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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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
Mr Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
Happy to see you again. I was scared that you were at home locked in your room crying all alone when you realized how stupid were your previous posts.
Few weeks ago, you “demonstrated” that ECS was at most 1.6 K. It was an awesome result.
And now, you are just talking bullshit on WUWT, instead of keep going with that and publishing your result in a scientific review… What are you doing, man ???
Great idea!
/sarc
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/27/feds-go-after-science-journals-for-deceptive-practices/
Grow up Benben.
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
Ad hominem ‘arguments’ from cowards do tend to lower the tone.
Toncul, whoever you are, come with facts not garbage. You show your ignorance when CM’s ~1.6 ECS previously theoretically derived agrees with observational EBMs. He is published–here, for all to critique, not just those with a uninpaywall subscription. And in peer review several times, like the irreducible equation paper from which this flows.
Got something substantive to contribute, do so. Else please take your nonsensical poison and just go away. Far away. Very far away.
The best response to “toncul” is : mon cul !!
Look it up. ( clue it’s french ).
Greg
No the best solution for Toncul is for him to be removed from the sight he is a name changing troll
One important thing to understand about the association between a variation in temperature and a variation in CO2, is that there are multiple relations of causality that could create this correlation and they are all completely different phenomenons. The 2 most important are the variation in temperature caused by a variation in CO2 and the variation in CO2 caused by a variation in temperature. And then, in theory, you could have a large number of phenomenons that would cause both a variation in CO2 and in temperature.
If the climate has any stability, the ratio of K per CO2:doubling must be higher when the variation of CO2 is caused by a variation in temperature than the other way. So it is important to make sure that you use data where the right direction of causality is dominant.
If we lived on a planet where doubling the CO2 caused a warming of 1K and increasing the temperature by 10K caused a doubling of CO2. On that planet, historical data would give us an estimate of sensitivity anywhere between 1K to 10K per doubling of CO2. And we could ask ourselves what is most likely to change naturally, temperature or CO2 level.
It seems that every discussion on climate brings people who show you that historical data associates a high variation in temperature to a low variation in CO2. And these same people have climate models that are highly unstable. Is it possible that these people use the same ration of K per CO2:doubling independently of the direction of causation. And they use data when the variation in CO2 was caused by a variation in temperature to evaluate sensitivity.
The satellite measurements over oceans do not have a spurious trend when compared to sea surface temperatures, there is no reason to believe a spurious trend should exist only over land. It shows us that weather stations have a spurious trend compared to satellite data. Radiosondes do not have a spurious trend in relation to satellite measurements so they can be used. So if we take satellite and radiosondes measurements and consider ocean cycle, we can see that climate sensitivity probably falls outside of the range from the IPCC and is lower than 1K/CO2:doubling.
How hard is that?
I’ve tried to follow the alleged exaggeration here. As far as I can see, it goes like this. People publish a range of sensitivity, say 1.5 to 4.5, with a mean of 3. Lord M says that if you do the feedback algebra, you perform a kind of inversion and get a range [0.23, 0.73], of which the mean is 0.48, and if you invert the mean back again, you get 2.2, not 3.
Well, you can do that with anything. It’s like saying that the harmonic mean is different from the arithmetic mean. It doesn’t mean the arithmetic mean is wrong.
In fact, they don’t generally calculate the central value as the mean of the endpoints. They calculate the best estimate and give a error range about that. The range is generally assumed symmetric (faute de mieux), but nothing much hangs on that. If you know otherwise, the limits could be unsymmetric. Lord M’s argument hangs on the argument that the central value for feedback must be the mean of the extremes, and so the central value for ECS must not. No reason is given.
But ECS is generally not calculated from feedbacks at all. It is simply the observed (or estimated) change of temperature with flux. The feedback calc is an optional layer of diagnosis. It does not overrule the result.
Mr. Stokes,
“Lord M’s argument hangs on the argument that the central value for feedback must be the mean of the extremes …”
Not as I read his presentation. He’s essentially claiming that habitual exaggeration is evident in his eyes, with the handling of these matters. At no point did he say it was impossible that this particular potential example could not have some justification he is unaware of.
If you are aware of some such justification, in your opinion, make your case, I suggest. At this point, it looks to me like you’re reminding us he’s not all-knowing, which seems kinda pointless among adults . . One can say that this or that example of Ms. Clinton saying things that appear to many to be untruths, might have a good explanation, but that wouldn’t do much to persuade many to believe she’s an honest person after all, nor should it, it seems to me.
Rather ~ *At no point did he say it was impossible that this particular potential example could have some justification he is unaware of.*
“He’s essentially claiming that habitual exaggeration is evident in his eyes”
No, he’s claiming a specific “exaggeration”. He says:
“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 “
And that is my understanding of what it is. Do you have a better idea?
So, you got nothing, right? You are bitching because the author didn’t somehow prove the negative that there was no reason lurking in someone’s mind for not going with the “generally assumed symmetric” range, right? You have no evidence they did have some reason, you just figure it’s up to Mr. Monckton to somehow prove there was no good reason?
Just out of curiosity, are you with her? ; )
NS, you start out with a very severe fact disability. Yes, Charney said ECS 3. Yes, IPCC thru AR4 said 3, even though their own detailed analysis said it must be less. Climate chapter of published The Arts of Truth goes into those tedious details. But all EBMs since 2013 are much less, sort of 1.5-1.8.
“NS, you start out with a very severe fact disability.”
I introduce no new facts. The examples I quoted are direct from the head post.
Mr Stokes imprudently argues against me for having made a point I had not in fact made in the head posting. I did not say that the central value for the feedback sum must be the mean of the extremes. I said it would be likely to be close to it. And I gave two worked examples: the CMIP 3 & 5 ensembles. Take 3. The bounds of the interval of feedback sums are 1.53 and 2.35, and the published intermodel mean is 1.93, which is indeed close to the mean of the extremes,
And Mr Stokes is disingenuous in saying the models reach their results without accounting for feedbacks. They do not always provide explicit contributions from individual feedbacks, but they certainly take account of overall feedback amplification. Otherwise they would find climate sensitivity to be 1 K per CO2 doubling. And the differences between their predictions of climate sensitivity arise near-exclusively from differences in their assessments of the feedback sum.
“I did not say that the central value for the feedback sum must be the mean of the extremes. I said it would be likely to be close to it. “
Well, that seems to be a very small difference. And it hs the same effect. For the feedback sum, the central must be close to the mean, so the use of the mean for ECS must be wrong. But why? It is a trivial statement; you have no independent knowledge of the distribution of feedback sums. You just take a range, transform it, say the mean has changed (which is just a matter of arithmetic), and then say something is wrong.
As an aside, the IPCC does not generally assert that the central value of ECS is the mean of the range. As you note, in AR1 and AR2 they gave (diffidently) 2.5 as central in a range 1.5 to 4.5. In AR4 SPM (below fig SPM4) they gave 3, with a range 2 to 4.5. In AR5 SPM they gave a range with no central estimate.
” but they certainly take account of overall feedback amplification”
GCMs do not do that. They do not deal with feedbacks at all. Feedbacks are a diagnostic construct, taken after the fact by those who find it helpful.
Mr Stokes continues to dig himself in deeper into error. The distribution of feedback sums in the models, together with their means, which are close to the means of the extremes, are shown in the head posting, in a detail from AR5, fig. 9.43a. And if he will read the references provided, he will learn – e.g. from Vial et al., 2013 – that the principal differences between models’ estimates of climate sensitivity are accounted for by feedbacks, of which, therefore, the models inevitably take account, for otherwise they would be constrained to find climate sensitivity equal to the reference sensitivity 1 K per CO2 doubling.
Vial et al., by studying each of the models, even go so far as to identify ineachis mispdel the individual contributions from each of the climate-relevant feedbacks.
Furthermore, the head posting demonstrates that the use of the published feedback sums in the official climate sensitivity equation generates the published climate sensitivity estimates.
To take a specific example of how models account for feedbacks, Lee et al. (2007), following Santer (2003), shows that models are programmed to expect that, owing to the water vapor feedback, the rate of warming in the tropical mid-troposphere will be about twice or in some model thrice that of the tropical surface.
This circumstance, as Soden & Held (2005) points out, leads to a diminution in the tropical temperature lapse rate with altitude, which acts as a negative feedback countervailing to some extent against the water vapor feedback.
It is by the representation or oarameterization of processes such as these that the models take account of temperature feedbacks, and it is foolish of Mr Stokes to attempt to confuse the issue by saying thy do not take account of feedbacks.
“It is by the representation or oarameterization of processes such as these that the models take account of temperature feedbacks, and it is foolish of Mr Stokes to attempt to confuse the issue by saying thy do not take account of feedbacks.”
No, what you have described are the ways in which model users diagnose feedbacks from model outputs. But the ECS values are not deduced from feedbacks. Just above Fig 9.42 they explain how it is done:
No mention of prior calculation of sum of feedbacks in either case. ECS is estimated directly. They do also describe the method of estimating via feedbacks, and even note the discrepancy that you describe (without justification) as an error, in Sec 9.7.2.4:
There are important caveats.
Mr Stokes continues to miss the point. The models are constructed in such a way as to predict non-linear temperature responses to linear changes in feedback. The difference between models’ sensitivities arises from differences in their treatment of the phenomena that cause those non-linear responses.
