Ø Christopher Monckton of Brenchley reports from the first Russian Cities’ Climate Forum in Moscow
The Al Gore Effect wasn’t working. Instead of the snow and frost that usually accompanies global warming conferences, the sun was shining brightly and the temperature was north of 100 °F. Inside the lofty, Tuscan-Doric Manège in the shadow of the Kremlin, where entire Imperial cavalry regiments had once exercised their horses, it was cool, for its Spanish architect had known how to keep a building cool without artificial air-conditioning. You want Green buildings? Ask a Classical architect. We get taught how to keep the air circulating.
Russians won’t be taken for a ride: The Imperial Riding School, Moscow
The Manège, now used as an exhibition space, is a remarkable building 600 ft long by 150 ft wide, with the roof ingeniously constructed so that it requires no internal support across the entire span. However, instead of the 2000-strong mounted regiment that once exercised there, there were 2000 representatives of city governments from all parts of Russia, pestered by the usual assortment of overfunded profiteers of doom from the West.
What the Western climate Communists had not appreciated, however, is that, totalitarianism-wise, Russia has been there, done that and gotten the tee-shirt. It would not be fair to name anyone from the tired gathering of pietistic fatheads from enviro-fascist groups at the conference, for the truth is that – greatly to their surprise – they found that they and their vicious notions of total State control and 100% enforced “renewables” at five or six times the market price for proper electricity were not in the least welcome.
On the first day, I attended a plenary session at which, one after another, several members of the Russian Academy of Sciences stood up and presented scientific results demonstrating that the “science” – if one can call it that – is not “settled”; that every major aspect of the climate Communist Party Line is in doubt; that the doubt is sufficient to require that Russian cities should not gallop towards the insane policies that most scientifically-illiterate Western countries had been feeble-minded enough to espouse; and that, in any event, the cost of the Party Line was so excessive as to be unaffordable.
The biggest cheer of the day went to the formidable Academician Nigmatulin, a redoubtable 75-year-old veteran of the Communist regime, who, in a thunderous sergeant-major’s parade-ground yell, brought the audience to its feet with his peroration to the effect that “The problem for Russia is not global warming. It is profiteering priests of the new religion, bloated bureaucrats and dithering democrats.”
The “new religion,” of course, was the naïve belief in catastrophic manmade global warming. The “bloated bureaucrats” were those who have profited by vastly expanding their empires through carbon accounting, power-price rigging and environmental over-regulation.
But what was this about “dithering democrats?” I asked another academician, who had better remain nameless. “Ah,” I was told, “many of us feel that in the days of Communism, for all its faults, the regime understood the importance of funding fundamental science, and we are not sure that the current administration has the same understanding.”
The Russian Academy is housed in a monstrous concrete tower in the center of Moscow. The academician told me Mr Putin wanted to take it over and use it as offices for the rapidly-expanding administration of the federal government, but that he had found he could not do so without primary legislation in the Duma because Stalin had donated the building to the Academy as an outright and irrevocable gift.
In a few weeks’ time, the Academy will be holding perhaps the most crucial elections since its foundation. There are two main factions: those who believe the Academy should stand up to the Federal government and insist on proper funding for theoretical science, and those who believe that its only hope of survival is to accommodate itself to the wishes of the current administration.
Most of the academicians, however, were agreed that global warming was nothing like the problem it had been made out to be. In a round-table session on whether “renewable” energy was a good idea, an earnest Western climate Communist (“I’m a climate scientist, you know, really”) who had until recently been in charge of the Paris climate agreement under the unlamented redistributist Cristiana Figueres, lectured the academicians on the need for cities like Moscow to adopt “100% renewables”.
Academician Krilov, sitting directly across from this reptilian bureaucrat, looked at him as if he had crawled out from under a stone (which, in a very real sense, he had). “Let me make it clear”, he said, “that just 3% of Moscow’s electric power comes from ‘renewables’, and the cost of that small percentage has proven to be disproportionate. We do not propose to punish our population by an unduly rapid expansion of needlessly costly methods of generation.”
Powerhouse of learning: the Russian Academy of Sciences [synthart.livejournal.com]
From my end of the round table, I delivered the body-blow to the eco-Communist. “Does the panel not agree with me that ‘renewable’ energy has four mutually-reinforcing problems: low energy density, high cost per TWh delivered, intermittency, and very high environmental damage per TWh generated?”
Academician Krilov nodded vigorously. Next to him, Dr Kulbachevsky, the head of the Moscow environment department, did his best to keep a straight face.
The reptilian Communist blurted out that fossil fuels caused environmental damage too – Deepwater Horizon, coal-dust pollution, blah, blah. I cut him off. “The internationally accepted economic metric,” I said, “is the cost of environmental damage done per terawatt-hour generated. On that basis, ‘renewables’ are – by an extravagant margin – the dirtiest methods of generating power on the planet. Birds and bats smashed out of the sky by windmills (14th-century technology to solve a 21st-century non-problem), or fried by solar collectors; vast acreages of pristine landscape irrevocably destroyed; savage working conditions for lithium miners in Tibet and the Congo, about which nearly every Western Communist pressure-group is tellingly silent; entire water-tables polluted for thousands of square miles with the acid leachate from the lithium-extraction process; landscapes festooned with needless power cables; fatal floods killing tens of thousands as hydro-electric dams fail. No one but a madman would advocate 100% ‘renewables’, or even 1%.”
Academician Krilov nodded again. This time, there was also just the trace of nod, and almost the trembling hint of a wink, from the impressively impassive Dr Kulbachevsky. The reptile from the UNFCCC slithered out and slunk away, never to be seen again. He knew he – and the UN’s Communist empire-builders – were, for once, well and truly beaten.
