s Manabe’s 1975 paper, including ECS estimate of two degrees C per doubling of CO2:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281975%29032%3C0003%3ATEODTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Abstract
An attempt is made to estimate the temperature changes resulting from doubling the present CO2 concentration by the use of a simplified three-dimensional general circulation model. This model contains the following simplications: a limited computational domain, an idealized topography, no beat transport by ocean currents, and fixed cloudiness. Despite these limitations, the results from this computation yield some indication of how the increase of CO2 concentration may affect the distribution of temperature in the atmosphere. It is shown that the CO2 increase raises the temperature of the model troposphere, whereas it lowers that of the model stratosphere. The tropospheric warming is somewhat larger than that expected from a radiative-convective equilibrium model. In particular, the increase of surface temperature in higher latitudes is magnified due to the recession of the snow boundary and the thermal stability of the lower troposphere which limits convective beating to the lowest layer. It is also shown that the doubling of carbon dioxide significantly increases the intensity of the hydrologic cycle of the model.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 2:26 pm

Gabro, if you’d be so kind and happen back here –
What is “limited computational domain” from abstract as I assume you have the paper and I must watch my downloads. I realize that it was 1975 and then I was running a whopper IBM 360 with punch cards and I can’t remember how little RAM. Is that the “limited computational domain” ?? Curious expression.
(I have bookmarked the link for a time when I can use the town’s bandwidth.)
Thanks.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 3:10 pm

It means that the cell grid would be coarse rather than fine.
Dunno what the dimensions of the cells were, but clearly gross, not tiny.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Gabro
August 28, 2016 5:40 am

Bubba Cow
If it was 1975 it was probably at least a megabyte. Maybe 4. Anyone want to advance on 4? Back in the day, IBM was in the habit of installing cables to upgrade the RAM. The memory was already there, with a connecting cable removed. They were changing $250,000 to put the cable back and double the RAM on a 360 from, for example, 512k to 1024k. That (and other such behaviour) is how they got rich..

Sparks
Reply to  Gabro
August 28, 2016 9:37 pm

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Everyone has a portable ‘console’ access reporting back to a ‘main frame’.
The whole point of open architecture is the freedom of personal interconnectivity.
There is a bigger failure taken place!

george e. smith
Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 1:59 pm

So on what basis; if there is no science involved does one choose the arithmetic mean of two guesses rather than the geometric mean of those two guesses ??
I believe the geometric mean results in the two end point guesses being in error by equal percentages. In my view, that is a better ; well assuming the mean is in fact the correct answer.
But since one is doing stat maths and not science, one may choose any algorithm one likes.
G

Gabro
Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 2:08 pm

Of course you’ve answered your own question. It was not justified, but considered close enough for government work and scarier.
As I said, I doubt there was much actual science behind Hansen’s “estimate” of four degrees C, but now you find alarmists who consider it insufficient.
IMO, the range of ~1.0 to ~2.0 degrees C is in the ballpark, with Bill Illis’ derived under ~1.5 at the center. I think that given net negative feedbacks, the real number, if such there be, could well lie between 0.0 and 1.5 degrees.

Cinaed
Reply to  george e. smith
August 28, 2016 8:23 pm

Choose the geometric mean when the variables are multiplicative. The geometric mean is always less than or equal to the arithmetic mean.

Arrhenius'Ghost
Reply to  george e. smith
August 28, 2016 8:50 pm

Gabbro,
Arrhenius would agree with you:
Arrhenius, S., 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen. Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut 1: 2, 1ff.
“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 °C or +1.6° C respectively.”

Gabro
Reply to  george e. smith
August 29, 2016 10:16 am

Ghost,
Yup, he got it in the right ball park on his second try.
But dunno to what extent he figured in feedbacks in the climate system.

Arrhenius'Ghost
Reply to  george e. smith
August 29, 2016 10:44 pm

Gabro,
1. Apologies for the rocky spelling of your name;
2. You’re correct regarding feedbacks. When Arrhenius took water vapour into account it lifted his estimate to 2.1C° per doubling.
See here at the bottom of page 7:
“If one uses this correction, one finds that with a change in the quantity of CO2 in the ratio of 1:2, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be altered by 2.1 degrees. It is assumed that the radiation that is absorbed by the water vapour is not influenced by the CO2.*”
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
Now, 2.1 C° is far too high given that the IPCC asserts the warming in the period 1906-2006 was 0. 74 C° ± 0.18 C°. Using Arrhenius’ figure it should have been approx. 0.9 C°, assuming 280 ppm CO2 in 1906 and 400 ppm in 2006, viz:
120/280 = 0.43
0.43 x 2.1 C° = 0.90 C°

Gabro
Reply to  george e. smith
August 30, 2016 7:38 am

Also, Arrhenius, Callendar and other proponents of man-made global warming prior to c. 1980 thought that more CO2 would be beneficial.

August 27, 2016 11:22 am

Interesting start for a review article. The controlling issues seem to be in the feedback,though.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 27, 2016 12:41 pm

In response to Mr Halla, just about every element in the official climate sensitivity equation is erroneous. And all the errors lead to exaggeration of the warming rate, as I shall show.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 2:30 pm

I was wondering about that… So, you’re going to go over each error, one by one, and then at the end tie them all together. The final post of the series, then, will have “the real” ECS estimate (according to MoB). Would that be correct?

afonzarelli
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 2:32 pm

(gotta luv it…)

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 3:34 pm

Once the series is complete, it will be evident that the models cannot be relied upon to determine climate sensitivity correctly, and that it is likely to be well below the values they now parade before us.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 28, 2016 10:36 am

comment image
[??? .mod]

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 28, 2016 8:50 pm

One mistake the IPCC made is also to consider and treat the radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses the the same way like like incoming solar radiation. Which means all of it will reach the surface again.
But this is not true, because e.g. through collision of greenhouse gasses with other atmospheric gasses and convecton some heat can escape through other channels directly into space, without reaching the surface again.
So the greenhouse effect in reality is much lower. Dr David Evans wrote a lot of it at joannenova.

Editor
August 27, 2016 11:30 am

Lord Monckton, first, let me thank you for your persistence, perseverance, and tenacity. Although we may disagree at times, overall I’m very glad that you continue to be a thorn in the side of the establishment.
In that regard, I was happy to see this quote:

Anyone who has ever built an operational-amplifier circuit intended to operate stably will know that a designed-in maximum feedback factor of not more than 0.1 (or 0.01 if possible) is desirable to ensure that anomalies in componentry, assembly, operation and ambient conditions do not induce unwanted runaway responses. The climate is remarkably stable: global temperatures have varied by little more than 3.3 K either side of the period mean for 810,000 years.
Given this near-perfect thermostasis, it is improbable a priori, and will later in this series be demonstrated to be impossible a posteriori, that true feedback values can fall anywhere in the zone marked “unstable” on the graph. The shaded zone, equivalent to an interval [1.5, 4.5] K for final or equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT, is thus squarely in forbidden territory. But more of that another day.

I look forward to your further thoughts on this particular issue, as I have long held that the remarkable stability of the climate system, which as you point out is approximately ± 1% over 800,000 years, precludes any kind of high “climate sensitivity”.
My very best to you in your endeavors,
w.

kim
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 27, 2016 11:43 am

In unison here.
==========

Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:24 pm

How very kind of Willis Eschenbach to support this new project. He will be fascinated when I demonstrate the impossibility of the feedback factors now used in climate sensitivity studies.

george e. smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Well I’m happy to see the two of you agree, because I have firmly believed for quite a few years since I started following this wasteful self flagellation business (climate change) that the strong negative feedback from primarily cloud modulation of the albedo (YES ! only by small amounts) has kept this planet in the Goldilocks zone through thick and thin, of often drastic planet conditions.
The whole cool sun thing; the TSI change with orbit eccentricity and other effects seem to have been largely neutralized by slight attenuations or accentuations of surface sunlight. Dr. Roy Spencer has often cited the effect of cloud changes and I have often thought that Roy was biting his tongue and trying to not oversell it. It’s alright to let it all hang out Roy.
No I don’t disagree with the effects of GHS on outgoing LWIR radiation. I do have reservations about just how much heating of the surface really results from heating of the upper atmosphere. but I’m convinced it is all for naught.
So I’m trying to follow LMofB’s dissertation here with interest.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 3:35 pm

Christopher and I agree on many more things than we disagree on. And although our exchanges are in diplomatic language often “full and frank discussions” (translation: down and dirty dogfights), I have a great respect for him and the work that he continues to do. Yes, I often think he’s wrong … but then, as is pointed out here, often I’m wrong as well.
But on my planet, being wrong is no crime. Being boring, on the other, hand is a crime in my eyes … but to my knowledge it is a crime of which Lord Monckton has never been accused, much less convicted …
w.

Greg
Reply to  george e. smith
August 27, 2016 11:32 pm

Lord Monckton, first, let me thank you for your persistence, perseverance, and tenacity. Although we may disagree at times, overall I’m very glad that you continue to be a thorn in the side of the establishment.

ditto, thorns are necessary.

bobl
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 28, 2016 12:29 am

Willis it is even more egregious when you take into account that 4/5ths of any surface warming is immediately radiated out the IR window direct from surface to space, so to get a NET gain of say 3, the positive feedbacks have to overcome a degradadion of 0.2 then reach a final net value of 3 implying a gain of at least 3/0.2 = 15 among the positive feedbacks.
The loop gain to do that is close to unity (Around 0.95) which for a climate that has varied no more than about 3 degrees in 288 is in all practicality – impossible. It would imply that runaway global warming would occur pretty much anywhere that surface radiation to space was impeded, say a cloudy day. The equator over water would have a much higher maximum temp than a desert over land. Sorry last I looked that doesn’t happen. Suppressing radiation does not in general lead to warming, if anything it leads to evaporation, humidity and rain.
Also the climate equations ignore the path the climate takes from state A – B, it is only valid if the climate were linear, invariant over all temperatures which as you have clearly shown for cloud formation over water in the tropics is NOT true, Feedbacks are decidedly NON LINEAR with feedback being inversely proportional to temperature – at least while there is liquid water on the planet. In fact feedbacks are at least a function of Temperature, time and Humidity, and probably also a function of air pressure, insolation, period and any number of other parameters. Water feedback is at least a log law just like CO2 there are points of diminishing returns. The feedbacks are certainly not scalar numbers and therefore you can’t ignore the path from state A-B. The equation itself is invalid for anything but tiny deviations in F ! eg dF/dtThpi not F

Reply to  bobl
August 28, 2016 4:45 pm

This is an interesting argument not encountered before in this ire form. I will have to noodle it some for potential flaws. The stability per se versus runaway snoball or boiling oceans stuff are obviously silly. We are talking about ‘minor’ changes between slightly varying ‘strange attractors’. Else life could not persist on Earth.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 28, 2016 3:54 am