And in one sense it matters not by what methods the models reach their exaggerations. The reference sensitivity of order 1 K is simply enough determined. One can then deduce that the difference between any published final sensitivity and the reference sensitivity is attributable to feedbacks. And, once I have demonstrated that very high feedback factors are impossible and arise from a large error, the models will have to be adjusted to take account of that error.
Sure, because the equations that govern temperature are non-linear. If you linearly change the inputs to a non-linear equation, you get a non-linear response.
That comes from the physics of climate change, all the way down to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It’s not some arbitrary design choice by climate scientists; it’s physics. The physics is non-linear.
Nick, I think much of the 2.2 vs 3 argument is incorrect because it is the median of model CS which is usually taken not the mean. This goes at least some way to addressing this effect. I posted about median above.
If there is an averaging to be done ( median or mean ) it would be preferable that this was done in a linear domain if possible. So I think there is a sound argument in doing this in f rather than CS. Though if the median is used the difference will be less.
“Though if the median is used the difference will be less.”
If the median is used (as you say it is), there will be no difference at all.
From Nir Shaviv:
the IPCC AR5, first impressions
“One of the statements which wonderfully exemplifies the absurdity of the new report is this paragraph discussing the climate sensitivity in the summary for policy makers. They write:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.”
Now, have you noticed something strange? According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?..,,
One reason for the lack of improved understanding could be incompetence of the people in the field. That is, all the billions of dollars invested in climate research were not or could not be used to answer the most important question in climate, one which will allow predicting the 21st century climate change. I doubt however that this is the real reason. Among the thousands working in climate research, surely there are at least a few who are competent, if not more.
I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.
This divergence between theory and data exactly describes the the situation over the past several years with the lack of temperature increase (e.g., as I described here some time ago). It is also the reason why the IPCC had to lower the lower bound. The discrepancy is large enough now that a climate sensitivity of 2°C is inconsistent with the observations. However, under legitimate scientific behavior, the upper bound would have been decreased in parallel, but not in this case. This is because it would require abandoning the basic premise of a large sensitivity. Since the data requires a low climate sensitivity and since alarmism requires a large climate sensitivity, the “likely range” of climate sensitivity will remain large until the global warming scare will abate.
Incidentally, if one is not a captive of the high sensitivity idea, then things do converge, but they converge towards a climate sensitivity of about 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling.
A second important aspect of the present report is that the IPCC is still doing its best to avoid the evidence that the sun has a large effect on climate. They of course will never admit this quantifiable effect because it would completely tear down the line of argumentation for a mostly manmade global warming of a very sensitive climate…”
Dr Shaviv is right. IPCC has made some basic errors. Watch this space.
This is why the target was changed from 2 to 1.5 in the Paris accord. It is clear that we will come in under 2 on a “business as usual” level of output; so the perceived need (power) to control was gone unless the “safe” target was reduced to 1.5.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, thank you for the essay.
It’s a pleasure! Keep watching.
Here Lord Monckton says in part:
‘…..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…”
THIS STATEMENT IS QUITE WRONG. I don’t know how many op-amp circuits he has designed and tested, but I would guess none.
For an op-amp by itself, no amount to positive feedback (let alone as much as 0.1, or even 0.01) can be tolerated IF one wants a linear circuit (such as, typically, an amplifier).
Positive feedback around a finite gain amplifier, (the amplifier realized with an op-amp with negative feedback), results in gain, and feedback factors greater than 0.1 are common. (100 years ago, that’s how they made “regenerative” radios.) I wrote up some tutorial notes on this in Nov. of 2013:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN219.pdf
This has some 24 pages total. One circuit, for example, where f=2/3 (greater than 0, greater than 0.1, but less than 1) is shown here:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN219Fig6.bmp
I think I asked about where he got that value of 0.1 before, and he never replied.
BH, Yes, I made the same arguement above using common microphone/amp/ loudspeakers as the example. IMO, and younprovide more data, is any Bode f below ~0.8 is ‘safe and well behaved’.We had this same go around last year concrning the irreducible equation paper, which as I Showed at CE is further reducible and then equivalent to CM figure 2. And then showed that with observationally reasonable inputs, calculates to 1,5-1.8 mode ~1.6. Spot on observational EBMs.
Thanks Rud – the old brain cells called back into action – we did have this go around before.
If I am recalling correctly, CM had an expert with multiple PhDs, whom he never disclosed. And someone (probably you!) pointed out that CM was not good at grasping the lifelines some folks were tossing his way.
plus ca change …….
BH, mine age also. But thanks for remembering the last go round on the same issues.
Messrs. Istvan and Hutchings, instead of loftily dismissing an argument I have not yet made, would be wiser to wait until I have made it.
Lordy, you have the small problem of having just asserted in your argument that you deny having made those in your previous texts here. Except you provably did.
Let me be even clearer. i am ‘on your side’. BUT only iff honest and scientific. Because anything less opens skeptics to the same criticisms we level against others like Mann. That is not a winning strategy. And we must win.
Second that. Like Bernie says, he seems to think he has to defend his work as it stands against all criticism, rather than benefiting from the breadth of technical experience available here which he could benefit from to improve it.
Most here are ‘on his side’ if he is about improving the science of climatology.
Mr Istvan has only to read the head posting to appreciate that I have not yet made any argument to the effect that the process engineers’ design limit for circuits designed to operate stably is a real limit that operates in the climate. I have, however, here as elsewhere, suggested that, a priori, the existence of the process engineers’ limit is suggestive, and no more than that, that there may be something wrong with the large feedback factors that climatologists use.
I have plainly and fairly stated in the head posting that I shall demonstrate a posteriori, i.e. with evidence and logical argument, that feedback factors in the climate do not fall within the interval marked as unstable in the head posting. It would be best, therefore, if Mr Istvan will read what I write a little more closely, and not continue to attack a straw man of his own making,
Let him take the same open-minded approach as an IPCC lead author did when I showed Fig. 1 of the head posting during a presentation to lead authors at the University of Tasmania some years ago. He looked at the graph, thought for a moment and said, “Have you published this?” I said No. “But you must,” he said. “This changes everything.” As will be revealed in due course, it is he and not Mr Istvan who is correct on this point,
But you ignore that the feedbacks around the climate system are many and varied, analogous to multiple parallel feedback paths with different gains and delays. The Microphone analogy is probably quite close, but if you deliberately introduced 0.95 forward feedback then you would almost certainly hear a screech at some frequency or another. There is almost no chance of such a system being randomly stable.
Bobl continues futilely to attempt criticism of an argument about feedbacks that I have not yet presented. This is the worst kind of argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi.
The tendentious Greg pompously says I should avail myself of the expertise available here. So let me make it plain that all who have attempted inexpertly and unscientifically to attack my argument about feedbacks when I have not yet presented that argument have disqualified themselves as unfit to participate in this or any serious argument. I shall regard the future interventions of such bloviators with suspicion.
I have noted with interest the names of those who have knowledge of feedback systems but have resisted the temptation to attack my argument before I have presented it. It is those, and those alone, whom I shall heed when the time comes, for they understand the scientific method, and that is worth more than all the supposed expertise of the pompous preachers.
No Lord Monckton, I do not critique your argument, I introduce my own!
I have yet to see your slant on this so how can I comment on it.
Bernie,
“For an op-amp by itself, no amount to positive feedback (let alone as much as 0.1, or even 0.01) can be tolerated”
Yes. This is not the positive feedback normally spoken of. That is the feedback applied after application of Planck, which takes it to the finite gain case that you describe. The Planck feedback adds stability; adding positive feedback removes some of that stability. There is no rule that says that small reductions in stability can’t be tolerated.
In your notes, you give the following example:
The two inverting amps in black together give a stable negative feedback amplifier with unit gain. The extra red positive feedback increases the gain to 3. It does not render the circuit unstable.
Add multiple paths and series inductors to each feedback resistor then tell me what happens. Climate feedbacks are not instantaneous like this amplifier, they are randomly delayed by changing delay amounts, they are also non linear, for example water vapour is logarithmic.
The climate/CO2 is also energy limited, analogous to the amplifier output reaching the power rail as is nears that saturation, the gain falls dramatically. There is only so much energy available in the CO2 stop band once exhausted gain falls to zero.
Oh dear. The BBB brigade are out again. That is because the overall negative feedback still exists.
Of course an amplifier with a gain of a hundred whose output is attentuated by one thousand and then fed back in positive phase is not unstable.
Overall loop gain is less than unity.
IN climate the IPCC style models assume presumably that the T^4 radiation is the final negative feedback that renders the overall gain less than unity.
Of course climate sensitivity is not related to temperature is it? So they have forgotten to include that non linear component in their calcs!
I.e. the hotter it gets the less impact CO2 should have, on account of the radiation being so much higher at higher temperatures.
But alas AGW alarmists are sloppy like that. They cherry pick bits of formulae, apply linear calculations to non linear curves and generally make a pigs ear of the whole thing.
For what it’s worth:
Lord Monckton has now labeled the greater-than-unity-loop-gain portion of the closed-loop-gain function’s domain “Climate-unphysical” rather than just “Unphysical response,” as he previously did.
As background, note that a physically realizable equilibrium state exhibiting a closed-loop gain of -3 would result if Mr. Stokes’ feedback resistance equaled 3R/4, i.e., even if the loop gain exceeded unity. Of course, that equilibrium would be unstable: any slight change in the input would cause the system to drive itself away from equilibrium rather seek it, as it would if the loop gain were less than unity. And no one thinks that the climate’s parameters place it in this regime any more than one would expect to find an electrical circuit at rest in the unstable equilibrium state I described.