Next, I was invited to attend and speak at a round-table discussion on the implementation of the UN’s ghastly “sustainable-development goals” in cities. I started by sounding a warning about the temptation to scatter taxpayers’ money to the winds without counting the cost on the specious ground that any money spent on making global warming go away must be money well spent. I gave the striking example of the London free-bicycle scheme, which had been introduced by the then Communist mayor, Ken Livingstone. The capital cost alone, I said, had been so huge that each of the 5000 bicycles that had been put on to the streets had cost $26,000. Considering how few people actually used the bicycles, it would have been cheaper to give each of them a Rolls Royce and a chauffeur.
This point struck home. For Moscow had recently introduced a copycat bike scheme, with costly and ugly docking stations, and armies of polluting trucks daily transporting the cycles from where they had been left to where the bureaucracy guessed they might be wanted next. The emissions from the trucks, on their own, comfortably exceed the emissions saved by the small number of cycle journeys undertaken on the scheme’s machines.
Hot onions: St Basil’s Cathedral, Moscow, basks in rare 100 °F warmth
I was followed by yet another blithering Western Communist, who had set up his own pressure group, entirely funded by taxpayers, of course, to advance the destruction of the hated capitalist West via the environmentalist back door using global warming as the chief pretext. He was horrified that the organizers of the Moscow conference had been open-minded enough to have all those skeptics from the Academy and even from overseas giving speeches suggesting that there might be any question at all about the Party Line. After my surgical, ten-minute presentation, he waffled for 25 minutes about the need to ensure that women and people of every race took their full part in environmental decision-making.
He was still at it when I left to attend a spectacular evening of Classical music under an energetic and dazzlingly competent 25-year-old conductor at the city opera house. As I left the conference, most of the audience had gone to sleep, and the few who were still awake were reading their emails on their cellphones.
At Western climate conferences, one expects outbursts and demonstrations from climate Communists. At the Moscow conference, there was only one outburst, right at the beginning, and that was from a young Muscovite who pointed out to the Mayor, who was giving his civic welcome at the time, that the world was not warming at anything like the predicted rate.
One further indication of how Russia – at every level – is resisting the blandishments of those whom Roy Spencer has justly described as the “climate Nazis” came when I gave my own plenary presentation, in which I said that a strikingly elementary error of science, first perpetrated 120 years previously, had led to absurd exaggerations of the amount of warming to be expected from doubled CO2 concentration.
So simple was the error that I was able to describe it to the full satisfaction of the audience in just ten minutes. Before going to the conference, I had expected to receive the usual rough ride. Yet I got the only standing ovation of the conference, and the ovation came – startlingly – from the young people who were present.
Afterwards, I asked a couple of them why they had been pleased with what I had said. “Well,” said one of them, “you were the only Westerner who sounded as though you knew what you were talking about, and you gave us the only positive speech of the entire conference. Though we are too young to know what living under Communism was like, we have heard your Western Communists and how they believe in the system that failed so cruelly here, and we do not like the way they are using the environmental movement to disguise their hatred of capitalism and to advance a purely political agenda calculated to harm Russia.” Spot-on, on all counts.
I was astonished. One has become so inured to the relentless indoctrination of young people in our own schools and universities that it was a glorious delight to discover that in former Communist countries such as Russia that dismal species of totalitarianism, even when artfully dressed up in environmentalist fig-leaves, no longer holds the slightest attraction for young people. What they want, whether the UN likes it or not (and it doesn’t), is a climate of freedom. And, if the speeches of the Academicians are anything to go by, they’re going to get it. Climate Communism? Ex-Communist Russia just isn’t buying.
Maybe Christopher would like to enlighten us on what strikingly elementary error of science was perpetrated 120 years ago and why no-one has discovered it until now.
You mean you don’t know? Tut, tut.
Arrhenius was erronious…
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net
Didn’t you know that when you fire up a kiln the temperature inside tries to grow exponentially from the reflected radiation. You only need to apply heat for a few seconds. Once the items are fired you have to throw cold water on the kiln and start disassembling it quickly.
Don’t get me started on integrating spheres.
That site gets things wrong, although they state some facts correctly. One thing they get seriously wrong is “How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption?” In all parts of the atmosphere, all wavelengths of radiation can either pass through, or go some distance before being absorbed. It’s wrong to say that the atmosphere’s blocking of infrared (which is absorption of it) means it can’t absorb infrared. Dr. Roy Spencer says the greenhouse effect is true, although misnamed because greenhouses work mainly from a different mechanism, and that the real scientific debate is on the magnitude of the feedbacks and whether one of them (the cloud albedo feedback) is negative or positive.
And Tyndall was right in attributing the buffering nature of the troposphere to water vapor. Tyndall demonstrated a broad range of understanding wrought from decades of experimentation. That he got his hands dirty in the lab speaks volumes.
“Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat” by John Tyndall counters the hypothesis of Ahhrenius with sound experimentation decades prior.
Cloud albedo is a minor feedback. Virga isn’t even considered although it moves copious energy very quickly.
All that rain in Texas from Harvey? A bunch of thermal energy thumbing its nose to GHG insulation. Over half of the atmospheric thickness was below the lower condensation level so it was quite easy to shuck that sensible heat to deep space. The air is quite dry above the clouds.
Alex:
‘Didn’t you know that when you fire up a kiln the temperature inside tries to grow exponentially from the reflected radiation’.
But the temperature never gets to be above that of the original heat source. Second law of thermodynamics.