Prezactly Willis. I have often in my life been fascinated by peole to home on on an exact answer that I – or others – have been struggling with simply because they have a particular perspective on a subject that makes it so abundantly clear as to be a no-brainer, what the answer actually is.
I leave you with some salutary and true examples.
“How can you tell me that that beam will be strong enough to lift that engine out of the car if we string a hoist to it?” “Cos we done hoiked a bigger ‘un than that out last week”
“How many tables of name value pairs do we need to represent these transformations to e-mail addresses when being relayed?” “You have three variables, so its a 3×2 matrix and if the table rows present the row variables you need three tables to present the three columns”
“I’ve spent two weeks calculating the noise levels in your circuit, and it seems likely that the noise is coming from the unit in front of it” “I could have told you that!” “How?” “By removing the unit in front of it: The noise goes away.”.
Similarly Its abundantly clear that there cannot be any major positive temperature feedback in climate, especially feedback that is based on temperature, because it would lead to an unstable climate of epic proportions. Any engineer asked that question could state categorically that it’s nonsense, which is what I said years ago. I don’t have to plough through the tedious mathematics that Christopher uses as his hair shirt. I did it once for the general case as a student, and never again., The result is the point. Positive feedback is inherently unstable. Ergo a stable climate implies some over all fairly monumental negative feedback.
Ergo climate sensitivity has to be overall less than the raw ‘radiative imbalance’ of CO2 implies.
My geologist brother in law arrived at the same conclusion by different means ‘its clear that huge variations in atmospheric CO2 have happened and its equally clear that they have not been well correlated with temperature change’.
As to why climate varies, once again the engineering perspective supplies an instant answer, Multiple time delayed negative feedback loops, especially with a bit of non linearity thrown in, can cause chaotic pseudoperiodic oscillations about strange attractor means. That is what chaos mathematics describes, and any engineer who has strayed outside the bounds of linear behaviour designing anything will be familiar with these sorts of effects. And that goes back to the three body problem first described in 1687, the first description of what we now know as ‘chaos mathematics’
And we dont need to look further than water, to realise that the oceans, and the clouds, the latent heat of melting and evaporation, and ocean currents and the huge thermal capacity of the oceans themselves are more than enough basic circuit elements to get a beautifully chaotic system working.
I keep meaning to create a computer model where you could mess with various delays and non liner effects to create systems that could be demonstrated to be ‘climate like’…
I think this is in conclusion a generic problem the world has today. Not only has the fundamental understanding of how science works been educated out of at least half the public, along with any respect for it, but even amongst those with supposedly adequate scientific backgrounds, they are so deep and so specialised that they never see things from other perspectives at all.
The number of people who say ‘just because wind energy is rubbish today, doesn’t mean that technological progress wont make it work tomorrow’ is depressing. You pint out that technological progress operates within the laws of physics, and these are against renewable energy from the start. ‘But the laws change’ they reply, ‘look at Einstein and Newton’ And then when you say that ‘Einstein improved on Newton, he didn’t invalidate him’ comes the ultimate rejoinder ‘well that’s your OPINION, and you are obviously paid by the Koch Brothers’.
Perhaps such people may be impressed by pages of mathematics that they dont understand making the basic point ‘systems with overall positive feedback are inherently unstable, and dont persist in time for very long’
But I fear that actually they are more likley to say ‘well that shows how really dangerous Global warming is,’
I am afraid that CAGW is simply another symptom of the real prime cause of modern problems: we have and live in and depend on a society that has been designed so well by so few people that the great unwashed not only don’t understand how it works, but dont care either. To them it simply exist as some kind of natural force. They ignore the positive effects of man’s technological intervention in the ecosphere to allow him to prosper, and concentrate solely on scare scenarios because, frankly we have built such a protected environment that they are bored with it. And seek excitement.
This is not a sustainable state of affairs.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 28, 2016 10:58 am

Leo Smith’s posting is one of the most interesting here. He confirms my simple point that a climate subject to strongly net-positive feedbacks would not be as startlingly stable as ours, but he flinches a little at the mathematics.
The point of the mathematics is to show exactly where the major errors of method rather than of data or of interpretation are, to quantify the effect of those errors, and to leave as little wriggle-room as possible for the canting defenders of the official position.
That they will wriggle like stuck pigs is already evident. See how many in this thread have sworn blind that to dare to suggest that net-positive feedback might be expected to lead to instability is to perpetrate a terrible error, when all one is doing is to state the obvious.
However, my argument on feedbacks, when I get to it, will not depend upon the process engineers’ limit on positive feedback in systems intended to function stably. It will show that feedbacks in the climate do not in reality subsist in the interval marked as unstable in Fig. 1.

JPeden
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 28, 2016 6:44 pm

Leo Smith August 28, 2016 at 3:54 am
Amen:

I am afraid that CAGW is simply another symptom of the real prime cause of modern problems: we have and live in and depend on a society that has been designed so well by so few people that the great unwashed not only don’t understand how it works, but dont care either. To them it simply exist as some kind of natural force. They ignore the positive effects of man’s technological intervention in the ecosphere to allow him to prosper, and concentrate solely on scare scenarios because, frankly we have built such a protected environment that they are bored with it. And seek excitement.

In particular, the U.S. Constitution and its Constitutional Capitalism has in effect created a gigantic Ecological Niche in which Idle Hands do the Devil’s Work. Now they even want to elect the First Lucyfer.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 28, 2016 7:41 am

Please see my back-to-back pair of posts below about op-amp circuits. I have built lots of them on my own, and I worked with a friend who built more than I did. The reason positive feedback more than .1 or .01 is hardly ever used is because op-amps have so much gain that negative feedback alone is normally used. And in some specific circuits where positive feedback is used (Sallen Key and multiple feedback filters for example), I have not seen the feedback figure as shown in Fig. 1 being expressed, but it somewhat often is designed to exceed .1, especially in the multiple feedback bandpass filter. Only if the cheapest components are used then feedback factor exceeding merely .1 causes performance from one unit to another to often vary unacceptably – but the circuit is usually still reliably stable with a design feedback factor of .5 even with cheap tolerance components.
As for stability of the climate – isn’t it sometimes unstable at times during comings or goings of ice age glaciations? I see that as a sign that the global climate’s feedback factor is not constant but greater when the surface albedo is more variable.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 28, 2016 9:31 am

You may have local positive feedback but you always have overall negative feedback. Otherwise its at best an oscillator or at worst simply drives up to rail voltage

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 28, 2016 9:57 pm

Regarding Leo Smith’s comment that I see as saying that a stable op-amp circuit requires net negative feedback: This is generally true because the open-loop gain of an op-amp is very large, generally at least in the hundreds and often in the thousands. As Leo Smith said elsewhere, the feedback factor is the loop gain – which is the combined gain of the op-amp (its open loop gain, that is), and its feedback circuit(s). If this is designed to exceed 1.0, then the reason is usually for latching to maximum low/high (such as for a comparator circuit with hysteresis) or for oscillating. This feedback factor can easily be as high as 2/3 in a stable op-amp circuit mentioned elsewhere here, and whose mention I cited. It also sometimes exceeds .1 in stable non-oscillating op-amp circuits that I have built and named previously here, namely the Sallen Key filter and the multiple feedback filter.

Alan Robertson
August 27, 2016 11:32 am

“Part I: How the central estimate of global warming was exaggerated By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley…”
————————
editors note: That’s how the article’s description appears on the homepage.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 28, 2016 9:32 am

global warming was exaggerated By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley>
See what happens when you miss out punctuation.

kim
August 27, 2016 11:36 am

Years ago I was roundly ridiculed @cllimateaudit.org for stating that not only do we not know the magnitude of feedback to the nominal 1.2 deg C., but we also don’t know the sign of it.
It’s been so long I don’t remember whether I specified water vapour feedback or clouds or both.
Nonetheless, at that time the idea was anathema even to the extremely well informed.
============

kim
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 11:41 am

Heh, I also suspect some of the ridicule was from naive posing of the argument.
==========

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  kim
August 28, 2016 5:09 am

Kim,
Was not me doing thet at CA. I agree, but my agreement means nought.
Geoff

Toneb
August 27, 2016 11:42 am

“The climate is remarkably stable: global temperatures have varied by little more than 3.3 K either side of the period mean for 810,000 years.
Given this near-perfect thermostasis, it is improbable a priori, and will later in this series be demonstrated to be impossible a posteriori, that true feedback values can fall anywhere in the zone marked “unstable” on the graph.”
Not if climate parameters no longer fall within those of the last 810,000 years.
Top, blue curve …. now ~400ppm
……. And the climate is yet to reach equilibrium.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg

BobG
Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 11:57 am

Toneb: “Not if climate parameters no longer fall within those of the last 810,000 years.
Top, blue curve …. now ~400ppm”
You don’t understand the point. The remarkable stability indicates that there is not a large amount of positive feedback in the climate system. CO2 causes some warming in the climate system. Increases in CO2 can only cause Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) or Catastrophic Anthropogenic global Warming (CAGW) if there is a relatively large amount of feedback. CO2 is not some “magical” gas which if it is in the atmosphere will change the existing feedback to warming or cooling influences.

Toneb
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 12:08 pm

“You don’t understand the point. The remarkable stability indicates that there is not a large amount of positive feedback in the climate system. ”
I understand the point perfectly ta.
As I show CO2 levels lie well beyond those of the last 800,000 years and we don’t know where the blue curve is going to end up at.
Feed-backs turned -ve for the downs on the graph as the Earth’s orbital characteristics changed to induce cooling in the NH.
That is what produced the “thermostasis” of the Earth’s GMT to a range of ~6C.
Feed-backs have yet to kick in regarding future CO2 levels.comment image

usurbrain
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 1:02 pm

Toneb – And what of the periods when CO2 was a thousand times higher? e.g.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/09/plants-encouraged-as-co2-levels-reach-400-ppm/

Gabro
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 1:23 pm

Usurbrain,
I don’t think atmospheric CO2 concentration has been a thousand times higher than now, ie 400,000 ppm or 40%, except possibly during the Hadean or Archean Eons (4.5 to 2.5 billion years ago). But as recently as the Cambrian Period (543 million years ago), it was around 7000 ppm.

Toneb
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 2:06 pm

The last time (actually ~4x more even that dodgy graph only goes up to 7000ppm 500 mya) CO2 was really high it was ~50-30 mya.
https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/Beerling_Royer_Cenozoic_CO2_Nature_Geoscience.pdf
And the Earth had a tad different tectonic configuration/activity then.
With interesting consequences or climate…
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/deconto_tectonics&climate.pdf
PS: yes Gabro

Gabro
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 3:23 pm

That’s a tendentious study, but even it shows that the correlation between CO2 and temperature isn’t good.
High CO2 and high T apparently coincided around the PETM, but CO2 went up and T down at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, when ice sheets first formed on Antarctica, thanks to the opening of deep oceanic channels between that continent and South America and Australia.

Duster
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 11:14 pm

Within the last 600 MY the atmosphere has never seen CO2 levels 1,000 times the present. RCO2 has a maximum estimate near the beginning of the Phanerozoic of about 26 times the present. During the Mesozoic it peaked around 10 times the present (both figures are based on Geocarb III). In fact, if you were to designate “climatological” periods, there have be two during the Phanerozoic. Based on the similarity between the present and the late Permian, we might be near the inception of a third. There’s an idea for a sci-fi novel.