Strictly speaking, though, that doesn’t make that state any more unphysical than that of a broom temporarily balanced on its handle. So “unstable” describes the states corresponding to the domain’s greater-than-unity portion more correctly than “unphysical.” does.
I mention this rather minor nomenclature point merely as background to the observation that the “Climate-unphysical” label does not seem entirely consistent with Lord Monckton’s subsequent comment, which I agree with, that “the principles of feedback are applicable to dynamical systems in general, including the climate.”
That had in essence been my response when he and his co-authors said a year and a half ago that one of the many complex-climate-model errors their “Irreducibly Simple” paper exposed was that the “Bode system-gain equation” is the “wrong equation” for complex climate models to apply to the climate. Independently of whether those models explicitly use that equation, I said, I agree they have to use it implicitly if they implement feedback, but it is definitely not the wrong equation.
Although the above-quoted comment may suggest he learned something since that paper, his drawing leaves that unclear.
Mr Born is, as ever, sneeringly confused. Perhaps he would like to meditate upon what mechanisms n the climate could act as strongly positive feedbacks and yet could drive temperatures down. In electronic circuits the feedback factor often exceeds unity, attenuating the gain for the sake of overcoming variabilities in component Ray, operating conditions, etc. In the climate, not so.
But he, like others, is commenting on the feedback portion of this series before it has been published.
re: Bernie Hutchins August 27, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Bernie, reference your Figure 6, this is what simulation calculates the voltages as being at the outputs of the two op amps using Tina-TI (ver 9) and using ideal op amps for the circuit in Figure 6: Note the values derived do not agree with what is in Figure 6.
op amp 1) -2.99 V
op amp 2) +2.99 V
http://i64.tinypic.com/9gy2pg.jpg
usJim –
Of course they do not “agree” – are you unfamiliar with experimental discrepancies? My numbers (in green) are EXPERIMENTAL measurements (AKA “the right answer”). Yours are a calculations assuming zero tolerance components. I used 5% resistors. Did you by chance try putting the input to 1.000 in which case you should get out -3.000 and +3.000 in your simulation, the exact theoretical values. You in fact VERIFIED my results, and have my appreciation.
Bernie
Bernie,
I made some variations to your circuit which I think do represent the feedbacks in the “official equation”; I wrote about it here. Thanks – your circuit was very helpful.
I spent far too much time as a student in late ’60s tinkering with multivibrators etc trying to make music. Moog was our shining light, and we read whatever he wrote that we could find. Unfortunately on student hobby budgets the step into voltage control that he pioneered was beyond our technology, but we had fun and learnt a bit.
Nick –
(1) Thanks for that. I generally prefer a visual version of an equation. And that includes using a flow-graph whenever possible. The flow-graphs here are realized with op-amp arithmetic as demos. So they look strange (at least inefficient). So mine is an “amplifier” with gain 1 with a positive feedback of +2/3 in the loop. You know all this – I’m glad it seems to have been clear enough for most of the real engineers here.
(2) Misunderstanding of the limits of feedback aside, next (again thinking as an EE), it strikes me that the equation is really a DIFFERENTIAL equation (note the delta-T and delta-F) and is related to our “Classical Sensitivity” that is so extremely useful (and much better defined/used) with analog filters:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/Sensitivity.jpg
This I suggest just for perspective. BUT – what would the classical value be (relative to 1).
(3) If you are interested in Moog stuff – here are six of my Moog stories (lesser known) and a long interview I did with him. Fun stuff.
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/ENWN14.pdf
Regards,
Bernie
Thanks for the notes, Bernie. I used to try to imagine the Moog environment, back in 60s and from the other side of the world. Didn’t really get it right, but very interesting to read it now.
Yes, the equation has to be a differential equation, over an operating range. However, the claim of the equation is that the derivative dX/dY is constant in that range. It seems to me that it fits with a z_21 (or y_12 focussing on the denominator) of a two port network.
Nick –
I think the use of the “Classical Sensitivity” illustrates the point you are making about whether a sensitivity is constant or not. The calculation more or less instantly tells you the situation. Here are three hand-written examples:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/SensExamp.PDF
In the first, the S value is an agreeable constant value of 1 (break even – a 5% change of resistor gives a 5% change of Q, for all nominal attempts at Q). For the second, a frequency parameter (like cutoff), the S value is -1/2, an even more agreeable value (less sensitive because of the square root). The third is the Q of the famous (but flawed) “Sallen-Key” filter where the Q depends on a finite gain K as Q = 1/(3-K). In this case, the S values is 3Q-1; not only NOT constant but depends on the nominal design value, and gets worse with increasing Q. That is, when Q is being designed at 10, say, S=29! Sometimes a S value is 0 – for example, an asymptotic cutoff rate.
So doing those derivatives is pretty simple and gives a full picture JUST based on what you get for S. The sensitivity values also provide a “tweak” formula (tuning equation) if you need a nearly exact correction to a particular instance of a circuit.
Oh – I probably should have done the feedback gain equation G = A/(1-f) where A is the gain before feedback and f is the feedback factor (as usual). Here S = f/(1-f), not a constant. Note that when f=0 we of course have S=0, and when f goes to +1 S blows up (as expected).
These calculations are fun – watching so many factors cancel top and bottom.
Bernie
“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 gain ratio is determined by a negative feedback resistor from the output to an inverted input, and second resistor from that input to ground, creating a potential divider. With both resistors equal, gain will be unity, with the feedback resistor ten times larger than the ground resistor, the gain will be ten. Any positive feedback would cause runaway gain and clipping.
ulriclyons – exactly right.
It’s good to point out that we do (also) use op-amps open loop (comparators) or with a small amount of positive feedback (so that the comparator “snaps”) or with a significant amount of positive feedback (Schmitt triggers) creating a range of hysteresis. These things we do intentionally, and they are quite distinct applications as compared to amplifiers.
My application used positive feedback in an amplifier, and f could approach 1. This positive feedback was partially cancelling the original negative feedback. As is noted in the text.
Thanks
Mr Hutchins makes my point for me a fortiori.
Bernie thanks. The comparator and Schmitt trigger op-amp applications have effectively a digital output, hardly an analogue of any climatic feedback function.
A Schmitt trigger or comparator still has overall loop gain of less than one in its stable states. Since the amplifier internal gain drops to about zero as the output stages clip.
Anyone can prove anything by talking BS out of context.
The point is that in their linear regions these circuit types are radically unstable, due to intentional loop gains of more than unity.
The point at issue here is that IPCC style feedback levels have to create a loop gain of greater than unity for CO2 to have the effect it allegedly does, at least at lower temperatures than now.
And if those sorts of feedbacks were present, response to things like volcano aerosols and so on would be far far greater than they observably are, and the past temperature record could not have been what it demonstrably was, and indeed its hard to see how an ice age could actually happen.
Remember that the ‘amplification’ is not of CO2 directly, oh no, its of temperature ITSELF. Anything that causes a temperature change should cause more temperature change!.
And that’s why its so easy to see from examining responses to step changes in albedo, like a volcanic eruption, you can see clearly that there is no amplification whatsoever.
The most dominant negative feedback is of course T^4 radiation, which says the hotter it is the vastly more radiation we will see to space from night-time surfaces. The second factor is overall albedo. Which will limit radiation falling on the surface. And that is dominated by sea and clouds. Especially in the tropics, and of course by ice in the polar regions.
Leo Smith August 28, 2016 at 10:26 am: “A Schmitt trigger or comparator still has overall loop gain of less than one in its stable states. Since the amplifier internal gain drops to about zero as the output stages clip.”
Emphatically not true, Leo.
The difference (or delta) input to the comparator may be as little as 1 millivolt or it may be 0.1 volt, with the output driven to one supply rail or the other, or perhaps to ground (as some devices have a TTL compatible logic level output.)
The POINT being, THERE is gain, gain which is sufficient to drive the output to maximum and in the proper direction, and to ‘full scale’ to use a euphemism. One might be tempted to use the term ‘saturated gain’ which will still be much greater than one except in most all but a very few select cases.
usJim.
Leo Smith is correct. In its stable states the schmitt trigger has a gain less than 1 because the energy input has been limited. It cannot drive higher because the output transistor is at minimum (close to zero ohms) and the output current is a maximum. Iin this condition a rise in input causes no change in the output which can never exceed the supply voltage, and the gain of the amplifier is effectively zero, therefore the loop gain is similarly impaired. A delta change in input causes a zero feedback response from the output. Gain is Zero.
In this climate similar conditions arise when warming generates a saturation response, resulting in a thunderstorm which then removes the solar input, the system IS saturated and the only energy available is that stored within the system. That’s why storms are self limiting. During a storm the climate sensitivity (gain) is effectively zero. This is one reason why I say that the feedbacks can’t be treated as scalars.
And that main neg. f/b loop is the planck feedback in climate.
This is why I said from the outset when CoB started all this analysis that it was simply adopting the IPCC misdirection about feedbacks being “positive” not to explicitly include the planck feedback.
Net f/b is always negative, the debate is about whether it is a little more negative or a little less negative. The latter is what the IPCC calls “positive” feedback and leads to erroneous ideas that we could have run-away warming etc.
The Planck “feedback” is not a true feedback, as the form of eq, (1) in the head posting makes quite clear. And it would really be best if commenters waited for the future article in which I address the vexed question of temperature feedbacks before attempting to criticise it.