Likewise, the temperature of the earth’s surface can never be raised by CO2 IR emissions above the temperature of the CO2 making the emissions.
For a start it was an closed experiment in a controlled lab with all known inputs, that’s a pretty big error when comparing that with reality.
Lord Monckton gave a speech about the error at the last Heartland conference. The error is a doozy, a small but terrible mistake in climate math. If Monckton’s discovery holds up to challenge, the scientific arm of the climate movement will lose all remaining credibility with other branches of science.
Eric, you do know that Griff, Nick and every other eco loon bat that drops by on this site, will say different.
Eric, many thanks for sharing this I watched it from beginning to end. I don’t fully understand the mathematics, but I do understand that mathematical formulae can demonstrate poor science. I hope the perceived necessity of combating AGW by any illogical means necessary will go the same way as phlogiston.
well Craig he doesn’t seem to know much about London’s bicycle scheme…
Here’s some stats for monthly bike journeys for 2015.
Over a million users in some summer months…
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/303310/response/745323/attach/html/3/FOI%201556%201516.pdf.html
Hmm. I am fairly sure he’s got the right answer by the wrong means.
Absolute values do not matter in a LINEAR feedback system.
Leo,
The IPCC states that we live in a “coupled, NON linear, chaotic system.”
So why would any feedback be linear?
Griff,
Lord Monckton lives in London. Do you? He said NOTHING about how many journeys were taken dear. He brought up the cost AND how much fossil fuel is used carting them around town because people dont take them back to where they got on them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-bikes-cost-the-taxpayer-pound11m-a-year-to-keep-on-road-r566v9fw2pg
11 Million pounds per year to the taxpayers…for “free” public bikes.
Aphan, yes, I know, but for the small changes we are considering we can consider the systems linear over a very small range of temperatures and the AGW formulae in any case assume approximate linearity in the feedback systems
I dont have time right now, but I am fairly sure that this isn’t the killer blow Christopher thinks it is.
Unfortunately.
However its certainly looking at exactly the right area.
Regarding deltas being incorrect (about 40 minutes into the video): Then why is there AC analysis of amplifiers with DC voltages present, as is the case with vacuum tube audio amplifiers?
Regarding positive feedback to the extent claimed by IPCC making things excessively unstable, with the example of not being used industrially in electronic circuits: In my experience as an electrical engineer and with audio circuits, that’s merely the hard way to do things. An Armstrong regenerative receiver with its positive feedback adjusted to double its gain is usefully stable. (Although Armstrong regenerative receivers were usually adjusted to higher gains, and the amount of feedback was adjustable because electronic components had too loose a tolerance back in the heydays of those receivers for them to be built using no adjustable components with an amount of feedback that was reliably high enough to provide the desired amount of gain and reliably low enough to be short of oscillation.)
And, the comings and goings of ice age glaciations are a sign of feedback having at times been high enough to lead to instability or very low stability, when the surface albedo feedback was higher due to greater variation of ice reflection of sunlight.
Although I think the IPCC-favored values for the current magnitude of the feedbacks are excessively positive, the electrical analogy in the video is incorrect at being a good argument that this is the case.
Donald,
IMO the net feedbacks are negative, as would be expected on a homeostatic, water planet. Hence, even the lowest bound of the purely made-up ECS “estimate” in the IPCC, ie 1.5 degrees C per doubling, is liable to be too high.
If the lab-derived figure of ~1.2 degrees C per doubling be correct, then net negative feedbacks mean that ECS should lie between 0.0 and 1.1 degrees C. They could even lead to cooling under some circumstances, as perhaps in the hottest, moistest regions of the tropics.
https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/slides-genocidal-climate-science-christopher-monckton-of-brenchley.pdf Lord Monktons Slides all set out here. 4 errors highlighted in these slides are easily checkable. He also quotes Happer on one of the 4 errors he cites. I model sound so the fourier transform is meat and drink for me others have a bit of a learning curve to see what Monkton is on about in what he calls official error 4.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/04/leading-climate-scientist-cess-admits-mathematical-errors-of-the-agw-theory/
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/01/climate-debate-know-your-co2-pseudo.html
I would say that the biggest mathematical transgression is the use of statistical tools. Just take a random data set (literally), apply every tool in Matlab until you get an acceptable p value and BAM, you’ve got a publishable paper. It’s so easy. You don’t even have to understand what the tools are actually doing.
After statistical nonsense, I would guess that Fourier comes second. People who make elementary mistakes, like confusing period with frequency, confidently apply Fourier to a data set and trumpet the results.
Here’s an interesting link.
In other words, the results of the analysis bear no relationship to physical reality unless you actually know what you’re doing. For most people it’s just a magic time domain to frequency domain converter.
This is one of the best visualisation of the FFT.
http://www.katjaas.nl/fourier/fourier.html
Here Katya the Writer of that Blog explains why precision matters.
And here is a superb exposition on the Time v Frequency domain.
Heres some Claes Johnson on the 4th Error point and Point 1 of monkton
“On the other hand, differentiation is a an unstable or ill posed mathematical operation: small variations dC(t) in C(t) can give rise to large variations in dC(t)/dt as a result of division by a small dt. This means that viewing T(t) in the relation dC/dt = T to be determined by C(t) corresponds to an unstable mathematical operation.”
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/06/the-dog-and-tail-temperature-vs-co2.html
Massimo PORZIO wrote:
I’m just an electronic engineer, and just tried the Dr. Archer MODTRAN applet (the one he used to demonstrate the 1°C temp change per CO2 doubling).