Greg
Reply to  BobG
August 27, 2016 11:44 pm

I understand the point perfectly ta.
As I show CO2 levels lie well beyond those of the last 800,000 years and we don’t know where the blue curve is going to end up at.

You understand nothing. You have done a typical non scientific “trick” of mixing data from different sources and presenting it as the same thing. Though you don’t even manage to state the source of your data, it looks like you have grafted MLO onto the Vostok ice core. GARBAGE.
The ice core records do NOT have daily or even annual resolution neither in its sampling nor in the physical resolution of the individual samples. The interval between two samples in the Vostok ice core is large enough to miss the entire christian era !!
There different data are incompatible. Your modified graph is misleading and just shows your ignorance. Typical alarmism.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  BobG
August 28, 2016 1:42 am

Toneb, your last resort: climate equilibrium. And your point is
Feed-backs have yet to kick in regarding future CO2 levels.
______________________________________
Since that planet hosts an atmosphere climate feedbacks are IN OPERATION MODE.
That’s how we got here.

Alexander Carpenter
Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 12:26 pm

Equally, there is no evidence that the climate has leftequilibrium.
As well, the paleo-values represent time-averaged figures, and have relatively huge error-bars, so let’s not panic yet, OK? Our “spikes” may not be unique in any way.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Alexander Carpenter
August 27, 2016 2:50 pm

“Feed-backs have yet to kick in regarding future CO2 levels.”
So how much longer do we need to wait until the feed-backs kick in?
Another 10 years? Another 20 years? After the last 20 featured a slow down in the warming, one might be led to believe that feed-backs may already be starting to kick in………..negative feed-backs.
I’m guessing that you meant positive feed-backs. As time passes, we will know more and feed-backs, being a lagging indicator can only be measured “after” some period of time. After 400 ppm CO2 and “after” 420 ppm of CO2, for instance. However, should we not, have already seen some feed-backs since CO2 was at 350 ppm?
With the response to warming just from CO2. Being logarithmic and the greatest response during the first 120 ppm increase vs the next 120 ppm increase in CO2(if we ever get that high), since the contribution from increasing CO2 to future warming will be fighting a physical law that causes each 1ppm to warm less than the previous 1ppm, the future warming will be increasingly dependent on increasing positive feed-backs.
From my point of view, using observations, the window of time, for justification of using the higher end positive feed-back estimates and climate sensitivity guesses has been shrinking. Even the average guess by mainstream sources looks too high.
Time affords climate science (with regards to computer climate models) a luxury that very few sciences are given. Time in this field is measured in decades, projections go out to the end of the century. In almost any other realm, the difference between projections previously made and observations would have had to be reconciled much sooner. As you stated well with your justification(excuse).
“Feed-backs have yet to kick in regarding future CO2 levels.”…………..as we wait for another decade, still using model equations that reflect greater positive feedback than what is actually occurring.

Greg
Reply to  Alexander Carpenter
August 27, 2016 11:48 pm

Absorbed radiation will heat the absorber INSTANTLY. Any feedbacks will start to happen INSTANTLY.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Alexander Carpenter
August 28, 2016 1:58 am

Thanks,
Alexander Carpenter on August 27, 2016 at 12:26 pm
Equally, there is no evidence that the climate has left equilibrium.
____________________________________
As with bipedal motion – when is the wanderer ‘in equilibrium’.
Every step on the way.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Alexander Carpenter
August 28, 2016 9:37 am

There is no evidence that such a concept as climate equilibrium has any meaning whatsoever.

Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 12:27 pm

To eb should understand that CO2 enrichment is a forcing. Feedbacks follow a different rule, and at present climate science is at odds with mainstream science, as I shall show in due course.

Toneb
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 12:35 pm

Yes, indeed they do and the current CO2 forcing has yet to drive Earth temps to equ temp …. where upon feed-backs may …. or may not follow.
After all we have only departed from the carbon cycle CO2 stasis this last ~150 yrs out of those “810,000 yrs”.
My object was just to show that your “thermostasis” over the last ~800,000 years may well bear no correlation to the current *climate*.
Time will tell.

kim
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 12:56 pm

Time will tell, and it seems an Earth recovering from near CO2 starvation is marking the time with festivity from the cornucopia.
===================

Toneb
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 1:40 pm

“Time will tell, and it seems an Earth recovering from near CO2 starvation is marking the time with festivity from the cornucopia.”
Yep, that’s life.
Nothing really is all bad there is nearly always some pros.
However the biosphere seems to have managed quite well with CO2 at or below 280ppm.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 2:53 pm

Toneb August 27, 2016 at 12:35 pm

My object was just to show that your “thermostasis” over the last ~800,000 years may well bear no correlation to the current *climate*.

That is true. And it is also true that it’s possible that next year we’ll drop to ice age low temperatures. Finally, it’s true that it’s possible that next year we’ll be roasting in the Thermageddon promised by true believers.
SO WHAT? Yes, your hypothesis is possible. But without a scrap of actual evidence showing that CO2 is pushing the earth out of its historical temperature band, my hypothesis is just as likely as yours.
As far as I know, such speculation is best eschewed by scientists left to fools and climatastrophists …
w.

Gabro
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 3:15 pm

Toneb
August 27, 2016 at 1:40 pm
Actually, both the biosphere in general and humanity in particular struggled under LIA levels of CO2. Deserts and glaciers spread, famine and plague haunted the land.

Gabro
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 3:17 pm

And forests were cut down and soils exhausted, while warfare was almost constant.
Warmer is better. More plant food in the air, better yet.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 4:00 pm

“However the biosphere seems to have managed quite well with CO2 at or below 280ppm.”
Or quite poorly . . we don’t have a control biosphere to compare it to, Toneb.

PA
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 6:53 pm

As far as I know, such speculation is best eschewed by scientists left to fools and climatastrophists
The more correct term is climatologers (climate+astrologers).

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 8:26 pm

Toneb should be made aware that the climate-relevant feedbacks act -according to IPCC – at timescales of days to years. Most have already acted.

Duster
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 11:27 pm

After all we have only departed from the carbon cycle CO2 stasis …
No such thing. No evidence that such a state has ever existed. There was certainly no such “stasis” prior to 150 years ago. Cooling oceans had drawn CO2 down from Medieval levels, just as warming oceans following the LIA have been pushing atmospheric levels upward. IF all things remained “equal” – no even slight variation in albedo, no potential for solar influences to tweak in a minor fashion, in short in a laboratory, no tiny tremors from sea floor volcanes, no butterflies flapping their wings in Brazil, no climate theorists arguing, then you might achieve a “stasis.” Outside the lab in this solar system – not gonna happen.

Greg
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 11:54 pm

Yes, indeed they do and the current CO2 forcing has yet to drive Earth temps to equ temp …. where upon feed-backs may …. or may not follow.

More GARBAGE.
Feedbacks start as soon as there is a change in conditions. They do hold back until the system reaches equilibrium and then pop up to throw it out of equilibrium again.
If you are that ignorant, you would do well the shut up and read. You may learn something about climate, natural processes and science.

bobl
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 28, 2016 12:47 am

Toneb
“However the biosphere seems to have managed quite well with CO2 at or below 280ppm.”
Hmm,
At around 200 PPM photosynthesis roughly stops, at 400PPM it reaches current levels, we can conclude that on average for each 2PPM we increase photosynthesis by around 1% of present levels. So at 280PPM we can estimate that photosynthesis was 80/200 or around 40% of current levels – then there was an estimated world population of 1.8Billion now there is 7 Billion. So yes, we can conclude that we MIGHT be able to eat at 280PPM at a population of 1.8Billion but with a population of 7 Billion with 60% less food production than today?
Are you willing to take that risk, how many people must die?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 28, 2016 2:24 am

Monckton of Brenchley on August 27, 2016 at 8:26 pm
Toneb should be made aware that the climate-relevant feedbacks act -according to IPCC – at timescales of days to years.
Most have already acted -> ALL are on duty.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 28, 2016 7:48 am

Regarding photosynthesis stopping as CO2 decreases below 200 PPM: Make that 60-145 PPM for C3 plants and 10 PPM for C4 plants according to
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 2:53 pm

Except on that ice core chart CO2 lags temp by an average 800 years. Not causative, so not actually showing much about sensitivity except it cannot be high, else yhe lag would disappear and then invert.

gymnosperm
Reply to  ristvan
August 28, 2016 7:58 am

The Beerling Royer graphic shows a lag as well. The climate fundamentalists cannot get their heads around the reality that the paleo data relationship between temperature and CO2 shows only two conditions. During the Neogene abject dependence of CO2 on temperature. Before that no correlation at all.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 3:16 pm

CO2 is following temperature in that diagram so from the point of view of CO2 as a forcing agent the addition of dotted line to the current concentration level is irrelevant — and misleading because of the much greater resolution.
From the point of view of CO2 as a forcing agent, as BobG (11:57 am) points out, CO2 is only one climate forcing factor of many, most being unknown at this stage.
Toneb like all alarmists seems to be trapped in a cognitive quagmire of circular reasoning.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 5:58 pm

How will we know equilibrium when we see it? When was it at equilibrium in the past? Please tell us! Or do we need to spend tens of billions more on research to be sure?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Toneb
August 28, 2016 5:46 am

Tonyb
Even at that scale I can see that CO2 follows temperature by a significant time delay. Your point is well taken, but is the CO2 rise driven by the sustained temperature? Yes/No…how can we tell?

Cube
Reply to  Toneb
August 28, 2016 12:09 pm

Oh darn, we’re all going to die.

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 11:44 am

Regarding the official position;
1. A worst case scenario is not a promise. IF they don’t happen, we should be glad, not mad.
2. Saying, “Everything will be rosy if we do the ‘courageous’ thing and do nothing,” is a promise. If things do not turn out to be rosy, I hope that we would be more civilized than to riot on the streets, but, let’s say that I can make no promises.

kim
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 11:52 am

Typical fearmongering, ending with a threat.
At present understanding of sensitivity from observations rather than models, and from understanding our potential to use fossil fuels, we cannot warm the earth enough for the effects to become net detrimental. There will be mild warming, with winners exceeding losers, but we’ll all be recipients of a more diverse and expanded biome.
You do know that the greening alone is feeding an extra billion people today? And tomorrow?
============

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:00 pm

OK! Kim.
Let’s tell the police, firefighters, ambulance attendants and the military to go home. We pay them because of scary scenarios that might happen without them.
“At present understanding of sensitivity from observations rather than models, and from understanding our potential to use fossil fuels, we cannot warm the earth enough for the effects to become net detrimental. There will be mild warming, with winners exceeding losers, but we’ll all be recipients of a more diverse and expanded biome.
“You do know that the greening alone is feeding an extra billion people today? And tomorrow?”
Promise? Can you keep such a promise.