“The Planck “feedback” is not a true feedback, as the form of eq, (1) in the head posting makes quite clear”
Eq (1) makes the opposite clear. You can write it as:
ΔTeq = ΔF/( 1/λ0 – Σc_i)
The denominator is just the sum of the Planck coef inverted, which gives it the same units as the other feedbacks c_i. Then you see that (with a neg sign convention) the denominator is just the sum of feedback terms, including Planck.
AR5 refers to it as Planck feedback, as in 9.7.2:
“There is high confidence that the sum of all feedbacks (excluding the Planck feedback) is positive.”
““There is high confidence that the sum of all feedbacks”
Confidence amongst those PAID to be confident.
Are you one of those, Nick?
Mr Stokes persists in trying to argue against an argument that I have not yet presented. When he finally sees that argument, he will see the futility and irrelevance of trying to maintain that the reciprocal of lambda-zero is a “feedback”. And I know IPCC likes to call it a “feedback” when it is no such thing, and it was this among other things that showed me where to look to find the truth. Just wait and see.
Well the ONLY way the earth can LOSE heat is of course by Planck radiation so obviously its the dominant ‘negative feedback’ system. And its highly non linear too.
A black body at 300K (27C) loses ~50% more energy than one at 0C (273k). THis is probably not a bad model for night time cloudless skies, or night time warm cloud tops.
However the BS about incoming radiation is just that. BS. The earth is absolutely NOT a black body by day, it has a massive and sparkling and hugely variable albedo.
Which is why Svensmark has to be at least partially right: Cloud cover (and ice cover) is the key to how much radiation is received at ground level.
Satellites can establish how albedo is varying, and satellites can also measure night time radiation loss. And response to step changes in albedo like volcanic aerosols. And so on.
Which of course is why the IPCC concentrates on ground based thermometers in towns, and sea thermometers in engine intakes instead. Hard to fudge satellite data. But they do.
“The gain ratio is determined by a negative feedback resistor from the output to an inverted input, and second resistor from that input to ground, creating a potential divider. With both resistors equal, gain will be unity, with the feedback resistor ten times larger than the ground resistor, the gain will be ten.”
Since you have grounded the second resistor I assume you are talking about a non-inverting op amp circuit? In that case the closed loop gain is ideally 1+Rf/Rg where Rf is the feedback resistor and Rg is the ground resistor. So if Rf=Rg the closed-loop gain is 2, not 1. And is if Rf=10Rg the closed-loop gain is 11, not 10.
A better metaphor than the op-amp is a servo, a servo exhibiting strong motor-boating at an ENSO scale, integrated with a bi-stable operation in the form of the AMO. Both acting as powerful feedbacks to indirect solar forcing.
powerful *negative* feedbacks
Why not wait until I have made my argument about feedbacks before attempting to criticise it?
Maybe because in figure 2 you have already made it , it does invite comment. It will be interesting to see a later post with more detail but if you present feedback equations, expect comments.
Greg is being wilfully obtuse. The head posting contains an explicit warning that commenters should not hold my feet to the fire for the official method of determining climate sensitivity. Fig. 2 is a representation of the official climate sensitivity equation; and, as the calibrations of it against both the CMIP3 and 5 model ensembles demonstrate, it does indeed determine the officially published climate sensitivity intervals.
However, as the head posting makes explicit, I do not defend that official equation. Indeed, in just about every material particular, it is in error, which is why the published climate sensitivity estimates are exaggerated.
And would it not be more sensible to wait until I have presented the argument about feedbacks before attempting to comment on it? Would that not be the scientific way?
I disagree Lord Monckton. Many of us have our own opinions on this equation and we are just airing those, possibly learning from each other – This is just a natural discourse. For example I believe the equilibrium equations completely miss the point because they ignore the transition between states, Since the integral of a chaotic system is a chaotic system, one can conclude that it’s quite possible that the trajectory will be captured by an attractor.
Also there is no evidence that the feedbacks (if physical terms are constants). If we want to discuss that why shouldn’t we.
In reply to bobl, people will of course want to introduce their own ideas to these discussions, and I learn from that. But it is intellectually dishonest to attempt, over and over again, to hold my feet to the fire for the official methodology when criticisms of that methodology should be directed to the IPCC secretariat, and it is also intellectually dishonest to try to attack me for arguments that I have not yet made. So I am giving short shrift to commenters who thus behave badly.
Lord Monckton, I get that but I’m totally not sure that what was happening. I don’t think they are blaming you for errors in the official equation at all. I do agree that asserting 0.1 positive feedback is stable isn’t really defensible, any positive feedback distorts the output which defines UNSTABLE particularly where there are large delays, however in climate terms I agree that 0,1 is likely to be sufficiently stable that a control system can function without unacceptable instability albeit not linearly.
As far as it goes your observations are good, this does appear to be improper. I look forward to any other revelations with the caveat that I think the dynamic / AC characteristic and energy saturation behaviour will be much more relevant than the equilibrium (DC) characteristic. There is no guarantee of what this equilibrium looks like. A square wave has an AVERAGE
I think it would be handier to introduce the term ‘overall loop gain’ instead of ‘positive feedback’ .
Overall loop gain of anything more than zero is unstable.
And doesn’t involve pointless clashed from peole who argue that *internal* loop gains of more than unity are fine, provided that the (not mentioned) *overall* loop gain is less than unity.
In the end, one can express all this in a much clearer form:
The ‘amplification’ of TEMPERATURE change necessary to cause catastrophic climate change is such that it will cause catastrophic climate change caused by any temperature change, not just that induced by CO2.
And that includes stuff like volcanic eruptions and so on.
That this is patently NOT the case, disproves utterly the thesis that positive feedback exists at sufficiently large levels to cause catastrophic climate change.
QED
Leo Smith August 28, 2016 at 10:50 am: “I think it would be handier to introduce the term ‘overall loop gain’ instead of ‘positive feedback’ .
Overall loop gain of anything more than zero is unstable”
A very brief outline on operational amplifiers is called for; I strongly think you may need it. Check out just the first two circuits and the corresponding ‘math’ at the link below:
http://www.ti.com/ww/en/bobpease/assets/AN-31.pdf
@_Jim. I cut my teeth on designs with op amps.
Try understanding what I actually said, in particular what ‘loop gain’ actually *means*. before posting irrelevant information.
Loop gain is not the same as gain.
In answer to Bobl, it is blindingly obvious that Greg was attacking me on the ground that he did not like the official climate-sensitivity equation, for he expressly referred to that equation in his posting attacking me for it. Yet I had made it plain in the head posting, and make it plain again now, that I shall not accept attacks on me because I present the official position. In order for me to critique the official position, it is self-evidently necessary for me to describe it. The fact that I describe it does not, however, indicate that I support it.
“Why not wait until I have made my argument about feedbacks before attempting to criticise it?”
Because homeostasis would have to function like a servo rather than an op-amp, and that means negative feedbacks.
That is no excuse for demonstrating prejudice by attacking an argument that has not yet been presented. Feedbacks will be discussed later n the series.
Monckton of Brenchley August 28, 2016 at 3:06 pm
Be at ease you are among friends. People are just impatient. They tend to have a extrapolate on the information they have when you leave them in anticipation of the next chapter.
You must take heart, you have their complete attention.
http://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb48472752/_2.jpg
michael
Oh the cartoon is ww2 Dr Seuss, and I find it applicable to numerous situations. As your present predicament
michael;-)
I have simply challenged the lack of suitability and irrationality of an op-amp with positive feedback that you have presented somehow as an analogue for thermostasis and climatic stability.
Mr Lyons, if he knew anything of the scientific method, would know the unwisdom of attacking an argument on feedbacks that has not yet been presented. All that has been presented so far is an indication – no more than that – that the feedback factors in the climate fall on an interval well above that which would be regarded by process engineers as safe if one wanted to be reasonably sure that a circuit would perform stably.
As it turns out, there is something seriously wrong with the method by which official climatology now determines feedbacks. In fact, there are several things wrong with it. Once those errors have been explained, and only then, will it be possible for anyone to form a view on whether it was appropriate for me to flag the temperature feedback problem by the indication of the process engineers’ design limit for feedback factors in systems intended to be stable that appears in Fig. 1 of the head posting.
Science is not done by reciting half-understood pietisms from long-forgotten textbooks: it is done by noting apparent anomalies, wondering why the anomalies exist, and then investigating. That is what Mr Lyons seems constitutionally unable or unwilling either to do or to contemplate. Like it or not, though, that is how true science is done.
Let him and others wait and see, and desist from their futile attacks on the argument about feedbacks until that argument has actually been presented.
Christopher Monkton writes:
“Mr Lyons, if he knew anything of the scientific method, would know the unwisdom of attacking an argument on feedbacks that has not yet been presented.”
What I was in fact attacking, to repeat, was your irrational op-amp analogy, which does not produce stability with positive feedback. You’ll be finding out the ‘unwisdom’ of implying that I know nothing of the scientific method.
“Science is not done by reciting half-understood pietisms from long-forgotten textbooks:”
I built audio op-amp circuits, you are the one who did not even half understand them.
“..it is done by noting apparent anomalies, wondering why the anomalies exist, and then investigating. That is what Mr Lyons seems constitutionally unable or unwilling either to do or to contemplate. Like it or not, though, that is how true science is done.”
No flies on me, I’ve been forecasting NAO/AO anomalies and UK weekly weather patterns since 2008 from the heliocentric planetary ordering of solar indirect forcings. And I have a self evident heliocentric model of sunspot cycle and solar minima that readily renders all other postulates, e.g. Scafetta etc, redundant. I do though suspect levels of projection in your baseless criticism.