[RSJ: JUST an electronic engineer? I’d expect you to have a good foundation in mathematics through differential equations, and in probability and statistics. Your math training might have included an introduction to real analysis. You should have had training in mathematical modeling, from second order linear processes, analog and digital signal processing, and an introduction to stochastic modeling. You should have had introductory courses in the physics of mechanics and acoustics, fluid dynamics, electricity with microelectronics and magnetism, optics including some spectroscopy, and heat and thermodynamics. You should have had a solid introduction to feedback control systems. Congratulations. These are the basic tools necessary to develop an understanding of climate modeling.
[This is probably the best place to interrupt to dispute the claim of demonstrating a 1ºC temperature change per CO2 doubling. Is this some temperature benchmark related to the atmospheric lapse rate? I ask because you provided no reference. However, Archer in his book “Climate Change” puts the increase in the global average surface temperature (GAST) at 2ºC to 5ºC, another disputable number.
[The doubling standard implied by your statement implies a radiative forcing, and hence a temperature change, response to an increase in the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Archer is a major proponent of this model, as is the IPCC and its supporters, and quite likely is a climatological standard because it is so strongly defended. Unfortunately, it is a local approximation to the underlying mechanism of absorption according to established laws of physics. The most convenient approximation is particularly ill-behaved, and dangerous for prediction.
[Physics tells us that the underlying mechanism is related to the exponential, including the more precise complement of the exponential, and even more precisely, the sum of complements of the exponential. The logarithm does not saturate, while the exponential does, and saturation is an expected climate response to increasing CO2. The range of the complement of the exponential is (0,1), like the real range of transmissivity, while the range of the logarithm is (-∞,∞). The logarithm is nice because climatologists don’t have to determine where the operating curve for atmospheric absorption lies with respect to current climate conditions. Radiative forcing increases the same amount for any doubling anywhere along the curve. If climatologists used the Beer-Lambert Law, not once mentioned by IPCC in its last two Assessment Reports, they’d find that they would have to specify the curve, and locate it for today’s climate.
[If your 1ºC is a reference to the GAST, then the next dispute I have is that it derives from GCMs which are open loop with respect to cloud albedo. This problem arises at whatever juncture one introduces temperature into the model. All real data relate to the climate with cloud albedo feedback closed. The relationship between radiative forcing, presuming it is valid in the first place, and temperature must be determined with that dominating, negative cloud albedo feedback loop closed.
[The radiative forcing paradigm as used by IPCC and its GCMs presumes that the climate is in an equilibrium state, to which the response to forcings can be added. That assumes that the model is linear, but it is not because processes within the model are nonlinear. One key example is dissolution. And the climate is never in equilibrium in the thermodynamic sense, notwithstanding claims by Archer and IPCC.]
I’m not a climatologist, a physicist and neither a geologist, for this reason maybe I miss the knowledge to argue about the MODTRAN reliability in predict the CO2 climate forcing.
[RSJ: I have not become familiar with MODTRAN because IPCC didn’t use it. IPCC didn’t even make an appeal to the CO2 absorption spectra but declared that the response to greenhouse gases is logarithmic and built a radiative forcing model around that presumption. Thus, IPCC determined that a catastrophic warming from CO2 was imminent. Its model can be shown to be false and MODTRAN is irrelevant. We are not likely to establish that AGW is invalid using a resource on which the model does not rely. We cannot invalidate a model by conditions outside its domain or range.]
As far I know, MODTRAN should be just a radiance calculator which tries to predict the transmittance and the reflectance of the atmosphere.
[RSJ: For an extensive discussion on MODTRAN and its uses, you might start with “From Lacis et al 1981 to Archer MODTRAN”, introduced and moderated by Steve McIntyre. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2596. It links into additional bulletin board discussions, which I have not read. But in partial answer to your speculation, MODTRAN appears to provide the entire lapse rate profile, i.e., temperature as a function of altitude through the atmosphere.
[The discussion at climateaudit.org is wide ranging, dealing with every imaginable scale, above and below the sensible ranges. It shifts from the microparameters of molecular absorption and emission of photons, to the mesoparameters of the atmospheric lapse rate, and on to the macroparameters of thermodynamics, such as changes in the GAST as a function of a global average CO2 concentration and parameterized processes like cloud albedo. Scientific models are scale dependent, and bridging from one scale to another can be a major achievement all in itself regardless of the application.
[The ultimate climate problem that concerns everyone today is a thermodynamic question. Accordingly, IPCC has adopted a particular thermodynamic model for climate, and even within its problematic paradigm, it has not fleshed out all the significant parameters with fidelity to the physics. In this energy balance, radiative forcing model, the particular lapse rate is irrelevant. One needs to know the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, whether determined by fine scale physics, by empirical measurements, by simple models, by assumption, or a combination.
[Equally important is the assumption — falsely proclaimed as some kind of natural law of physics — that the atmospheric absorption (i.e., radiative forcing) depends on the logarithm of concentration. This position is widely defended in the IPCC support community, and usually against the straw man that the dependence is not linear. It is paradigm essential.
[Physics tells us that the relationship is logarithmic in the reverse. That is, if CO2 were imagined for a moment to be a dependent variable, it would depend on the logarithm of the absorption. (The math doesn’t care which is dependent.) In other words back in the real world, the logarithm of the absorption depends on the CO2 concentration rather than the absorption depending on the logarithm of the CO2. {Begin rev. 9/30/09.} The radiative-forcing-convenient assumption is an intermediate trajectory between the linear idea and the exponential effects of the physics. The complement of the exponential {End rev. 9/30/09.} has the advantage of obeying the Beer-Lambert Law and exhibiting saturation, which the log(CO2) assumption does not do. The log(CO2) assumption is certain to fail on both sides of the region to which it is fit.