Gabro
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:02 pm

Jim,
No, we pay them because the threats against which they serve to protect actually happen on a regular basis.
Catastrophic man-made global warming, not so much.

kim
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:21 pm

It’s simple, Anthropogenic Global Warming and Greening is a great good. There is no climate Catastrophe now or looming. The only catastrophe is now and it is the lost opportunity costs associated with the destructiveness of this extraordinary popular delusion of the dangerous consequences of our enriching the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, AKA plant food.
I know this is radically different than your beliefs, but look at the accumulating evidence that no catastrophe looms, on the contrary, only net benefit.
=====================

kim
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:23 pm

G, I’d rate him good sophistry, handicapped at times by regrettable rhetoric.
==============

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:26 pm

Kim
“It’s simple, Anthropogenic Global Warming and Greening is a great good.”
People much smarter than you and I do not share your opinion.
Besides, if you live in the Northern hemisphere and like warmer climates, move South. You will get all the “benefits” of global warming. Unless you live in someplace like Florida.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:26 pm

Correction;
Even if you do live in Florida. Global warming melts ice.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:50 pm

In Florida the only ice that melts is in your cocktail glass (or pitcher depending on the time of day).

kim
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 12:59 pm

When the sea level stops rising, it will be a time of very great concern.
=============

catweazle666
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 3:13 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “We pay them because of scary scenarios that might happen without them.”
No Jimbo, we pay them because scary scenarios happen all the time, and someone has to clean up afterwards.
Perhaps, sitting in your mummy’s basement, that has escaped your attention.

Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 3:15 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn August 27, 2016 at 12:26 pm
People much smarter than you and I do not share your opinion.

Since we don’t know how smart you or Kim are, and we don’t even know who the people are you claim are smarter, this is nothing but an awkward appeal to authority which relies in part on the stated lack of intelligence of the author. I’ll reserve judgment on Kim, but I shall take your self assessment at face value.
Nay, worse than an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to an anonymous authority.

Menicholas
Reply to  kim
August 27, 2016 4:38 pm

“People much smarter than you and I do not share your opinion.”
One can deconstruct this sentence word by word and find out everything one needs to know about warmista CAGW enthusiasts like our friend Jimmy-boy here.

Reply to  kim
August 29, 2016 10:52 am

Jim Yushchyshyn August 29, 2016 at 7:09 am
“As if there were no “skeptics” who benefit financially. There is a lot more money to be made in hydrocarbons than in solar panels.”

Oh the horror!
Such ignominy!
Oh, the depths of my despair!
Wait, is that a rebuttal?
You imply that sceptics, (and many apparently senile alarmists), who invested to Man’s benefit and glory and therefore made money on their, often risky, fossil fuel investments are somehow equal to the losers who depend on frequently frightening mankind for their salaries?
Civilization is built on fossil fuels.
Science advancement is built with fossil fuels.
Science debasement is the result of the CAGW CO2 cultism.
For shame Jim.
Now about your diversionary attack.
• You did not address the hysterical antics new releases, without proof.
• You did not address the alarmist imaginary paths of CO2 to doom.
• You did not Address the lack of proofs supporting any alarmist arguments.
• You have not even addressed Lord Monckton’s formula.
• You have not presented a logical argument, counterpoint or discussion…
Instead you pronounce that some of your preferred people consensus is allegedly smarter; though Dr. Lindzen certainly disagrees.
argumentum ad populum
argumentum ad verecundiam

Sophistry through fallacious arguments.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  kim
August 29, 2016 10:08 pm

ATheoK
“Civilization is built on fossil fuels.
“Science advancement is built with fossil fuels.”
Civilization is built on energy.
“Science advancement is built with energy.
Energy =/= fossil fuels.
“Science debasement is the result of” people who reject the discoveries made by honest scientists.

Reply to  kim
August 30, 2016 6:35 am

“Jim Yushchyshyn August 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm

ATheoK
“Civilization is built on fossil fuels.
“Science advancement is built with fossil fuels.”
Civilization is built on energy.
“Science advancement is built with energy.

Energy =/= fossil fuels.
“Science debasement is the result of” people who reject the discoveries made by honest scientists.

For the industrial strengths of modern civilization Energy = fossil fuels, is true.
The unreliability of wind and solar, both in consistency and quality, means that large industrial processes can not risk depending on such weak and variable sources.
While nuclear energy is able to supply both quality and consistent quantity, that is only for in place machinery and foundries.
While the ignorant eco-movement has sought the demise of nuclear movement and reactors for ‘decades’; i.e. real decades, not imaginary ones.
Leaving nuclear generating facilities in quite a lurch with the Western world preventing modern nuclear facilities and de-commissioning existing facilities.
In the ignorant eco-world, everything revolves around their quite religious belief that wind and solar energy generation is ‘renewable’.
What is renewable about those bird/bat choppers and fryers are the frequent replacement/maintenance required for anything larger than backyard generators.
Fossil fuels run the trucks, trains, smelters, refineries, rolling mills, industrial plants, production lines, farming machines, mining equipment, etc. etc.; that keep people fed, warm, clothed, housed and industrially productive.
Fossil fuels are relied upon to build and construct wind turbines and solar collectors. Those same fuels are used to run the maintenance equipment and teams that support the wildlife destroying installations of wind and solar.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 1:08 pm

“People much smarter than you and I do not share your opinion.”

Intelligence has never been a marker for common sense or an innate insistence on viewing evidence first hand.
Ask any of the CAGW alarmists who not only benefit financially and personally, but then use some of their CAGW gains to purchase large oceanfront properties?
Or those so addicted to news bite hysterical antics, yet they wear hydrocarbon sourced clothing and shoes while jet setting to various tropical or sub-tropical hot spot conferences?
Perhaps you’ve noticed how many researchers prefer to stuff their research full of waffle words with great leaps in assumptions?
Have you ever wondered where they get all of their doom scenarios from?
Just where did they test or verify CAGW paths to doom? If you guessed nowhere not at any time, you win!
Instead those CAGW losers just took ordinary human disasters, then claimed CO2 would cause them. No operative mechanism needed or proven.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  ATheoK
August 29, 2016 7:09 am

As if there were no “skeptics” who benefit financially. There is a lot more money to be made in hydrocarbons than in solar panels.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 4:29 pm

Jim,
“Regarding the official position;
1. A worst case scenario is not a promise. IF they don’t happen, we should be glad, not mad.”
Unless of course the officials in question are power/wealth hungry A-holes, exploiting that non-promise, right? Don’t want to forget that power/wealth hungry A-holes crop up now and then on this planet, do we? That would be very stupid, historically speaking, huh?

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 11:55 am

A good way to get a quick estimate of climate sensitivity is to compare the temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air when PDO was the same as now. That would have been 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The temperature increase since then seems to be about 0.8C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The best estimate for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 1967 was 322ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current carbon dioxide concentration is 403ppm
http://co2now.org/
The number of doublings of carbon dioxide since 1967 was 0.324.
http://logbase2.blogspot.ca/2008/08/log-calculator.html
That would make the estimated climate sensitivity as 2.5C. The actual climate sensitivity may be higher or lower, as this estimate doesn’t take into account any trend in atmospheric aerosols or the Sun, since 1967.
Solar activity has clearly been falling;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend
And aerosols have also shown a cooling trend since the 1960’s
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/figs/d2_luo_1.gif
However, there are greenhouse gases, other than carbon dioxide, that would have been increasing since 1967.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 29, 2016 5:06 pm

And most Western women wore dresses everyday in 1967.
Now most of those same women only wear dresses for formal occasions.
How horrible is that women, lovely, beautiful women have helped caused all of this Global Warming you are so afraid of!
What will happen when all of these same women start wearing the latest women in power fashions?
The Mao look!
Will the Mao look exacerbate the modeled way back in 2002, estimates of aerosols?
Why, Look at the temperatures since 2002!!
Two women in power are wearing the dreaded Mao look, and Temperatures have spiked!! Yes, Spiked!
Sophistry, spun from fanciful correlations by the CAGW religious faithful! They’ve stated it, so it must be true…
Not!
PS Jim, you apparently didn’t get the memo. Those ‘modeled’ imaginary effects were part of an incredibly long parade of excuses Hansen and his followers have trotted out to ‘explain’ the pause in rising temperatures.
A pause that might very well continue in another year or so.
Don’t forget to tell us all about why a ‘modeled’ graph of China’s aerosols has any effect on global temperatures…

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  ATheoK
August 29, 2016 10:11 pm

I’ve known about the “memo” for decades.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Reply to  ATheoK
August 30, 2016 6:04 am

Memo?
From the WWII German puppeteers website?
Where ‘post’ editing threads and even comments to correct mistakes to make it seem that the faithful CAGW are winning arguments.
And you’ve known about it for ‘decades’?
One of the original costume climate falsehood kid’s, i.e. adolescents, club.
And there you go again; all diversion, distraction and fallacious arguments.
Cloud, smoke and mirrors Jim; zero substance!
And the fanciful model of China’s aerosols are still way out of date and as bogus as that skuzzy website.

Lance Wallace
August 27, 2016 12:00 pm

The “best” of the models (equilibrium climate sensitivity only 1.7 K/doubling of CO2) was CCSM4 from NCAR in Boulder, Colorado.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1
Was there a hidden message in the fact that it was made available to the science community on April Fools Day, 2010, and published in final form on April Fools Day, 2011?

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Lance Wallace
August 29, 2016 10:15 pm

Was the “best” of the models based on projections of solar activity and PDO that turned out to be accurate?
Did it accurately predict cloud behavior?
If not, perhaps an underestimation of climate sensitivity compensated for other errors.

David King
August 27, 2016 12:01 pm

It is articles like this that keep me reading this blog. His Lordship is without peer in breaking down the math and science into understandable and entertaining prose. I look forward to the thrashing he will give to the advocates of the exagerated feedbacks used in the models.

Reply to  David King
August 27, 2016 8:30 pm

Mr King is very kind. Watch this space.

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:08 pm

A good way to get a quick estimate of climate sensitivity is to compare the temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air when PDO was the same as now. That would have been 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The temperature increase since then seems to be about 0.8C.
The best estimate for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 1967 was 322ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current carbon dioxide concentration is 403ppm
http://co2now.org/
The number of doublings of carbon dioxide since 1967 was 0.324.
http://logbase2.blogspot.ca/2008/08/log-calculator.html
That would make the estimated climate sensitivity as 2.5C. The actual climate sensitivity may be higher or lower, as this estimate doesn’t take into account any trend in atmospheric aerosols or solar activity since 1967.
Solar activity has decreased since 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend/scale:200/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/to:2015/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/to:2015/trend
Aerosols have also had a cooing effect since the 1960’s.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/figs/d2_luo_1.gif
Although, carbon dioxide may have recieved an assist from other greenhouse gases.
The temperature increase since then seems to be about 0.8C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The best estimate for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 1967 was 322ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current carbon dioxide concentration is 403ppm
http://co2now.org/
The number of doublings of carbon dioxide since 1967 was 0.324.
http://logbase2.blogspot.ca/2008/08/log-calculator.html
That would make the estimated climate sensitivity as 2.5C. The actual climate sensitivity may be higher or lower, as this estimate doesn’t take into account any trend in atmospheric aerosols or the Sun, since 1967.
Solar activity has clearly been falling;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend
And aerosols have also shown a cooling trend since the 1960’s
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/figs/d2_luo_1.gif
However, there are greenhouse gases, other than carbon dioxide, that would have been increasing since 1967.