” that the feedback factors in the climate fall on an interval well above that which would be regarded by process engineers as safe if one wanted to be reasonably sure that a circuit would perform stably. ”
Baseless pontificated drivel. There is no stability with a positive feedback in an op-amp circuit, unless it is configured in a digital mode, e.g. a comparator or Schmidt trigger.
My education in op-amp circuit design principles were from my late father in law Ashtyn Smith, he worked on the Minute Man guidance system. I can still remember it almost word for word he was such a good teacher.The RF rejection frequency determined by the RC pair in the negative feedback loop, the DC rejection frequency with the earth RC pair. His father was Ralph Smith, chairman of the British Interplanetary Society.
It’s an interesting discussion. The planet’s heat engine is very complex. Such a complex system must have multiple feedbacks, both positive and negative. The fact that we are reduced to contemplation of a simple electronic feedback system says everything about how little we know about the climate. I look forward to Lord M o B’s further revelations.
SIMPLE electronic feedback? You jest surely. Real world electronics of the analogue variety are anything but simple, and most are not amenable to formal analysis at all.
WE stabilise them by being careful to stabilise each stage at at time before overall feedback – if any – is applied.
We never use multiple time delayed feedback paths unless we want to build an oscillator…
Leo Smith August 28, 2016 at 10:54 am: “SIMPLE electronic feedback? You jest surely. Real world electronics of the analogue variety are anything but simple, and most are not amenable to formal analysis at all.”
You have been caught out making what appear to be erroneous statements up to this point, I would be very careful about making more …
The truth is, the first-pass step in a design w/feedback (e.g. a simple linear DC power supply) is to assure closed loop gain is less than 1 (WITH sufficient safety margin for manufacturing variation) at the point where feedback phase ‘angle’ reaches 360 degrees (phase shift) and then one can be reasonably assured of stable product operation.
Something a little more complex like a hydraulicly driven ‘motor’ controlling a RADAR antenna is a little more complicated, now involving several dynamical parameters BUT it is all calcu-able and doable in terms of achieving stability.
@_Jim. You have been caught out before making erroneous statements up to this point. Perhaps you have never had to design with anything other than an op amp whose phase response has already been optimised for stability, and whose non linearities have been carefully hidden by very careful design.
Now try designing that operational amplifier yourself. Remember you have to cater for Miller effect, non linear modulation of collector to base capacitance by collector to base voltage, you have to design for non linear transfer functions particularly at low collector to emitter voltage, and of course if you are voltage driving the base, there is a massive non-linearity in the V/I curve of the base emitter junction. And that’s all before you examine the effects of temperature, which at low frequencies may change within one cycle of a input or output waveform.
And no two transistors are identical. What works with one batch, may fail to work with the next.
Then of course there is circuit layout. Stay magnetic and capacitive couplings.
Your claim that it is all calcu-able and doable in terms of achieving stability is so far from the truth, as to be risible to anyone who has, as I did, spent 20 years of their life as an analogue design engineer.
The truth is that the calculations are but a starting point, since they deal with idealised models of the actual semiconductors, not the real life actual ones that come in boxes from the manufacturers.
In the end, it is faster to use iterative techniques (suck it and see) and a scope to see what effect changing critical stability components has, than pretend that the models will actually tell you how the circuit will behave.
I have an honours degree in electrical engineering, and spent many years doing designs: And what strikes me most is how little use the theory actually was. IN general the theory helps you work out what ought to be possible, but actually achieving it, especially at higher frequencies, becomes almost a black art.
Modelling analogue circuits is massively analogous to modelling climate, since one of the key things I discovered right from the start is that linear models pretending to approximate parts of non linear curves are almost completely useless if the signal in play covers enough of the non linearity to really make a difference.
You have no option when in that domain but to deploy massive amounts of computational power and do the thing in discrete steps: we simply do not have mathematics that can tackle complex non linear partial differential equations. That’s why we still build circuitry instead of designing from a book, and why we still have wind tunnels, instead of large computers.
You can see that issue right here: I make a statement about as Schmitt trigger, saying that in a stable sate, it has zero loop gain. I am immediately challenged by someone who says that it clearly has immense positive feedback and loop gain. He simply doesn’t understand that the *gain changes according to the output voltage*.
IT is a highly non linear circuit. And all he understands is linear algebra. And I am afraid that seems to be the case here as well.
My time as an analogue engineer was, because average techs are – or were – two a penny, tackling nasty problems involving issues of non linear components. Because the easy stuff is already in the manuals. There are no calculations that help, because the actual simulations require computers certainly an order or three better than we had then and even today, I am not sure that ‘build it and see’ is not still how what little analogue design is still being done, is done.
People look at all these beautiful equations that appear so impressive, without a hint of understanding that half of them are approximations that break down beyond the small signal case, and the rest are accurate enough, but wholly incalculable, because the short cuts that you can apply to linear differential equations are simply inapplicable in the non linear case.
I remember an O level physics question. IT displayed a rising graph with a very sharp ‘hockey stick’ shooting of the top at the end,. This was marked point ‘C’ (A and B were on the linear part). It was allegedly the path of extension against force of an elastic band. The last of several questions dealing with its elastic modulus, was ‘What do you think happened at point ‘C’ ?’
Of course the answer was, the ‘elastic broke’.
Non linear behaviour. A reminder at ‘O’ level that elastic moduli only work if the spring ain’t broked.
IN general I have found that when people disagree over technical subjects, its because they have radically different levels of understanding. Sadly, to the person with a little knowledge, the person with infinitely more, looks as mistaken as the person with none.
Being the devils advocate, one may be able to show they have used dubious assumptions about ‘exaggerated non-linearity of the temperature responses to linearly-increasing feedback sums’, but can one actually prove that these assumptions are invalid? That is more difficult.
A bit like proving a negative, it is harder to prove (maybe even impossible) that there is no flying spaghetti monster, than to assume or assert that there could be one.
If the jury is still out about linearity in various aspects of climate sensitivity, then at the very least mathematical calculations should state very clearly where such assumptions are being made.
The head posting states very clearly what assumptions are being made. The graph in Fig. 1 is obtained by simple calculation. Whether Thingodonta likes it or not, it is uncontroversial that at values approaching 1 a linear increase in the feedback factor will produce a non-linear temperature response. Do the math. On that point, the jury is not out.
Feet of Clay…
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream wherein he envisions the collapse of his empire. Head of gold and feet of iron and clay.
A great idiom…
Monckton of Brenchley,
The entire calculation is non-scientific. The entire calculation seems to be based on an assumption that the rise in temperature from sometime in the 19th Century is entirely due to CO2. This is non-scientific, nothing more than curve-fitting. The assumption, that all of the increase in temperature, based on these dubious records from the NOAA and others, is due to the increase in CO2 concentration, has no foundation.
Physics, my good Count!
If there were any Physical basis for this calculation, which is not based on Physics but on a very dubious history of temperature records and an equally dubious assumption that the cause is CO2 concentration, we would see some sort of correlation between the temps and the CO2 concentration.
Do not try to beat them at their own game. This is a huge forum. Point out that the basis of their “Calculation” is based on an unproven assumption that the entire increase is due to CO2, scientifically meaningless, and require that the calculation is based on Physics with ZERO Assumptions!
The Physics of temperature in the atmosphere involve three variables: Solar Insolation, apparently close to a constant, Albedo, far from a constant, and TOA flux to space, varies as the temperature at the altitude where CO2 at all its different frequencies radiating to space is no longer bounded by an opaque layer above.
First Principles, my good Count.
Is this clear?
Mr Moon is off beam. The head posting makes no assumptions at all about how much of recent global warming is manmade.
From the TAR:
“Since climate sensitivity of the real climate system cannot be measured directly, new methods have been used since the TAR to establish a relationship between sensitivity and some observable quantity (either directly or through a model), and to estimate a range or probability density function (PDF) of climate sensitivity consistent with observations.”
I guarantee, IPCC assumes that all temperature increases are due to CO2. This is their raison d’etre.
I agree with the thrust of the observation made by Mr Moon. I have made a similar observation below.
The claim that there is climate sensitivity to CO2 (whether this be low, modest or high) is an assumption based claim because the evidence does not support the clam. The data is poor but it does not support the claim that there is climate sensitivity to CO2, but because of the uncertainty in the data much of which is proxy based, one cannot rule out the possibility that there may be some relatively modest sensitivity to CO2.
Whilst the data is poor and uncertain, I do not consider that the claim for high sensitivity survives the data (even with the inherent uncertainty within these data sets). Further the fact that we are here after some 4.5 billion years of a violent and tumultuous past suggest that climate sensitivity cannot be high.
Of course, at the end of the day, the author of this article is merely pointing out errors made by the IPCC. he does not necessarily accept any of their premise.
Mr moon has falsely assumed, on no evidence, that the calculations in the head posting were based on the assumption that all warming since the 19th century is driven by CO2. No such assumption is evident in the head posting. I am at a loss, therefore, to discern why Mr Verney finds Mr Moon’s lecture meritorious.
That there is some sensitivity to CO2 is self-evident from the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule. The question, therefore, is not whether the climate is sensitive to CO2 enrichment, for it is, but rather how sensitive it is. The answer will turn out to be “not very sensitive”.
Monckton said in the top post:
“….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. …”
GOOD.