[The relationship between absorption or radiative forcing as the dependent variable and CO2 as the independent variable is neither logarithmic nor linear. As stated above, it is the complement of the exponential. This relationship founded in physics has some similarities to the logarithm, being monotonically increasing with CO2 concentration and convex down. Not surprisingly, a linear function of the logarithm can be well fit to the physical form like a good French curve, but the fit nonetheless remains problematic. It would be quite good for interpolation, but dangerous for extrapolation. It’s just as easy to fit the complement of the exponential which introduces some appreciation of the physics at the cost of setting back the radiative forcing paradigm.
[Another advantage of a model based on physics is that it opens up additional tests for its validity. Two points are sufficient to establish either the logarithmic fit or the exponential fit. In the case of the IPCC, one point is the present state, and the other is a Goldilocks point, chosen not to be too big and not to be too small. It is the 3.7 W/m^2 forcing for every doubling of CO2, too small to be checked, yet big enough to sound the alarm. If the complement of the exponential were fit to the data, one could extrapolate back to preindustrial times, or to an imaginary point of no CO2, and these would help establish the best location for the absorption-CO2 curve.
[IPCC finds some laws of physics quite annoying. Beer-Lambert Law and Henry’s Law are prime examples. It also doesn’t understand linearity, feedback or equilibrium, and so misuses the concepts.]
I also learnt from some physics related forums that its algorithm has been statistically modified to fit it for the current atmosphere behavior and make its predictions reliable.
[I understand also that beginning with MODTRAN4 the code can replicate the Beer-Lambert effect. I’ll be interested in learning more about this.]
For this reason, I don’t really understand how it could be used to predict what happens to the ground temperature when the atmosphere changes, such in case the CO2 doubles. It seems they iterate the computation increasing the ground temperature until the outgoing power returns to the same value given when the CO2 was at the original concentration.
As far I understand, they used the outgoing radiation as the power (or thermal) equilibrium of the system.
But to be in equilibrium, the incoming energy (from he Earth) and the total outgoing energy from the atmospheric column (to the outer space and back to the Earth) should be the same.
[RSJ: Equilibrium is used by the IPCC community to mean radiation balance, in which case they should say “radiation balance”. It is also used by IPCC to describe the conditions of the ocean surface layer, and thereby to use equilibrium chemical equations and to infer that the ocean is a slow barrier to absorbing some species (i.e., manmade) CO2. This model causes ACO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere, and to cause CO2 to be well-mixed, AGW-essential properties. The surface layer might be called many things; turbulent comes to mind as a starter. But this surface layer equilibrium position has no equivalent name but balderdash.
[We should reserve the word equilibrium to have its thermodynamic meaning. A system is in equilibrium when no work is being done across its boundary, e.g., no heat from the Sun or to space, and when its parameters are all in steady state. It is in this sense that the equations of ocean chemistry and the quantum mechanics of molecular vibration are valid. And using heat in this sense to mean the transmission of energy is best, because heat cannot be trapped, as the IPCC supporters like to claim greenhouse gases do.]
To check that I used the Dr. Archer’s MODTRAN defaults, that are:
CO2 = 375 ppm
CH4 = 1.7 ppm
Trop. Ozone = 28 ppb
Strat. Ozone scale = 1
Ground T offset = 0°K
hold water vapor = pressure
Water Vapor Scale = 1
Locality = Tropical Atmosphere
Weather condition = No Clouds or Rain
I positioned the sensor to look down at 70 km and I get an outgoing radiation of 287.844 W/m^2.
Then I moved the sensor to look down at 0 km and I get an incoming radiation of 417.306 W/m^2
(I guess this should be considered the Plank’s black body of the Earth because there is no atmosphere between the sensor surface and the ground).
Then I turned the sensor facing the atmosphere (using the MODTRAN terminology “looking up”) and I get the atmosphere reflected radiation of 348.226 W/m^2.
Being an equilibrium setup (I didn’t changed any atmosphere parameter, I just changed the sensor position), not only the outer space must be considered thermal stable, but the ground surface too.
I don’t really have any idea of how MODTRAN works, but I guess that if the above setup simulates the equilibrium of the current atmosphere, it should at least respect the first principle of thermodynamics.
De facto, it doesn’t.
[RSJ: I feel your pain.]
We have the atmosphere which receives 417.306 W/m^2 from the ground surface and it releases 287.844 W/m^2 (to the outer space) + 348.226 W/m^2(back to the ground) = 636.07 W/m^2.
It’s like the atmosphere “generated” energy by itself at a rate of 636.07 W/m^2 – 417.306 W/m^2 = 218.764 W/m^2.
I planned to do some other computation with Dr. Archer’s applet to understand more about it, but I’m no more able to use it at the URL http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
[RSJ: Good luck.]
Posted by Massimo PORZIO | September 26, 2009 3:30 PM
Massimo PORZIO wrote:
[You wrote: JUST an electronic engineer? I’d expect you to have a good foundation in mathematics through differential equations]etc…
Yes, I well know all about you mentioned, but my statement was written because I never dealt with the atmosphere and its gases, so maybe I had bad interpreted the Modtran use of Dr. Archer, and I believed it was used to demonstrate the CO2 forcing since the Wikipedia shows a link to the following Modtran animation:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modtran_DoubleCO2_NewEquilibrium.gif
[RSJ: The link is quite interesting, but I was unable to find its source or any discussion about it. A reference for Archer in which he mentions MODTRAN explicitly might be helpful.