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:09 pm

A good way to get a quick estimate of climate sensitivity is to compare the temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air when PDO was the same as now. That would have been 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The temperature increase since then seems to be about 0.8C.
The best estimate for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 1967 was 322ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current carbon dioxide concentration is 403ppm
http://co2now.org/

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:11 pm

A good way to get a quick estimate of climate sensitivity is to compare the temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air when PDO was the same as now. That would have been 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The temperature increase since then seems to be about 0.8C.
The best estimate for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 1967 was 322ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current carbon dioxide concentration is 403ppm
http://co2now.org/

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:11 pm

A good way to get a quick estimate of climate sensitivity is to compare the temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air when PDO was the same as now. That would have been 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1967/to:2015/trend
The temperature increase since then seems to be about 0.8C.
The best estimate for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 1967 was 322ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current carbon dioxide concentration is 403ppm
http://co2now.org/

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:22 pm

The number of doublings of carbon dioxide since 1967 was 0.324.
http://logbase2.blogspot.ca/2008/08/log-calculator.html
That would make the estimated climate sensitivity as 2.5C. The actual climate sensitivity may be higher or lower, as this estimate doesn’t take into account any trend in atmospheric aerosols or solar activity since 1967.
Solar activity has decreased since 1967.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend/scale:200/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/to:2015/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/to:2015/trend
Aerosols have also had a cooing effect since the 1960’s.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/figs/d2_luo_1.gif
Although, carbon dioxide may have recieved an assist from other greenhouse gases.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:28 pm

I apologize for the repetition. A glitch in my computer kept posting what had already been posted.

ClimateOtter
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:28 pm

You really need to stop talking to yourself.
And really? Cherry-picking a year at the bottom of the last cooling cycle?

bit chilly
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:53 pm

the problem with using the pdo example alone is the different methods/areas of heat release between the atlantic and pacific. have you noted where the amo was during the same period ? another 5 years and i think even you may be surprised.

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 3:18 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “The number of doublings of carbon dioxide since 1967 was 0.324.”
Says the scientific illiterate who constantly castigates other posters for cherry-picking!

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 3:22 pm

That would make the estimated climate sensitivity as 2.5C.
Well that would be true if the relationship was linear and there were no other factors. But the relationship is a natural log function (hence the reference to doubling) which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding. Further, there are other factors.
But you already told us upthread that you’re not as smart as the authorities you appeal to. If you did your homework you would find that the natural log function and other factors are well accepted by the people you claim are smarter than you.
Drives me nuts that alarmists have to have their own side of the argument explained to them before they are educated enough to argue their side!

Richard M
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 4:21 pm

Jim, why did you pick 1967? If the PDO is a 60+ year cycle as is generally accepted then you have to go back to 1955 to get the same timing. And, you appear be comparing the value now during a super El Nino to a year with mostly negative ENSO months. One might call that cherry picking to an extreme.
So, how about comparing 1940 to 2002 which is 62 years. And, since we haven’t seen any warming in the satellite data (outside of ENSO noise) since 2002 it seems like a pretty good choice.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:2002
You end up with less than .6 C / century of warming. See how much your analysis is affected by the choice of dates? This would fall right into the warming that MoB has accepted as reasonable for quite awhile. FInally, since we don’t know how much of the warming is recovery from the LIA, land changes, etc., it is questionable to assign all of that to human emissions.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 6:28 pm

Re: Cherry Picking
Growing tips: cherries need a cold climate and well-drained soil.
The best time to plant them is in winter, when they are bare-rooted.
http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/fact-sheets/food-and-recipes/food-health-nutrition/cherry-growing-tips-and-recipes/#.V8I9-mW9_jU

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 6:36 pm

Now you’re an expert on when AGW started? 1960’s? I live in Western Canada and I’m not moving South or North! Bumper crops this year, lots of moisture, last significant drought was in the 80’s, record high was in 1937, many other record highs from the 1890’s. I grew up in the 60’s. Cold winters, hot summers, we called it weather and played outside at +40C and -30C and colder ,I walked to school and delivered papers and grew up strong and healthy. My kids did the same. 1995 was a very tough winter and they skated on outdoor ice and shovelled snow. We had wind chill of -83C one morning and I worked on a roof and the kids rode the bus to school. 2012/13 was the toughest winter I’ve ever experienced. It’s all just weather! We’re humans! Not porcelain dolls! Just do it!

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 7:25 pm

Climate Otter
I did not cherry pick. I chose a time frame to eliminate the effects of PDO from my calculation. Unlike actual cherry pickers, I did not choose it to supposedly prove that PDO does not change.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 7:27 pm

davidmhoffer
“Well that would be true if the relationship was linear and there were no other factors. But the relationship is a natural log function (hence the reference to doubling) which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding.”
If you followed my links you would know that I used the binary logarithm of the ratio of carbon dioxide in 1973 to that in 1975.
Further, there are other factors.
As I stated in my post. Like PDO
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1950/to:2015/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1967/to:2015/trend
Like the Sun
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1967/to:2015/trend/scale:200/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/to:2015/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1967/to:2015/trend
Like aerosols
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution2002/figs/d2_luo_1.gif
But you already told us upthread that you’re not as smart as the authorities you appeal to.
I believe that it would be arogant to claim to know as much about climate as James Hansen of Gavin Schmidt. The same applies to the rest of you.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 7:31 pm

davidmhoffer
“Well that would be true if the relationship was linear and there were no other factors. But the relationship is a natural log function (hence the reference to doubling) which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding.”
If you followed my links you would know that I used the binary logarithm of the ratio of carbon dioxide in 1973 to that in 1975.
Further, there are other factors.
As I stated in my post. Like PDO, the Sun and aerosols
But you already told us upthread that you’re not as smart as the authorities you appeal to.
I believe that it would be arogant to claim to know as much about climate as James Hansen of Gavin Schmidt. The same applies to the rest of you.
“Drives me nuts that alarmists have to have their own side of the argument explained to them.”
It looks like I’m the one who has been doing the explaining.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 7:36 pm

davidmhoffer
“Well that would be true if the relationship was linear and there were no other factors. But the relationship is a natural log function (hence the reference to doubling) which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding.”
If you followed my links you would know that I used the binary logarithm of the ratio of carbon dioxide in 1973 to that in 1975.
“Further, there are other factors.”
As I stated in my post like PDO, the Sun and aerosols.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 8:58 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn August 27, 2016 at 7:27 pm
If you followed my links you would know that I used the binary logarithm of the ratio of carbon dioxide in 1973 to that in 1975.

LOL. You used data starting in 1967:
The number of doublings of carbon dioxide since 1967 was 0.324.
And then used a number calculated from 1973 to 1975. Your words. They don’t even require rebuttal.
As I stated in my post. Like PDO, the Sun and aerosols
The elephant in the room would be natural variability which your cherry picked data carefully ignores. If we choose our months wisely from 1998 to 2015 we get a trend of nothing.
I believe that it would be arogant to claim to know as much about climate as James Hansen of Gavin Schmidt.
Ah! So now he names the authorities to which he appeals. None other than Hansen and Schmidt. The guys who claimed the warming signal was too large to be swamped by natural variation before 1998, and that it WAS actually swamped by natural variation after 1998. That authority? The guys who keep building models that get it wrong, and keep on coming up with excuses why, to the point that even IPCC AR5 set them aside for running too hot? What higher authority can one appeal to than the collective wisdom of the United Nations IPCC to which Hansen and Schmidt both contributed and both swear fealty to? Which authority shall I believe Jim?

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 28, 2016 2:19 pm

“Ah! So now he names the authorities to which he appeals. None other than Hansen and Schmidt.”
Names which global warming deniers can never mention without resorting to personal attacks.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 28, 2016 6:04 pm

<Names which global warming deniers can never mention without resorting to personal attacks.
Well Jim, can you point out a single personal attack in ANYTHING I said? Can you answer the questions I asked of you?

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 28, 2016 6:08 pm

Not to mention JIM that calling someone a DENI*R is precisely a personal attack. Come back when you have some actual facts and logic with which to comment, you are just looking silly now.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 28, 2016 9:02 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn (JY) doesn’t understand the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature, but we can’t blame him 100% because he just got out of .edu indoctrination camp. But most folks here understand that ‘climate sensitivity’ is nothing more than a guesstimate.
Currently there is no way to know how much global temperatures are affected by CO2 emissions. Numbers for temperature (T) sensitivity to 2xCO2 are all over the map, ranging from 6+ºC, to 5ºC, to 4+ºC, and so on, down to less than 0.5ºC. Some scientists (Miskolczi et. al) even say that 2xCO2 causes zero global warming. They may or may not be right, but it’s certain they’re far more knowledgeable than JY, who asserts that he can “get a quick estimate of climate sensitivity”. Umm-m… no.
Here’s a chart showing different peer reviewed, published scientists, along with their guesstimates of ‘climate sensitivity’:
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/models/climate-sensitivity/climate_sensitivity5.png
They don’t agree with each other on the climate’s sensitivity to 2xCO2. When no one is in agreement, the science is hardly settled—and the sensitivity number goes to the heart of the “dangerous AGW” debate. So naturally some of them want the number to be ridiculously high.
Next, JY points out something everyone here has known since they were in high school: atmospheric CO2 levels. However, JY believes that rising CO2 is the cause of the rise in global T. But without credible observations showing that cause and effect, he’s just passing on his belief.
Apparently JY was never taught that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature:comment image
Effect cannot precede cause, and credible evidence is lacking that CO2 is the claimed ‘control knob’ of global T. That cause and effect relationship is evident on time scales from years to hundreds of millennia:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
Empirical evidence confirms that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. But there is no comparable evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆temperature. (Charts that simply overlay CO2 and T do not show causation: which one leads, and which one follows. At best, overlay charts show a coincidental rise.)
The alarmist crowd has reversed cause and effect, so it’s no wonder they can’t make accurate predictions; they don’t understand causation.
If scientists knew what the actual 2xCO2 number was, they would be able to accurately predict future global T based on the known rise of CO2. But as we know, before global warming unexpectedly paused for almost a twenty years, the alarmist crowd was telling everyone that rising CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe…
…OOPS.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 12:41 pm

Hi Jim! So you’re saying (time after time) that CO2 is a thermostat? Is that so?

Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 27, 2016 8:34 pm

Mr Yushchyshyn invites us to defer to the supposed authority of Hansen and Schmidt. However, since WUWT is not a totalitarian state, we defer to no authority. As I shall show, in a crucial respect Hansen, for one, is in error.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 28, 2016 2:08 pm

Monckton of Benchley
You are one of the authorities that many people on this site defer to.