Then he presumes to tell EEs and control theory professionals THEIR business:
“…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…”
And when I (and others) tell him he is totally wrong, and say specifically why, he objects:
“Monckton of Brenchley August 27, 2016 at 9:14 pm
Why not wait until I have made my argument about feedbacks before attempting to criticise it?”
Well – he ALREADY spoke of feedback, in a specific context, and got that wrong. (Has he intended all along to begin Part 2 (etc.) with a retraction?) Is it best for us to let it go and possibly make Parts 2 and 3 more of a mess. The real engineers I work with prefer to kick ideas about (coffee cups and chalk in hand) and take no offense at being doubted, and likely all getting to the right answer. Perhaps I have been lucky.
And by the way – what the H is a “process engineer”. In my career I’ve encountered EEs, MEs, CHemEs, CivEs, AeroEs, OR folks, and Engineering Physicists (officially, that what I am) etc., but never a Process Engineer (so I guess I don’t know know WHAT a process might do!!!). So where did that f=0.1 come from? Simple question.
No good trying to correct a member of the British aristocracy apparently Bernie. Who do you think you are? No lifelines please , where British.
I fear this whole effort will be a waste of time since poorly founded by someone who has little knowledge and experience in the matter and will not take advice and corrections.
Mr Hutchins is entitled to his view, but it is only one view. Others here have stated that no positive feedback at all should be allowed in a circuit intended to operate stably.
And he is not much of an expert, for he is not aware of the discipline of process engineering.
And he has not managed to follow the suggestion in the head posting that he should reserve his criticism for those errors that I have identified.
Any halfway competent scientist would know that it is foolish in the extreme to attempt to criticise my argument about an error in the official sensitivity equation before that argument has actually been presented.
The head posting makes it explicitly plain that I have indicated a priori – in other words, without proof – that I suspect that the very high feedback factors in use among the climatological establishment seem to me to be implausible. Mr Hutchins may or may not agree with the reasons for my suspicion in this regard. But he unwisely, and incorrectly, assumes on no evidence that the reasons for my suspicion form part of the argument that I am about to make.
However, I have also stated that I propose to demonstrate a posteriori – I,e. with evidence – that such high feedback sums are impossible. But I have not presented that argument yet, so there is nothing to attack. Keep your powder dry until I have presented the argument and the evidence.
Any true scientist would know that to attack an argument before it has been presented is feeble-minded. Wait and see.
He is alleging that you have made an error in the sentence that he cites.
However, his comment is merely a bare assertion in that he puts forward no evidence supporting his view that you are in error.
Further, he puts forward no evidence that feedbacks larger than 0.1 can still result in stability, and he offers no theoretical reason(s) why feedbacks greater than 0.1 can still yield stability in an <quote. operational amplifier circuit
His comment is a drive by (albeit the general point he makes could be right but without further detail and evidence advanced by him, no one can reasonably assess the merit of the point behind his comment)
“And he is not much of an expert”
He seems expert to me. He has posted an excellent set of notes. If he worked with feedback at Moog, that is a good sign.
When I made the above comment, I had not seen the detailed comment made by Mr Hutchins at (Bernie Hutchins August 27, 2016 at 5:13 pm). my apologies to him.
Mr Hutchins is plainly no expert, or he would have not have been ignorant of process engineering, nor would he have attempted to criticise an argument I have not yet made. He and others who have attempted to criticise an argument I have not yet presented -for the errors in relation to feedbacks come later in the series – disqualify themselves from being taken seriously.
I am more impressed by the quality of a person’s argument than by the assertion of his supposed qualifications.
Nick Stokes said August 28, 2016 at 3:05 am:
“ . . . If he worked with feedback at Moog, that is a good sign. . . .”
Nick, thanks – perhaps your reference to Moog is more apt to this discussion than you suppose. Bob’s “Moog Sound” (wwwwoooowwww) was due to a filter that had a Positive Feedback loop around it, which sharpened the corner of the response. He ran the feedback up to almost +1. (Actually, he ran it ALL the way TOO +1 to reach instability – never one to ignore a free spare oscillator option!). He did it on engineering intuition, and inventive genius.
Monckton of Brenchley said in part August 28, 2016 at 8:30 am:
“. . . I am more impressed by the quality of a person’s argument than by the assertion of his supposed qualifications. . . .”
Fair enough. Then read what I posted AND/OR give a single (or many) citation to the 0.1 limit of your conjured “process engineer”.
Mr Hutchins continues to whine inexpertly and unscientifically about an argument I have not yet presented. If that is the depth to which his “expertise” has sunk, then I shall not be paying any attention to his responses when I do present the argument, for in trying to attack it when I have not yet presented it he demonstrates incorrigible prejudice.
process engineer is MonkSpeak for systems engineer. IN particular control systems engineer.
Leo – thanks, that helps.
Control theory of course is an EE derivative (along with ME and physics). The theory is rather exact. Applied beyond that – not so much.
As a Chem. Eng. professor fondly remarked about control theory calculations as applied to chemistry:
(1) Dump in a full bucket.
(2) Run like Hell!
(3) Look back to see if anything remains.
(4) Rinse and repeat.
I am curious to know why Fig. 2 is refereed to as the “official climate-sensitivity equation”. The reference
is Roe 2009 which is a general discussion paper trying to explain feedback to non-experts. It also states
that the equation is only valid for linear systems with feedback and goes on to state the obvious that
the climate response is nonlinear and presents the next order feedback equation (Eq. 25 ) in Roe 2009.
Furthermore no case is presented for the claim that one should average the forcing rather than then
increase in temperatures from climate models. As far as I know global climate models output a climate
state with associated temperature rather than a set of values for the forcings. The forcings are then calculated from the models and used to compare the different models. Thus averaging the output temperatures of different models is the valid approach (especially as the official equation is wrong).
Germinio asks why I have not accounted for non-linearity in feedbacks. I repeat that I have not yet reached the feedback portion of the argument, it will then become apparent that the large error in climatologists’ handling of feedbacks applies, mutatis mutandis, as much to non-linear as to linear feedbacks. At that time, my argument, presented in the head posting, that one should determine the central estimate of climate sensitivity from the central estimate of the feedback sum will become easier to understand.
“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.”
It is a rare honour to catch you in an error, Lord Monckton, but Francis Bacon’s Essays were originally written and published in English. His later philosophical works were written in Latin, but not the Essays.
It is no surprise to observe that both he and Shakespeare used the word “gotten”, as both were the same man. Francis Bacon wrote the works of William Shakespeare.
The Essays were translated from the Latin in 1720 by Dr Willymott, a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge and schoolmaster at a private school in Isleworth, Middlesex.
The later in Early Modern English the essays were translated is yet more evidence that “gotten” survived longer into Modern British English than is often thought.
But since Bacon mentions “invidia in Latin” in “Of Envy”, I supposed that the Essays were written in English.
FWIW, title page of the 1696 edition of the collected essays:
Milord,
It appears that Bacon first wrote his Essays in English, then translated them into Latin, in order to reach a wider readership:
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/essays/intro.html
Also apparently unclear how much of the translation was Bacon’s and how much by someone else. He might have been too busy to do all of them himself.
Baconian,
Sorry, but the two men could scarcely have been more different.
As his friend and colleague Ben Jonson noted, Will of Stratford had “little Latin and less Greek”.
Can’t pretend I understand much of what our noble Lord expounds upon, but in the light of such erudition, surely petty fault finding is, well…..petty!
“Can’t pretend I understand much of what our noble Lord expounds upon”
Don’t worry Karl, neither does he.
Don’t whine.
But the point is, if these faults are truly faults, then the consequences are far from petty.
If these faults are cumulative, and do not cancel each other out, then even if each individual fault be modest the consequence of the entirety of these faults could well be large.
The financial implication of climate change whether real or imaginary is huge and therefore ought to be held accountable to the greatest degree of scrutiny.
The point that after so many years and so much money spent on research that the IPCC have been unable (or perhaps that is unwilling) to narrow climate sensitivity should be of utmost concern to any impartial viewer with an inquiring mind.
What other areas of science can you point to where so much money and time has been spent but so little progress made.
Mr Verney is right. The errors I shall present are non-overlapping, they magnify one another, and they are the reason why the interval of climate sensitivities is so absurdly wide.
BBB combatted with more BBB.
A sign that no one really understands the overall picture.
Unfortunately, all the necessary data sets are suspect and, noisy and have very wide error margins.
The long term evidence, ice cores, is proxy evidence, so too the stomatal type evidence and all proxy evidence is little more than an indicator and should be considered to have wide margins of error.
The short term evidence, the temperature data sets, are either of short duration and/or have been so horribly bastardised by station drop out, homogenization adjustments, different approaches to the taking of measurements, lack of spatial coverage, pollution by UHI, that they are not fit for purpose and are not capable of serious scientific inquiry.
These matters means that we have no valid observational evidence from which to judge the issue of climate sensitivity to CO2, and therefore it follows that any estimate is only a guess and nothing more and should always be noted as that.
There are 4 factors that one must take into account.
First, The ice core evidence suggests that changes in CO2 lags temperature change by about 600 to 1000 years. From this it appears that CO2 changes is a response to temperature, and not a driver of temperature change. This data set does not support the claim that there is any climate sensitivity to CO2.