[Archer’s has made Chapter 4 of his book, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, available on line. http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf. In this chapter, he provides a number of spectra similar to the animated charts in your link, but with some significant differences. Your link above is to MODTRAN3, and Archer’s is to a model at forecast.uchicago.edu, which, like the one you posted on the 26th at geosci.uchicago.edu, is no longer accessible.
[Still the spectra in Archer’s Figure 4-5 exhibit saturation (distinct from band saturation discussed below) as the Beer-Lambert Law might predict. You can see this saturation develop in the sharp line at 670 cm-1. The line is deeper than its immediate shoulders by almost a full ordinate interval of 0.1 Wm-2 in the diagram for 10 ppm CO2. Resolution of the line is gone at 100 ppm CO2, and, of course, at 1000 ppm. According to Figure 4.5, it should have been unresolvable at 300 and 600 ppm, but MODTRAN3 has it not only resolvable, but apparently reversed in polarity – instead of an absorber, it’s a narrow window!
[Is the following the explanation?
[The fact sheet for MODTRAN 4 includes the following,
The major developments in MODTRAN4 are the implementation of a correlated-k algorithm which facilitates accurate calculation of multiple scattering. This essentially permits MODTRAN4 to act as a ‘true Beer-Lambert’ radiative transfer code, with attenuation/layer now having a physical meaning. More accurate transmittance and radiance calculations will greatly facilitate the analysis of hyperspectral imaging data. Citation deleted, http://www.kirtland.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7915 ]
There you can see how they “demonstrate” the CO2 temperature forcing at ground and the following feedback of WV to be of 1.28K (or °C).
[These MODTRAN spectral plots are informative, especially as they point out the significant parts of the absorption spectra in the context of a variable black body source. Beyond that, they reveal little and add to the mystery. Archer and the IPCC supporters proclaim that the absorption is logarithmic in CO2 concentration. We know it’s not true as a law of physics because the logarithm ranges over (-∞,∞), while the absorption, like the transmittance and its complement (radiative forcing) must range over (0,1). Some supporters, but not all, are careful to say the logarithm is an approximation with a limited spectral band of applicability, but no one says what it approximates or the accuracy of the fit.
[Archer says,
Adding the first 10 ppm of CO2 has a fairly noticeable impact on the shape of the outgoing light spectrum, but increasing CO2 from say 100 to 1000 has a somewhat subtler effect.
I have plotted the total energy intensity Iout in W/m2 as a function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in Figure 4-6. Changes in CO2 concentration have the greatest effect if we were starting out from no CO2 and adding just a bit. The first 10 ppm of added CO2 changes Iout by as much as going from 10 to 100, or 100 to 1000 ppm. ARCHER, Global Warming:Understanding the Forecast, Ch. 4, 12/18/05, p. 4.
[He writes as if the range of 0 to 10 ppm were somehow comparable to the ranges of {10,100} and {100,1000}. The latter two are comparable to each other in one sense, the ratio of the upper limit to the lower limit being in the ratio of 10:1. The comparable ratio for {0,10} is infinite, though, and should have had a most pronounced effect under his logarithm model. He needed to compare with {1,10}.
[The vaunted logarithmic response is not evident in the spectral plots. Archer attempts to justify it with his Figure 4-6. It shows the results of five intensity computations by CO2 concentration that digitized to (2.6, 249), (12.4,240), (101.9,231), (331,227), and (1000,222) (ppm,Wm-2), which closely follow a logarithmic curve, and most notably with no sign of saturation. As Archer says with respect to another figure, “[this] is not data”. The question is, how did the logarithmic relationship come to pass in his data? Is it the result of the assumption of a logarithmic relationship in the climate model he used? Has that assumption been transferred into the MODTRAN model? If so, he has not established the logarithmic relationship but instead demonstrated a bootstrap, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[Archer illustrates his concept with a discussion of the optical depth of murky water. But he describes murkiness not as the concentration of an absorbing contaminant, but as a limitation in visual depth. His analogy to his model is a bootstrap.
[In another place, Archer rationalizes using the Naperian logarithm, saying, “The symbol e denotes a number which has no name other than simply e.” The symbol e stands for the Euler number. The argument was unnecessary because his Equation 4.1 for the change in temperature can be simplified by replacing the Naperian logarithms with a single use of the logarithm to the base 2, which is the real number of doublings and the factor he was seeking in the first place.
[Archer on page 4, like other AGW enthusiasts, explains the dependence on log(CO2) in terms of band saturation. This is not saturation according to the Beer-Lambert Law, which is manifest in the asymptotic behavior of the exponential. Instead, it is the cumulative effect of the declining sidebands as they go into saturation in some sense he doesn’t define (actually the BL phenomenon). Thus the center band of CO2 absorption increases as it encompasses more of the sidebands. This explains the monotonic, non-decreasing absorption with CO2 concentration, but not that it is logarithmic, even approximately.
[The band saturation model for absorption depends upon both the shape of the sidebands and the rate of saturation. For example, if the sidebands are approximately triangular, then the rate of increase in absorption would be a linear function of the rate of saturation. So if the saturation rate is a decaying exponential, as Beer-Lambert prescribes, then the band saturation would also be a decaying exponential. The band saturation explanation is of no avail to the logarithm model.]
Since I’m just a rookie in the field of climatology, and being a skeptic on CO2 forcing, I tried to play Modtran and found that thermodynamic incongruence.