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 28, 2016 11:14 pm

JY You have just shown how little you understand the people and the process here. Lord Monckton of Brenchley is presenting his work publicly, for review by any and all who care to participate. His work will be examined, dissected, questioned, attacked, defended, criticized, rebutted and or corroborated in an open process to determine the truth, for all to see, in fact in full view of the entire world. A process that it appears other researchers could have benefitted from. I think it likely that he will be proved correct, but I have no doubt whatsoever that if he is proved wrong he will show the same degree of integrity that Willis and Anthony have so recently displayed.
I will not speak for others here as to deferring to experts, but I will admit that there are some to whom I defer. Richard Feynman for example, who said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Happily, most of the contributors here seem to agree.

Kurt
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 9:37 pm

“Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 at 7:31 pm
I believe that it would be arogant to claim to know as much about climate as James Hansen of Gavin Schmidt.”
It’s not at all arrogant. Neither Hansen nor Schmidt have ever demonstrated any kind of actual expertise pertaining to the Earth’s climate. No climate scientist has. That would require a proven track record of quantitatively accurate predictions about what is going to happen in the future. All climate scientists do is talk about what they think they know, write about what they talk about, then talk some more about what they write about in some exotic place somewhere around the world, but never has any climate scientist shown that they are actually good at climate science.
The only objective measure of our understanding of a physical system is the demonstrable use to which we put that knowledge. How well do we understand gravity? Well enough to build ballistic missiles that land on target, and well enough to predict the movement of planets. How well do we understand electromagnetics? Well enough to build microcircuits and to build transmission grids that span many hundreds of miles. How well do we understand the interaction of gravity and electromagnetic fields? Not well enough to reliably predict the strength of upcoming solar cycles.
The point is that until climate scientists start applying what they think they know about the climate system to either build something based on that knowledge, which actually works, or start predicting things in advance of those things happening, climate “science” will always remain firmly within the realm of conjecture.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Kurt
August 28, 2016 2:11 pm

“Neither Hansen nor Schmidt have ever demonstrated any kind of actual expertise pertaining to the Earth’s climate. No climate scientist has.”
So say the authorities to whom you defer.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Kurt
August 28, 2016 2:16 pm

“Neither Hansen nor Schmidt have ever demonstrated any kind of actual expertise pertaining to the Earth’s climate.”
So say the authorities to whom you defer.

Harry Passfield
August 27, 2016 12:29 pm

Chris, speaking as one who has done the theory and practice of building an amplifier, and as much as I think you are the Bernard Levin of AGW opinion (but he still holds the record for long sentences!), I really think you need to put your lovely prose to better use and show up the socialist undercurrent that is the Green dream. People will vote for redistribution of wealth – as long as it is not theirs; they will want everyone to have green power – as long as it’s not their blackout; and they will want to have a clean green world – as long as they can still fly to Ibiza on the cheap.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 27, 2016 12:52 pm

Mr Passfield asks me to point out the obvious: that the totalitarian extreme Left are backing the climate scam.
However, I shall in these articles put to good use my knowledge of logic, which allows laymen to pierce the veils of mumbo-jumbo spun by unprofessional scientists.
I shall show that mainstream climate science is not mainstream science.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 29, 2016 7:14 am

“Totalitarian extreme left”
“Climate scam”
If those aren’t personal attacks, I don’t know what is.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 29, 2016 7:30 am

My reply to this comment hasn’t yet posted. Could it be that I am being censored by someone who has problems with alternative viewpoints to his own?
[could it be that our moderation staff that approves comments just doesn’t operate on your preferred schedule? but go ahead, act like a conspiracy theorist /mod]

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 29, 2016 2:07 pm

JY says:
“Totalitarian extreme left”
“Climate scam”
If those aren’t personal attacks, I don’t know what is.

Were you personally labeled with those examples? I couldn’t find where, but maybe I just overlooked it. You make lots of comments; too bad you won’t answer questions. But as I’ve pointed out many times, ducking questions is a hallmark of the climate alarmist crowd.
For example, I posted a comment to you a little way upthread (the one with the charts). But you never responded to it, or to any of my other questions or comments to you. Since you made comments before and after, you must have seen it. But ignoring facts doesn’t make them go away.
The reason that your side avoids or deflects skeptics’ questions is because they lead to conclusions the alarmist crowd does not want discussed. Refusing to acknowledge valid points and ignoring questions lets them avoid having to finally admit that their case is weak to non-existent. If you had a solid, evidence- and data-based argument, you would be happy to engage with it. Instead, you ignore questions, or you deflect, or you pound the table.
Next, moderators sometimes have to make a choice between what you may consider a pejorative, and free speech. Aside from extreme cases, they come down on the side of free speech. IMHO, that policy goes a long way toward explaining the very high site traffic here, and the million-plus reader comments. If readers want a censored blog, there are plenty of them on your side of the aisle. You could even start your own blog, and censor anyone you disagree with.
Free speech on the internet is becoming increasingly scarce. The more scare something is, the more valuable it is. Draw your own conclusions.
And please, read the site Policy. It’s not hard to find. It begins with this:
• Postings are moderated, I and the volunteer moderators try to keep up, but on occasion there may be delays of a few hours.
(Also, note the “deniers” pejorative, which you apply repeatedly to folks you disagree with.)
The comment you complained about appeared shortly afterward. It’s reasonable to wait at least an hour to see if your comment is published. Fifteen minutes is hardly long enough to start making accusations of censorship:
“Could it be that I am being censored by someone who has problems with alternative viewpoints to his own?”
Wait, what?! There are no mirrors in your house?
Start answering questions when they’re asked, and most of your “alternative viewpoints” will quickly be exposed as baseless assertions.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 29, 2016 10:26 pm

“Were you personally labeled with those examples? I couldn’t find where, but maybe I just overlooked it. You make lots of comments; too bad you won’t answer questions.”
Can you name who was. I doubt that you can name a single climatologist, at least not one of the 97%, who holds extremist views.
And I do answer questions.
“I posted a comment to you a little way upthread (the one with the charts). But you never responded to it, or to any of my other questions or comments to you.”
“• Postings are moderated, I and the volunteer moderators try to keep up, but on occasion there may be delays of a few hours.”
OK! I will wait for the moderators to do their job. I suggest you do the same.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 30, 2016 8:53 pm

JY says:
Can you name who was.
More deflection. You whine about labels appended to someone else, as if you were the target. They’re grown men, they can take care of themselves. They don’t need a 20-something four years out of high school to defend them.
Next:
I doubt that you can name a single climatologist, at least not one of the 97%, who holds extremist views.
Let me put your doubts to rest: Michael Mann. James Hansen. Kevin Trenberth. Steven Schneider (“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”). I can name dozens more, but why bother? I’ve falsified your assertion with one name.
Before you ratchet up that 97% foolishness even more, put “97%” into the search box here. That ridiculous claim has been so thoroughly debunked that there are even peer reviewed, published papers, which have never been refuted or corrected (like Mann’s hokey stick paper was), showing that it’s nonsense. Your ‘97%’ propaganda has been demolished by plenty of reputable scientists. Set aside some reading time, you will learn some things they didn’t teach you in your .edu factory. And you might be surprised at what the search shows you.
Also, if you put stock in the climate peer review process, you can’t just cherry-pick the papers you like. If 75 respondents out of thousands were enough to convince you, then you were a true believer before John Cook cooked up his 97% crapola. His fake poll fed your confirmation bias, that’s all.
Next:
And I do answer questions.
Just not here.
But if you’d like to start, here’s a question: were you aware that on time scales from years, to hundreds of thousands of years, changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature?
I suspect you didn’t know that, since you avoided responding to it.
Here’s another question:
Since real world observations always trump conjectures and hypotheses, how do you explain the clear disconnect between CO2 and global temperatures? Maybe this will help you understand the question:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temp-emissions-1850-web.jpg
There is no corellation between ∆CO2 and subsequent ∆temperature.
The only corellation between CO2 and global T shows that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature:comment image
Question #3: can you produce a similar cause-and-effect chart showing that rising CO2 is the cause of rising global temperatures? If so, please post it. That will be a first (and remember that an overlay chart does not show cause and effect).
There. Three simple, CO2-related questions. Take your best shot.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 1, 2016 9:42 am

Jim Y says:
I do answer questions.
When?
I will wait for the moderators to do their job. I suggest you do the same.
That’s no longer an issue, and it’s been three days now.
Remember: ‘Silence is concurrence’.

August 27, 2016 12:36 pm

Mr Yushchyshyn has not understood the head posting. I shall be exposing, one after another, a series of scientific errors each of which has played a part in exaggerating Man’s supposed warming influence.
There is nothing in the recent temperature record that demonstrates the relative magnitudes of anthropogenic and natural influences. Various opinions are possible. But this series is not about opinions. It is about scientific errors, which will be explained and demonstrated one by one until all will be able to see that the scientific basis for the official high-sensitivity storyline has been destroyed as manifestly false.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 27, 2016 4:07 pm

Monckton of Brenchley. Thank you for the great post. Will you, in future posts, also describe the errors resulting from fudging the historical temperature data to make false warming apparent?

Reply to  Leonard Lane
August 27, 2016 8:36 pm

Mr Lane invites me to deconstruct the tamperature record. However, for the sake of brevity this series will concentrate on mathematical errors that are undeniable.

usurbrain
August 27, 2016 12:54 pm

As a Control Systems Engineer, that has tuned many power plants to operate smoothly, efficiently and reliably, I have never seen a Bode diagram or Nyquist curve of loop transfer function supporting the arguments predicting the so called “feedback.” Why?
My analysis is that to do so would destroy their argument.

Reply to  usurbrain
August 27, 2016 2:06 pm

Usurbrain is right about the curious absence of Bode diagrams. I shall be rectifying that omission later in this series.

Reply to  usurbrain
August 27, 2016 2:33 pm

“I have never seen a Bode diagram or Nyquist curve of loop transfer function supporting the arguments predicting the so called “feedback.” Why?”
The first question is, where do you find those arguments? They are far less common than people think. GCMs are not based on feedback notions. Feedback is a way of thinking about climate interactions. You first have to create an appropriate circuit in your mind.
But the reason you won’t see Bode diagrams is that the thinking related to the “official equation” relates to DC gain. There is no frequency response involved.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 3:42 pm

Nick, *ANY* change with respect to time is not “DC,” but is dynamic and therefore has meaningful characteristics that can be shown in the frequency domain on a Bode plot.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 4:35 pm

“therefore has meaningful characteristics that can be shown in the frequency domain on a Bode plot”
Only if you have time-dependent information. There is none in the “official equation”. DC is the low frequency limit. It would be a single point (f=0) on a Bode plot. And since Bode plots are done with log(f), it won’t even appear.

usurbrain
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 7:53 pm

So explain to me why you think I plotted process loop gain and phase lag angle vs angular frequency (rads/sec), And with these plots determined if the loop was stable.
I was also involved with the modeling of control systems used for power pant simulators and development of accident analysis for these power plants. The computer models I developed mimicked the plant to within 1/10 of a percent accuracy. This was only achievable by accurately modeling the feedback of each control loop. One of the computer models I developed provided the information needed for design changes to prevent boiler implosions caused by the larger stack fans on the balanced draft boilers after the regulatory mandated emissions reduction modifications.
So how do GCMs work without modeling the feedback or “are not based on feedback notions”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 8:41 pm

Mr Stokes is trying, unsuccessfully, to anticipate parts of the argument that will not be presented till later in the series.
And if the models did not allow for feedbacks they would predict no more than the reference warming of just 1 K.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 12:05 am

Only if you have time-dependent information. There is none in the “official equation”.