Second, there is no first order correlation and temperature change in the temperature data sets 9whether these be land, ocean, mixture of the two, or satellite). Of particular note is (i) the fact that there is no statistical difference in the rate of warming trends between 1860 to 1880, between 1910 and 1940, and the late 2oth century warming between 1975 to 1998 and there were was no significant CO2 change during the two early warming periods but significant CO2 change during the last period but with no difference in the trend rate these. (ii) just when CO2 changes started becoming material, ie., post 1940, temperatures cooled between 1940 to early 1970s, (iii) until the present EL Nino (which cycle has yet to complete with the following La Nina) there was the pause going back nearly 19 years during which about 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions took place. This temperature data set does not support the claim that CO” is a driver and that there is any climate sensitivity to CO2.
Third, there is the paleo record and again there is no correlation with CO2 and CO2 cannot explain the changes into and out of ice ages.
Fourth, there is the fact that the temperature of this planet has been constrained between narrow bounds of +/- 1.5% and is very stable. If there was even modest climate sensitivity to CO2, we would have seen a run away climate from which the planet would not have recovered. We are not Venus but no doubt would have been similar had the climate had even a modest sensitivity to CO2.
Personally, I find the claims of high sensitivity farcical. If nothing else, the pause ought to have busted that claim. I also find it a disgrace that after countless billions of dollars being thrown at the matter and after so many years, the ‘science’ and the IPCC have been unable to narrow the range for sensitivity. Talk about money wasted, no achievement and careers failed.
Personally, I see no hard evidence that there is climate sensitivity to CO2 and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is none. But the evidence is litter with errors, uncertainty and is suspect such that one cannot rule out the possibility that there may be some sensitivity to CO2, but low sensitivity. Had the sensitivity been high, not withstanding the uncertainty, errors etc that beset the data sets, the signal would have been seen over and above the noise.
My best guestimate for Climate Sensitivity, if there is such a thing, in the late Holocene, is that it is 0.5 degC +/- 0.7degC. It would not surprise me, when we have better measurements and better data, if it turned out to be zero or very close thereto
It is because we are unable to see the signal to CO2 sensitivity, that I do not like seeing CO2 referred to as a GHG. It may be but that has yet to be determined. It is a radiative gas, the laboratory characteristics of which we know, but how all of this works and pans out in the non laboratory conditions of planet Earth’s atmosphere has yet to be properly observed and assessed.
People claiming that CO2 is a GHG or that there is climate sensitivity are working under a priori bias since presently when the evidence that we have is put to the jury is reviewed by the jury, the jury is still out
I have much sympathy with Mr Verney’s points, but the usual suspects will pretend that their interpretation of the data is preferable to our interpretation. That is why this series concentrates on outright errors in the official methodology. That approach leaves much less wriggle-room.
Assuming that Lord Monkton’s corrected ECS values are right (Table 1), then the averaged value for ECS is ~2.4C. This is well within the stated range in all the IPCC reports to date.
If CS actually is 2.4C then as far as I can see ~500 ppm CO2 would be sufficient to commit surface temperatures to progressing >2C above pre-industrial. At current emission rates we should hit that level by the early 2060s (with ECS following some time after that).
This is hardly cause for celebration.
DWR24 has perhaps not read the head posting with due care and attention. This is the first article in a series which will expose a number of outright errors whose cumulative effect is greatly to exaggerate climate sensitivity. I deliberately started small. Watch this space.
I am afraid that the Giss model from 1980 has set the premises for much of the debate Then Hansen and his friends found the “scientific” argument for climate disaster, and set themselves up as authorities.
Hansen, J., G. Russell, D. Rind, P. Stone, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and L. Travis, 1983: Efficient three-dimensional global models for climate studies: Models I and II. M. Weather Rev., 111, 609-662, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111.
I think Clive Best has done an exellent job on climate models, including Giss model II.
“The following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The climate sensitivity of Model II is ~4.4 deg.C to a doubling of CO2
2. The inertia of the Earth’s climate system to a sudden change in forcing is predicted to be about 50 years in Model II
In the 2001 IPCC report the range of climate sensitivities of a range of models was between 2.2 and 5.6 deg.C. MGIS model II is therefore at the upper end of this range.
CAGW is already dead for the following reasons:
1) it’s not possible for CO2’s weak and logarithmic forcing effect to generate and exponential warming response.
2) To get around CO2’s tiny logarithmic forcing effect, CAGW warmunistas hilariously projected (past tense) a “runway positive feedback loop involving water vapor”, however, NASA’s Water Vapor Project (NVAP-M) and NOAA’s relative humidity dataset clearly show water vapor concentrations are not increasing at any altitude:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/full
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Without this water-vapor fix, CAGW is dead.
3) There is already sufficient disparity and duration between CAGW’s global warming projections vs. reality to officially disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis with high confidence.
4) The Warmunistas have been relegated to manipulating raw-temp data (HADCRUT4 & GISTEMP), to keep their disconfirmed hypothesis alive.
NOAA is already under Contempt of Congress for its failure to comply with Congress’ FOIA request for all internal e-mails regarding their blatant raw-data manipulation. Accordingly, additional data tampering is problematic:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/
As more time passes, the level of disparity and duration simply increases.
CAGW is dead.
Thanks, Samurai.
Do you have a link for that water vapour graph?
R
This is exactly the same things I’ve been saying on my site https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/category/climate-policy
As Monckton and you show the climate community keeps exaggerating climate change by the methods outlined because they believe they are justified because fundamentally we “know” that paleologic records show an 8C change from a move of 100ppm in CO2. Of course, this is like if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail logic. They only have data on a few variables in those paleologic time periods hundreds of thousands of years ago including CO2 and oxygen isotopes etc. Nonetheless without an alternate explanation even if the climate change is small so far ultimately they believe the delta T has to be 3-4K from a doubling or more. Therefore, it’s quite a drop for them to give up 1 or even 1.5K and say that sensitivity is 2.5 instead.
I think that to really reduce their argument to tatters requires also an explanation for the ice age variations. I believe there is one main one that I have that is believable, i.e. at least has the potential to explain the periodicity and co-incidence with orbital mechanics. This is the newly discovered ocean fissures and connection made in 3 recent studies between the ocean fissure eruptions and gravitational effects of the moon and changes in Earth orbit. This combined with the movement of ice from polar regions to the oceans and back produces an amplification of heat release from the mantle as the Earth experiences tidal forces from its orbit and surrounding objects. The magnitude of this heat release could be huge because we have evidence that the iceball Earth was ended 600 million years ago by these effects.
If the mantle is able to periodically release heat to the oceans and heat the Earth periodically it puts less pressure on CO2 to have a high sensitivity to explain the temperature variation. There may be other explanations or contributions including unknown solar radiation contributions that we don’t understand. The climate scientists poo-poo such explanations from unknown causes because they argue you can only use what we know but not knowing is a legitimate state of being. The fact that they have a theory that could explain things has been shown many time to be insufficient to say they have a valid theory. They should at least acknowledge that their theory is merely a theory but instead, they say the science is settled when the constant surprises in the “settled” science that challenges everything they said is ignored. Nonetheless, it is hard to argue that we have an answer without having an alternate theory of everything.
They can always argue that things will eventually get to their state and they can argue there are tipping points because the effect of CO2 cannot possibly account for the full temperature variation in paleologic times. However, if we can reduce the effect of CO2 by showing that other contributions dominate the CO2 contribution by physical known mechanisms then the logic for high co2 sensitivity disappears and also with it the likelihood of tipping points because we can explain the variations of the past without need for extraordinary tipping points. Since we have records of millions of years that can be explained without tipping points it makes the tipping point logic disappear as well.
Seems the discussion here is about another planet – all climate models on that other planet where right and thus said planet has gone long bevore any human memorance.
I have considerable contact with what in the USA are called ‘liberals’, with what is everywhere called ‘greens’ and what is also termed the chattering classes: That is the sort of not so bright over educated urban hipsters who think, because they read it in the Guardian or the NY times, that they know what is actually going on, and I can assure you, to say they live on a different planet is an understatement.
The gaps in their knowledge of any life experience outside their own unbelievably narrow urban one, is only matched by the depth of their ignorance in matters scientific, even the ones that should know better, having had some sort of scientific education. But the terrible truth is that a first in maths doesn’t mean that you know anything about control theory, and a 20 years study of climate doesn’t mean you have any understanding of chaos maths.
Science is such a wide field that it encourages narrow specialisation and this breeds utter ignorance of any subject outside one’s own, a fact that the alarmists are cynically aware of, and why only the few people who are in command of the disciplines used in climate change, can actually say ‘hang on, that’s wrong’
The rest just accept that someone with an equivalent degree in a subject they dont understand, are being honest and are not mistaken.
And this means they can be befuddled very easily but what is frankly bovine excrement. Divide and rule.
Leo Smith –
a fact that the alarmists are cynically aware of, and
can rely on.
_________________________________
Yop. Somethings going wrong.
I thank Lord M for continuously exposing the IPCC’s absurd position on sensitivity. It’s the climate bulls eye alright and to have ‘the worlds gold standard of climate science’ advocating a range for sensitivity that is as wide as the Grand Canyon reveals their wilful mendacity and the hopeless credibility vacuum for so-called ‘settled science’.
I admire Chris for standing up, but he does talk a load of **** himself too.
Silly, non-specific yah-boo comments like that of Mr Smith have no place in this discussion,.
Thanks, I’m stealing ‘yah-boo’.
==========
“… a range for sensitivity that is as wide as the Grand Canyon reveals their wilful mendacity …”.
=============================================
And that “Grand Canyon” has not been significantly narrowed after over a quarter of a century and $Bs of national and global wealth wasted.
This all very fine and there is some great “science” in this post and comment thread. However, treating data that has been recorded across a dimensional “manifold” (The Earth) as a signal; is intellectually dishonest.