I want tell you more, being an EE with 22 years of experience in research and development in industrial control, I wonder reading people who cares of graphic such as the Mann et al Hockey Stick. I’m not aware of how the climatologist grabbed those data along the years, but I got a professor of physics who used to say “remember a thermometer is a device which measures the temperature of itself!” I can’t really imagine how to “bias” measurements of one century ago to match the latest one and get resolution of one tenth of degree. Especially when the grabbing stations have varied in number along the time and their locations.
(Note that I’m Italian, and maybe I gave you a different idea of my point of view because of my poor English, please excuse me).
Have a great day.
Massimo
[RSJ: I did note your background, but detected no limitations in the English of your first post. My response to that post was a bit manipulative, taking advantage of your first use of the word just. I would have explained my response had I detected anything but mastery of English.
[Your “I want to tell you more” paragraph above has a couple of constructs which are important but not quite idiomatic. By wonder I suppose you mean you are skeptical about what you have read on the Hockey Stick. The phrase “people who cares of graphic” is strange. You might be thinking of Mann who was lead in creating the model, or of IPCC who relied on it, or of McIntyre and McKitrick who exposed the fraud. The vigorous defense and name calling by realclimate.org between M&M’s debunking and the Fourth Assessment Report was a well-deserved, self-inflicted black eye for the enthusiasts. As I have discussed here, passing from the Third to Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC abandoned the Hockey Stick and reluctantly rehabilitated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The latest news is that Steve McIntyre has struck again. Having shown the data reduction wrong in the first place, reports are that he has now shown that the authors applied unscientific data selection even before their subjective data reduction.
[You use grab in a strange way. Sometimes we say that an electronic sampler “grabbed” data, but that wouldn’t be applied to the climatologist who took or acquired the data, nor to his measuring stations. What IPCC admits is performing internetwork and intra-station “calibrations”, and it has clearly shown results in which data overlap, appear contiguous, or invariant to differing sources, as between instruments and proxies. Its use of calibration is problematic at best, and could be scientific fraud at worst. The problem would have gone away if IPCC had been forthright and had provided complete information so that a skilled reader could reproduce its work. IPCC’s graphics invite suspicion, and diligent research into what it has done has been unsuccessful so far.
[Was that Professor Mercurio? We now have thermometers that don’t measure themselves, noncontact thermometers based on the very principles of your topic: the passive measurement of OLR, or of surface temperature corrected for the medium.]
Posted by Massimo PORZIO | September 30, 2009 10:38 AM
Massimo PORZIO wrote:
My “people who cares of graphic” was related to the ones who gave any scientific importance to the Mann graphic and tried to use it as “proof” of the “CO2 footprint” on the climate behavior in last centuries.
[RSJ: Those people are the IPCC, without which there would be no global warming concern at all. It gave the Hockey Stick construction top billing in its Third Assessment Report. It appears as Figure 1 of its Summary for Policy Makers, page 3. It appears as Figure 5 of its Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, page 29. It appears most completely as Figures 2.20 and 2.21 of TAR Chapter 2, page 134. IPCC dropped the hockey stick reconstruction with some discussion in its Fourth Assessment Report, and rehabilitated the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. AR4, ¶6.6.1.1 What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show?, page 466, and see Figure 6.10, p. 467.]
The first time I see it, I asked myself whether it was serious or a joke. Just reading that it was made for a big part of it by “interpreting” tree rings, corals and ice cores, I could not imagine how to get a so high precision computing the temperature anomaly. Then I tried to imagine the meaning of “average” of the data collected. That is, a temperature average implies the collection of a meaningful number of samples during the day which take care of the time when the temperature had been at one value instead of one other (AFIK they used the daily MAX and MIN instead, maybe I’m wrong here), otherwise the temperature integral over the time maybe risible. The same apply on the temperature integral over the surface, it seems that they measured the temperatures using different number of stations in different places during the time of the measurements.
The way the AGW climatologist worked on that graphic lead me to believe that they don’t have any idea of the difference between “resolution” and “precision” of measurements.
[Was that Professor Mercurio? We now have thermometers that don’t measure themselves, noncontact thermometers based on the very principles of your topic: the passive measurement of OLR, or of surface temperature corrected for the medium.]
Yes of course, he was talking about that old-and-approximate devices, but I guess they should be the instruments that the Mann’s graphic used as source for almost the thermometric data, since (if I’m right) the thermopile based thermometers became available not so long time ago (I guess they could be available as thermometers in the 80s) and the thermocouple or thermistor based ones had the same problem of the point of contact resistance and dissipation belonged by the mercury based ones.
Anyways I don’t completely agree with your assumption that this new class of thermometers are 100% reliable for climate measurements at ground. Yourself wrote that you need to correct the measurement for the medium to get precision, and that’s just one issue, but let me tell you that in Italy we say “the temperature is a ugly beast to measure”, meaning it’s not easy to get a reliable measurement of it, even if you use the latest radiative based thermometers. This class of devices allows you a good precision for temperature surface measurements (supposing you set an accurate emissivity correction coefficient for the measured surface, and the path between the device and the target surface is quiet short), but for instance, when you want to measure the temperature of the air at 10m from ground, you need a “heat collection target” placed there. Using a low thermal resistance material as target you can get a reliable measurement, but what do you say about the surrounding air flow?
Even if I never dealt with this problem, I guess it’s hard to solve since different air flows could quiet increase or reduce the bidirectional heat exchange between the air and the target surface giving different readings for the device which is “seeing” the target. For example, with a low air flow the temperature of the target will be the average of a certain quantity of air mass surrounding the target, increasing the flow (such in case of windy days) you get the average of a greater quantity of air mass that could return a different temperature reading. So, what’s the right value?