The climate record is a time series: not time dependant? IPCC projections are for the FUTURE: not time dependent information?
I have a lot of respect for you capabilities but you seem badly off the rails with this comment.
Even if we reduce the whole climate system to a trivial RC circuit and hit is with a step change 2xCO2 input, we can analyse the frequency response. As soon as something changes over time it is not “DC”.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 12:57 am

“but you seem badly off the rails with this comment.”
It’s very simple. The head post describes an equilibrium model. There is no time or frequency dependence. There are no reactances.
“Even if we reduce the whole climate system to a trivial RC circuit”
The system is reduced to a R circuit. There is no C. Now you may say that there is data which could be used to construct a time dependent model. OK, let’s see it done. We don’t have it. So you can’t do frequency analysis.

bobl
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 1:36 am

Which is why they are no good at predicting the dynamics of climate.

bobl
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 1:53 am

usJim,
No that its wrong – You can have a dc gain, X In Y out, so that in the path from X to Y there is a change in DC level after an infinite time, but this says nothing about the undulations that happens in the output while the output was changing from X to Y that is the dynamics. The official equation is the same, it gives an input, then predicts and output given a gain with the Potentiometer being CO2 it IS equivalent to the DC gain of an amplifier with a controlled variable DC feedback.
For example I could have a climate that oscilates periodically between -273 K and 303K and the average would still be 15 deg C would it be livable – well no.
As any EE knows as you feed output back to the input the stability of the amplifier falls, not because of the feedback persay, but because of the inevitable time delays in the feedback signal. The DC analysis does not tell you what happens over time the AC analysis does. Every feedback in the climate has a DIFFERENT DELAY, and it changes dynamically.

usurbrain
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 6:25 am

Bobs @ 1:53 +10 –
Exactly!

Rex of Wellington
August 27, 2016 1:03 pm

An increase in CO2 concentrations has been described as
322 ppm up to 403 ppm. Impressive figures, and quite alarming.
However, let’s put it another way: the ratio of CO2 to other
gases in the atmosphere has increased from 3:9997 to
4:9996. The End Is Nigh.

Reply to  Rex of Wellington
August 27, 2016 6:09 pm

I don’t understand your numbers, can you please explain?
In my simple world CO2 has increase from 0.03% to 0.04% in some 250 years. This means CO2 concentrations have increased by 0.01%, both natural and man-made.
Thanks

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Terence M
August 27, 2016 11:47 pm

Terrence M, when I want to illustrate how much of the atmosphere is co2 I use an illustration from a presentation by Burt Rutan, still available for download as a pdf from his website. On page 12 above the illustration he sais to think of the atmosphere as 300 gallons of water, say in 6 50 gallon drums. Into this water add one tablespoon of warm water- about 360 drops (co2 was at about 360 ppm then) one drop at a time, one a day for a year. In this case make that 322 drops and 403 drops, roughly. Sorry, I’m not sure how to post images or I would.
http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf

John Finn
Reply to  Terence M
August 28, 2016 5:45 am

Terence M, Jeff Hayes:
The apparent insignificance of a relatively small concentration of CO2 in not a valid argument.
Pour a litre of water into a glass jug. You will be able to see the bottom of the jug clearly. Now add a teaspoonful of milk and stir. The milk concentration will be about 500 ppm – yet you will no longer be able to see the bottom of the jug. The liquid becomes much less transparent to visible light. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a similar effect on LW energy.
CO2 is likely to cause warming – just not as much as some climate scientists predict.

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Terence M
August 28, 2016 8:35 am

I think you need to check your figures:
1 liter/(1000000*500)=0.0005 liter, or 0.5 ml
One teaspoon is approximately 5 ml (4.92) so you have actually added 5,000 ppm in your example. Adding 1/10 of a teaspoon (a few drops) would be correct, if I have not made a mistake- I haven’t had my second cup of coffee yet.
As to whether this is a “valid argument” that depends on what you are trying to say. I thought you were asking for an explanation of Rex’s numbers or a different way of understanding them. Most people, ie; laymen, including myself have a difficult time understanding actual relationships of the amounts of the gases in the atmosphere. It’s just not in human-scale. It doesn’t help when fear-mongers scream that we are “dumping billions of tons” of co2 into the atmosphere. If I say to someone who wants to know (or misunderstands) how much that is- “if the atmosphere were a one-liter bottle of water the co2 already present is a few drops, we add one drop per year and plants take back out 5/6 of that drop”, they have a perspective that they can understand. The absorbance characteristics of “greenhouse” gases is a different conversation.
Note- I haven’t worked out the actual relationship of co2 added and removed by plants as it scales to a one liter bottle of water, or used that example before now, I just used one drop and 5/6 to illustrate the point.

John Finn
Reply to  Terence M
August 28, 2016 11:34 am

One teaspoon is approximately 5 ml (4.92) so you have actually added 5,000 ppm in your example. Adding 1/10 of a teaspoon (a few drops) would be correct, if I have not made a mistake- I haven’t had my second cup of coffee yet.

You are right. It is just a “few drops” to produce a noticeable effect. My recollection of the example was a bit hazy and I didn’t think the numbers through properly. That said the example does demonstrate the effect.

Ronald Abate
August 27, 2016 1:06 pm

According to the web post below, China in the last three years used more cement than the U.S. did in the entire 20th century. I wonder if the climate alarmists who calculated that this year is the hottest on record factored in the effect of all that cement, not only in China but in all the developing countries. I bet not.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/red-ponzi-ticking-china-and-the-dark-side-of-the-global-bubble-part-3/

commieBob
August 27, 2016 1:12 pm

Anyone who has ever built an operational-amplifier circuit intended to operate stably will know that a designed-in maximum feedback factor of not more than 0.1 (or 0.01 if possible) is desirable to ensure that anomalies in componentry, assembly, operation and ambient conditions do not induce unwanted runaway responses.

It is important to remember that the value of the feedback has a sign. You can have as much negative feedback as you want. An application for that would be a voltage regulator. In the schematic note the comparator. It is in the feedback loop and has an open circuit gain in the order of 100k.
So when would we want positive feedback? Back in the day when all we had were vacuum valves (also called tubes in North America), the number of active devices was small because valves were expensive and gobbled electricity. It was possible to build a radio with a single valve by using positive feedback to increase the gain of that valve. These were called regenerative receivers. They were inexpensive and that was their only advantage. 🙂 They also tended to be unstable.
Getting catastrophic temperatures from increased CO2 requires positive feedback. Most people who have designed feedback circuits will doubt CAGW on that basis alone. Positive feedback (as you point out) tends to be unstable and the planet has never exhibited that kind of instability except when it bangs into and out of glaciation.

Toneb
Reply to  commieBob
August 27, 2016 1:34 pm

“Getting catastrophic temperatures from increased CO2 requires positive feedback. Most people who have designed feedback circuits will doubt CAGW on that basis alone. Positive feedback (as you point out) tends to be unstable and the planet has never exhibited that kind of instability except when it bangs into and out of glaciation.”
I would suggest that is because of the remarkable stability of our Sun’s output.
It needs the Earth’s path around it to wobble/wander further away relative to the NH for there to be any great variation.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Toneb
August 27, 2016 6:49 pm

So the Sun’s output is stable and CO2 has varied from 180ppm to 7000 ppm while the only generally hazardous climactic conditions the world has seen have been major glaciations. Unless you’re going to turn around and claim that CO2 causes glaciation, just what the heck is the problem?

Reply to  commieBob
August 27, 2016 2:07 pm

“It was possible to build a radio with a single valve by using positive feedback to increase the gain of that valve.”
The point of regenerative receivers was not just to increase the gain of the valve. It was to increase the frequency selectivity. There is an L and a C that you tune in the feedback loop. And these are tuned so the loop gain (and positive feedback) is very high at the desired frequency. There is no real analogue to the DC gain being spoken of here.
And besides, regenerative receivers actually worked very well. They were only replaced by superhet because that offered better frequency selectivity.

Toneb
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 2:12 pm

Yes, correct Nick – there is no analogy at all between a tuned circuit and climate. None at all.

catweazle666
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 3:20 pm

Toneb: “there is no analogy at all between a tuned circuit and climate. None at all.”
Really? Are you sure of that?
If so, why?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 3:43 pm

Toneb seems to be becoming desperate in hoping that there is nothing in common between an electronic circuit and the climate. In fact, the mathematics of feedbacks in dynamical systems was first developed for electronic circuits, but the principles of feedback are applicable to dynamical systems in general, including the climate. See e.g. Hansen, 1984; Schlesinger, 1985; Roe, 2009. However, all of these papers contain errors.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 4:38 pm

“desperate in hoping that there is nothing in common between an electronic circuit and the climate”
He said there is no analogue between a tuned circuit and climate. A tuned circuit is tuned to oscillate (usually sinusoidally) at a fixed frequency. Climate is not.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 27, 2016 8:45 pm

Mr Stokes is wrong, as usual. The head posting made no reference to tuned circuits, wherefore, even if Toneb was talking of the particular type of tuned circuit mentioned by Mr Stokes, his attempt to criticise the head posting on this ground must fail.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 12:07 am

“The head posting made no reference to tuned circuits”
Toneb was responding (through me) to commiebob’s analogue of regenerative receivers.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 9:51 am

Toneb: You obviously never built a super-regenerative receiver…

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 1:23 pm

Nick
You have totally gone off the rails, your argument over the last month has all amounted to “hold your breath you’ll see I am right”

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 28, 2016 5:18 pm

Leo Smith says: August 28, 2016 at 9:51 am
Toneb: You obviously never built a super-regenerative receiver…

Me neither. 🙂
The only reason I mentioned regenerative receivers was as an example of positive feedback.
In my experience they were cheap AM radios that people used in the kitchen or workshop. Because of their cheapness they weren’t replaced by super het radios. By 1970, they had been replaced by even cheaper transistor radios. I remember them going unstable. I also remember them as being susceptible to interference and thus being a problem for any radio amateurs in the immediate vicinity. Under no circumstances would they have been described as ‘fine radios’.
Imagine my surprise when I found this link. It seems that at least one person likes them.

HocusLocus
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 29, 2016 4:48 am

“there is no analogy at all between a tuned circuit and climate. None at all.”
Then why are my ears ringing with climate propaganda?