As “scientists”, we are so enamoured with our analytical techniques that we are often afraid to admit their limitations. I know this goes against the stream for sceptics and believers alike but as far as I am concerned it is a fundamental error; perpetrated by both camps.
To clarify, you can not determine the state (Future or otherwise) of a chaotic or complex system by treating its output as a one dimensional signal. If you could, you’d be the worlds next Newton or Einstein!
Mr Wilmott Bennett has not discerned the method on which this series is predicated. I propose to expose a series of errors in the official method of determining climate sensitivity. These errors are not a matter of opinion: they are unjustifiable and misconceived departures from mainstream science. Once all are aware of these errors, the exaggeration of climate sensitivity by the models will no longer be a matter of opinion but of fact.
I do not need to attempt to determine climate sensitivity. I need only demonstrate that, correcting by mainstream science the official errors leaves the official calculations claiming high climate sensitivity in tatters.
Well I agree with what you are saying, but in this case the output is supposed to be a one dimensional signal. Temperature. That the internals are multidimensional does not alter that particular fact.
And here we go again, Scott Wilmot Bennett –
what you think of, what the climate modelers claim to present is
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=SnPDV-PgLMK0UbLTpfgJ&q=Laplace+demon+thought+experiment+&oq=Laplace+demon+thought+experiment+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3
___________________________________
But as Leo Smith says the only signal is temperature.
So
pandemic (temperature) = { disease ( climate ( AND / OR ( cause; cure ); carbon; () ) ) }
___________________________________
That’s all that people know to say:
temperature, climate, CO2.
Wittgenstein:
What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence –
1st define the terms. Then there’s a discussion.
____________________________________
Filter that thread – has been going on for 40 years. Hang on another 40 years or stop that n o w.
I have built a large number of op-amp circuits and helped a friend build hundreds of others throughout my life. The reason he and I never had feedback factor exceeding .1 is because op-amps have gain so great that we always used negative feedback.
As for circuits using positive feedback in a loop around an amplifier section with limited gain, or with mixed feedback: I have not seen the feedback factor as shown above in Figure 1 being stated in such circuits, but it often obviously exceeds .1 in some of these, such as many implementations of the multiple feedback filter.
Even if the design limit was .1, That would be to keep performance being reliably repeatable in quantitative terms from one unit to another while dealing with tolerances of cheap components – much higher design feedback factor would still allow a circuit to be reliably stable.
I mispoke about my friend and I never used feedback factor exceeding .1 due to always using negative feedback, since he and I made multiple feedback filters where in some way the feedback factor is often more than .1, in which case these filters obviously resonate even though they use resistors and capacitors but no inductors. Another mixed-feedback op-amp RC filter that is sometimes designed to resonate, that he and I built, where the positive feedback sometimes is designed to effectively cause a feedback factor exceeding .1, is the Sallen Key.
and any time you want to square up a slow signal.
but positive feedback is all about slamming the output to the rails – if that can be called stability…
Regarding “positive feedback is all about slamming the output to the rails” – have a look at the op-amp circuit posted by Nick Stokes above, captioned “Positive Feedback Increases Gain to 3”. The feedback factor there is 2/3.
Donald/Gnomish Stop confusing each other with BS. Overall loop gain is the measure of overall positive feedback. Not what may or may not be happening in between input and output in terms of positive feedback.
Regarding Leo Smith’s comment that the positive feedback is the loop gain: In the above op-amp circuit, the positive feedback factor is 2/3, because the loop gain is 2/3. The output is 2/3 of itself plus the input, changed from being equal to the input alone without the feedback.
gnomish
August 28, 2016 at 9:17 am
It is stable because the postiive f/b is over-ridden by a dominant negative f/b : the inability to supply infinite power and the gain disappears once you get near the supply rail voltages.
This could be compared to way the Earth system seems to snap from glacial to interglacial and back again. There appears to be a positive f/b at play which makes the transitions geologically fast. ( Alley found large swings in a matter of decades in the GISP2 core IIRC. ).
The system is, however, always constrained by the Planck feedback , which is the strong NEGATIVE f/b which dominates the whole system.
This is why net f/b will always be -ve and all talk of run away climate change is nonsense.
This is my main complaint with CoB’s presentation since it playing into the IPCC’s hands by not EXPLICITLY talking of Planck as a feedback when it is the most important one in the whole game.
Greg persists in waffling about the Planck “feedback”. Yet I have not yet presented the argument about feedbacks.
Donald L. Klipstein August 28, 2016 at 7:20 am: “As for circuits using positive feedback in a loop around an amplifier section with limited gain, or with mixed feedback: I have not seen the feedback factor as shown above in Figure 1 being stated in such circuits,”
Perhaps, Donald, you have never designed using an op amp (or a special part called ‘a compactor’ like an LM111) into a comparator circuit which included a minor amount of *positive* feedback FOR the purpose of introducing a manageable amount of hysteresis. The hysteresis prevents ‘chatter’ at the threshold point of the comparator.
More details, equations, waveforms and sample circuits and the like here:
https://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/archives/b/thesignal/archive/2013/01/28/comparators-what-s-all-the-chatter
In a comparator circuit, a small amount of positive feedback is in a loop around an amplifier whose gain is in the hundreds or thousands.
I meant to say adding hysteresis is a reason for adding a small amount of positive feedback around an amplifier with large gain like hundreds or thousands.
As I see this matter, there are some theoretical reasons as to why one might reasonably expect the climate to have some sensitivity to CO2 (albeit I consider that temperature is only one of many factors, which are under constant flux, that govern climate).
However, and this is a big but, we are not talking about theory but rather about practicalities and real world response. The question is: How does planet Earth’s climate respond to changes in CO2? That question can only be answered by direct observation.
Unless and until absolutely everything there is to know is completely known and fully understood as to the workings and behavoir of the planet’s atmosphere and its climate, that question is incapable of answer by theoretical assessment and calculation.
Many people, when discussing climate sensitivity and the properties of CO2, place caveats such as “all other matters remaining equal”. Often caveats are necessary and meaningful, especially when there is an underlying lack of knowledge, facts and/or data etc.
However, in this case, whilst it is appropriate to include a caveat regarding uncertainties in the evidence and our understanding, we know as fact that when we burn carbon all other matters do not remain equal. For example, we know as fact that:
(i) when fossil fuels are burned we replace oxygen with CO2 (and carbon monoxide etc).
(ii) when fossil fuels are burnt (other than pure carbon) we produce water vapour, and water in all its forms plays a significant role in this water world on which we live.
(iii) CO2 is plant fertilizer. This causes a greening of the planet which in turn leads to changes (at least locally) with respect to the water cycle and a change to albedo.
(iv) there is oceanic take up of CO2, and this can lead to changes in oceanic life such as algae etc again altering albedo and perhaps other matters as well.
This is not an exhaustive list but demonstrates that matters do not remain equal.
What we need to know is how the planet responds to changes in CO2 and this is a practical issue only capable of answer by direct observation and the obtaining of good quality data which is capable of scientific interpretation.
I am looking forward to reading and considering the other posts in this series. It seems to me that it is well past time that there is a re-examination of where matters stand with respect to what I will term the IPCC science, its assumptions and conclusions.
At the time when AR5 was in its draft form and being finalised, and from which it was apparent that the IPCC were ducking the Climate Sensitivity issue, and the problems with the models running hot, I speculated that AR6 would be more interesting, and postulated that it might not even be written should the ‘pause’ continue into 2018/early 2019.
Whilst I do not wish to predict the future, it appears to me that the 2015/16 El Nino whilst strong was not as strong as the 1998 El Nino, and I doubt that there will be a long lasting step change in the satellite temperature data set coincident with the 2015/16. there was such a step change coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98. If that is the case, 2015/16 will show up as a short lived spike in temperatures much like 2010 (which was also a strong El Nino year), and the ‘pause’ will reappear in the data set within about the next 6 months. It seems to me that there is every prospect that the satellite temperature anomaly data sets will by late 2018/early 2019 be showing a ‘pause’ of more than 20 years duration.
The longer the ‘pause’ (if it makes a reappearance), the lower climate sensitivity must be. If the ‘pause’ has reappeared when AR6 falls to be written this will therefore become a fundamental issue. Claims of high sensitivity cannot reasonably be maintained should there be a ‘pause’ of 20 to 22 years duration and circa 40% of all manmade emissions having taken place. One may reasonably expect that, in these circumstances, in late 2017, through 2018, there will be more and more papers written regarding Climate Sensitivity and these papers will put forward ever lowering figures for Climate Sensitivity.
Further, in these circumstances, all the models will by then by outside there 95% confidence bounds. No doubt papers will also be written on that!
AR6 could well be very difficult to convincingly convey that there is a case for alarm, and that the science has and is understood. This is why the 2015 Paris climate talks were quite possibly the last saloon, and why Ob*ma*is in such a rush to adopt/firm up on the Paris agreement and agenda. China is taking the developed West for fools, and who can blame China for that.
Mods
I have a comment (well 2 versions of the same comment) that has gone into moderation. I can see no reason for that. My initial impression was that it was because I had named the POTUS, and his name was a mod issue. I then added to the points being made and changed the spelling of his name.
Once you have reviewed matter, please post my second comment (not the first version) and please correct the name of the POTUS (in the 2nd version) to the correct spelling of his name.
Thanks
[Noted, but the requested changes are still not clear. Nothing in the queue. .mod]