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 29, 2016 6:41 am

Monckton of Brenchley says: August 27, 2016 at 3:43 pm
… the mathematics of feedbacks in dynamical systems was first developed for electronic circuits …

In texts of a certain vintage, there would be a picture of a water tower. Voltage, current, and resistance would be explained in terms of pressure, flow, and friction. By 1940 my father’s first year electrical text had the following wording which still alluded to the hydraulic analogy:

Just as a hydraulic engineer may design, construct, and operate a water-power plant, without any knowledge of the molecular structure of water, so an electrical engineer may design, construct, and operate an electric-power system, without any knowledge of the electron theory of electricity.

By the 1970s fluid systems were taught using the concepts the students had already applied in their electrical course. example

Bill Illis
August 27, 2016 1:20 pm

Let’s estimate empirically what the feedbacks really are.
Let’s assume there is an increase of +0.8C in temperatures to date and let’s use the forcing numbers provided by the IPCC in AR5 and correctly use the Stefan Boltzmann equations instead of shortcut numbers. W/m2 and temperatures in C and no fudging is then allowed.
AND … this is an important assumption … let’s move all the calculations and BS down to the surface and forget about the fake tropopause modelling theory. Why? because the troposphere is warming less fast than the surface (which means the theory is broken when based on the tropopause) and the numbers don’t go far enough back in the troposphere and one of the feedbacks gets thrown out then – the lapse rate – which just takes away another one of the fudge factors … and … we live at the surface, we don’t live 6 kms up.
So, 0.8C temperature increase (from let’s say 1850). That means the surface emission rate has increased from 386.8 W/m2 (or 14.2C) to 391.2 W/m2 (or 15.0C).
The GHG/and all other forcing according to IPCC AR5 is +2.3 W/m2. According to Stefan Boltzmann, that should have lead to an increase in temperatures of +0.39C (or from 386.8 W/m2 to 389.1 W/m2).
The feedbacks then add another 0.41C so that we get to 0.80C. The feedback values as calculated at the surface that work in Stefan Boltzmann are then 2.56 W/m2/K.
This is equivalent to:
–> +2.0 W/m2/K in water vapor feedback (basically the same as the assumption used by the IPCC);
–> +0.46 W/m2/K in net cloud forcing (a positive number and close to the IPCC assumption); and,
–> +0.1 W/m2/K in ice/surface albedo (again very close the IPCC value, certainly ice albedo has changed).
So there you have it. No fooling around. The empirical numbers to date and the IPCC is right on the assumptions (except now I am at the surface and using the real Stefan Boltzmann equation). i don’t care about the deep ocean lag anymore because it is warming so slowly, it cannot have any impact on surface temperatures. By 2080 it will be barely up to +0.2C and that has no impact once the surface has warmed by 4 to 8 times the ocean.
Charted here.comment image
Now we can use the same idea to see what happens at doubled CO2/GHG forcing of +4.2 W/m2 (I’m counting all the GHGs including methane etc. and not just CO2).
Viola +1.46C (or just +0.68C more to go).comment image
The math always seems to work out to this value no matter which different way i do it. Always.

Gabro
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 27, 2016 1:28 pm

Voilà!
And you’re being generous to Alarmists with your assumptions and “observations”.

kim
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 27, 2016 1:33 pm

heh, either right or horribly, invisibly, biased.
===========

Reply to  Bill Illis
August 27, 2016 1:45 pm

Your estimate is close to Lewis 2015 (1.5) using Bjorn Stevens newly constrained lower by about half aerosol estimate. And to the extent this validates Stevens, it knocks out climate models, because most of them used extra aerosols to cool the hindcasts to better match observation.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 27, 2016 7:14 pm

Now if you run that through a computer and set it on fire, you can get published! Just put “climate change and stuff” at the end and double your result (or lie about the past)! Also, remove all reference to anything sensible (except temperature which is fundamentally sensible to most people). Also, please run for office!

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 28, 2016 4:21 am

I’ve done something different here than global warming theory is based on.
I have moved all the calculations to the surface.
Global warming theory bases all their estimates in the troposphere and then assumes that this magically translates into a similar impact at the surface.
But 2 W/m2 of forcing at the tropopause does NOT have the same temperature impact as 2 W/m2 at the surface. In addition, the troposphere is warming at about 60% as much as the surface while it supposed to be warming at 130% of the surface in the theory. The theory at the troposphere is broken.
If you look at how the numbers are evolving at the surface, we only 1.46C per doubling of warming and we are already at 0.80C of that. Nothing much has happened. if we get another 0.66C in the next 65 years, nothing much else is going to happen either.
At the surface, all the forcing and feedback impacts are dampened because we are already at higher energy levels at the surface. The Stefan Boltzmann equations are logarithmic with respect to energy levels and temperature.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 28, 2016 4:50 pm

Nothing much has happened…nothing much else is going to happen either.
Say it again…

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Bishkek
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 28, 2016 6:13 am

Bill Illis
“So, 0.8C temperature increase (from let’s say 1850). ”
Hang about…up page there is a comment that from the PDO condition of 1967 to now, it is the same 0.8 C. You are saying (pointing out) that it is 0.8 C from 1850. That rather drives a logical wooden stake through the heart of the CO2 Dracula.

Reply to  Bill Illis
August 28, 2016 1:39 pm

Good work Bill, but what you find with this method is the Transient Climate Response (TCR), not the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and the value 1.5 K for TCR is similar to what IPCC says in AR5.
The TCS is likely in the range 1 K to 2.5 K, and the ECS is likely in the range 1.5K to 4.5K. See
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
/Jan

Gabro
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 28, 2016 1:50 pm

Sorry, but 4.5 K seems physically impossible. What highly positive net feedbacks could possibly boost ECS from 1.2 K without feedbacks to 4.5 K with them?

Bill Illis
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 28, 2016 4:09 pm

Jan Kjetil Andersen August 28, 2016 at 1:39 pm
What makes the ECS higher and longer than the TCS. Ocean heat accumulation? You know I do not see anyway that a 0.2C warmer ocean is going to translate into a warmer surface when the surface is already 1.46C warmer. It is unphysical. It means nothing even if you think in the next 500 years, the ocean warms another 1.0C. It is an energy sink, not an energy source. it does not make the surface warmer
Ice-albedo? Well that was going to happen regardless of any increased CO2/GHG. As long as the interglacial continues, Greenland was always going to continue melting out until some day when all the ice is gone. 25,000 years, 50,000 years, it was already going to happen because Greenland is too far south to maintain glaciers. Antarctica is not going to do anything because it is too cold and right over the south pole. If you run the numbers on Greenland melting out in 20,000 years, it does basically nothing to Earth albedo because it is small and gets little of the global solar insolation. Ice-albedo impact runs out of steam once you get to today’s situation. There is nothing there.
Climate science like to use the misdirection of ECS versus TCS but, in real physical terms, they have not shown a real physical mathematical explanation for why they should be different. It is just a scam to keep people in line. There is no lag time beyond 6 or 7 years that is worth talking about.
See if you can do the ice-albedo or ocean heat accumulation math to prove a different situation. You cannot. It doesn’t work. It is just part of “climate science communication”. ie “marketing”.

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 29, 2016 12:02 am

What makes the ECS higher and longer than the TCS. Ocean heat accumulation? You know I do not see anyway that a 0.2C warmer ocean is going to translate into a warmer surface when the surface is already 1.46C warmer. It is unphysical. It means nothing even if you think in the next 500 years, the ocean warms another 1.0C. It is an energy sink, not an energy source. it does not make the surface warmer

Yes, the main reason for the difference between TCR and ECS is the slow ocean warming. You are right that the ocean is a net energy sink now, and will continue to be that in a long time, more than 500 years. Nevertheless, equilibrium will be reached in the end and.
In equilibrium, both land and ocean are net sources due to the energy flow from the Earth interior.
However, let us look at the situation, before equilibrium is reached, for instance 200 years from now. For simplicity imagine that the greenhouse gas concentration stops at the current level, so we have the same forcing as now.
The oceans will continue to be a sink for these two centuries and because it is a sink, it will become warmer.
Because it will be warmer than it is now, it will be a smaller heat sink than it is now. That means that more heat will stay in the atmosphere and give a temperature rise.
This is the main mechanism behind the TCR – ECS difference.
Jan

Latitude
August 27, 2016 1:34 pm

I’m curious as to how you could even calculate feedbacks…without knowing temperature
..and knowing the temperature history has been so jiggered

bobl
Reply to  Latitude
August 28, 2016 2:24 am

Ristvan sorry no.
The feedback in the auditorium occurs if the sound at the microphone from the speakers exceeds the initial signal at the microphone that was being replicated at the speaker, the pitch of the squeel depends on the frequency at which this first happens, which is usually high because of the way microphones are equalised.
This is the condition where the loop gain exceeds unity in the acoustic system.
Long before you hear the squeal you hear “Echos” or Reverberation, otherwise known as ringing, which causes a gross distortion of the signal you are trying to amplify ie “Instability”.

August 27, 2016 1:38 pm

The operational electronic amplifier design example is inapt, a misdefinition of instability in the climate context and in the Bode feedback amplification context. A concrete laymans example:
It is self evident from experience that auditorium microphone/amplifier loudspeaker sound systems are usually well behaved despite the existance of substantial feedback (the mike obviously ‘hears’ the speaker and the loudspeakers and feeds both back to the amp). Auditorium sound systems do not screech until the system f present in the venue gets too high. That certainly is not f=0.1 and a measly amplification of ~1.1x as figure one ‘max stable’ asserts. The figure as labeled implies all auditorium sound systems are essentially useless. Untrue.
Screech happens if the speakers are placed too close to the mike (too high f) or the amplification for the venue specifics is turned up too high (too high f). As the red curve of figure one suggests, this is about f=0.8-0.85 and 6-7x amplification. Thats real loud. Evidence: Outdoor rock concerts set up their stage sets with speakers high and/or at the ends of the stage, amplified to just below this threshold (by testing up to screech then backing off some) and wearing earplugs to keep from going deaf. (Despite which about 30 peecent or rockers are hearing impaired.) They leave that to the mosh pit. Data: normal speaking voice is ~60 db at 1 meter. Loud outdoor rock concert ~115-120db at 2 meters in the mosh pit. ~6x on the db (log) scale.
Figure one clearly shows that the Bode net feedback f provides a perfectly well behaved ECS up to f=0.73=>ECS = 4.5. Observational energy budget models (EBMs) suggest an actual ECS of ~1.65 (AR5 inputs, Lewis and Curry 2014) or perhaps 1.5 (Bjorn Smith aerosols, Lewis 2015). So F~0.25, very well behaved. Those papers use time intervals attempting to wash out underlying natural variation as much as possible.
You cannot argue observational EBMs wrong just based on inapt amplifier electronic circuit analogies about instability. The sound system example shows that. You can possibly argue EBMs wrong some based on not fully washing out natural variation in their interval selections, or based on sketchy deltaQ (ocean heat pre ARGO).
I look forward to the rest of your posts on sensitivity.

Reply to  ristvan
August 27, 2016 2:15 pm

Mr Istvan will find, when I get to the feedbacks, that scientific errors are present in the existing analysis. I’m not basing the argument on hand-waving about process engineers’ design limits. Those limits are merely indicative: the errors are substantive.