One day, somewhere in the Internet, I found an high precision thermometer which used two concentric pipes and one fan on the top of it. The inner pipe housed the thermal detector, while the outer one had the air flow sucked up by the fan at a constant rate. I don’t know how much it’s effective to remove the wind influence on the temperature measurement, but it evidences that the problem is known, I guess.
About the wrong interpretation of thermometers measurements, take a look to the link below:
http://www.practicalchemistry.org/experiments/the-greenhouse-effect,296,EX.html
The last part of the experiment (where they try to demonstrate the CO2 GH effect) well shows how that professor was right 😉
[RSJ: Private correspondence deleted per commenter’s request.]
I would like to know your opinion about, especially about his latest statement: how could Modtran be 100% accurate, if it doesn’t respect the first principle of thermodynamic?
[RSJ: While we can construct trivial, almost certain, binary or event counting counterexamples, an axiom of science is that every measurement has an error. Offhand, I would not be inclined to challenge the accuracy of an instrument or a model representing a microparameter, or in this case mesoparameter (sensible) process based on macroparameter laws. I do expect MODTRAN results to be reconciled with the Beer-Lambert Law.]
I never doubted that more CO2 traps more IR photons in the atmosphere of course but I can’t explain myself how could be reliable a simulator which evidence a so macroscopic issue.
[RSJ: The idea that more CO2 absorbs more photons is the core model for absorption. It is statistical in nature, relating to the probability of a collision. It leads to a functional equation, q(x+y) = q(x)q(y), where q is the probability of no collision, which happens to represent the remaining, unabsorbed radiation. The solution to the equation is the exponential, and hence the Beer-Lambert Law. It is not the logarithm, for which the functional relationship is f(xy)=f(x)+f(y). The domain for which the absorption model is valid, equivalently its accuracy, depends upon experiment. Such experiments would depend upon a host of parameters, including collimation, reflections, scattering, frequency and bandwidth, concentration, and always, interference. So, use MODTRAN where it produces valid results.
[Remember, IPCC didn’t use MODTRAN, but did assume a logarithmic dependence on concentration for radiative forcing. From that assumption, essential to the radiative forcing paradigm but unsupported by experiment or theory, it established that humans caused the modern temperature anomaly, and are virtually certain to set in motion a climate catastrophe.]
Being an electronic engineer I used and still use simulators to help my designs, but I’m absolutely sure of their reliability, or better I well know that their limits are very irrelevant to my simulation requirements.
[RSJ: Every product to be developed needs to start with a complete specification, modeling every transfer function and every input and output. Then analysis, including simulation, and prototyping are needed to demonstrate every article of specification, to cross-check everything and to search for surprises. As the product is developed, experiments should increase in complexity and completeness, until the entire product is tested, end to end if possible. This is ordinary engineering, most noticeable in its absence. Failures are infamous and often expensive. Inadequate proof of design for Huygens-Cassini bit synchronization nearly caused the mission to fail, and required a clever work-around across the solar system. The failure to institute ordinary contamination control measures, among other things, likely contributed to the costly loss of services in the family of Hotbird and MILSTAR satellites. The famous Hubble Trouble required a clever and costly on-orbit fix. Inadequate engineering resulted in the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. There’s more to engineering than the physics, and sometimes all the physics gets in the way of sufficient physics as when we start mixing microparameters into the macroparameters.]
I very would like to do some other tests with Modtran to verify the Barrow’s atmospheric column energy balance, but seems that the University of Chicago closed the “water tap” (in Italy it means they stop to give a service).
Have a great day.
Massimo
[RSJ: That is unfortunate. Still, understanding the differences between MODTRAN3 and MODTRAN4 could be worthwhile because of the claim that the latter improvements related to Beer-Lambert.]
Posted by Massimo PORZIO | October 5, 2009 9:31 AM
Massimo PORZIO wrote:
Dear Dr. Glassman,
thank you very much to gave me your attention for my previous messages.
I’m just what we (here in Italy) call a “Sunday time climatologist”, it’s much better I return my attention to my business, anyways if one day I’ll decide to return on the argument, now I well know who asking for, since reading your explanations besides has been constructive it also has been pleasant.
I hope that one day someone will give us certainty on the CO2 climate forcing, stopping the absurd campaigns against the probably less dangerous gas in the atmosphere. In the meantime we have to survive the diesel cars which produce less CO2 then the gasoline engine based ones, but put into the atmosphere a big quantity of microparticles dangerous for the human healt.
Have a very nice day.
Massimo
[RSJ: Your welcome, and I leave you with this thought:
[Atmospheric CO2 is a benign and beneficial greening agent.]
Posted by Massimo PORZIO | October 9, 2009 11:20 AM
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223142711_A_Simple_Derivation_of_Glassman_General-N_Fast_Fourier-Transform
Dr Glassman Author of the Rocket Science journal is a pioneer of the use of FFT in Computer modeling.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
Its a long post but I think it supports Lord Monktons Errors 1 and 4. Let’s face it there’s a whole stack of stuff that no one has the data for.
#SettledSeance and all that.
https://twitter.com/RogerGLewis/status/903143833654964228
rogerlewis,
A very interesting, albeit long post. I don’t immediately grasp everything in it, largely due to not being acquainted with the concept of the complement of an exponential. However, I think that the most damning point for the consensus climatologists and modelers is the observation that the commonly accepted logarithmic relationship doesn’t allow for saturation. A person I used to work with, who’s specialty was atmospheric corrections, particularly for imaging IR sensors, once remarked to me that the CO2 bands were nearly saturated even now. Apparently the wings widen when the peak or full-width-half-max becomes saturated. That is, once all the outgoing IR is absorbed at the central wavelength, further additions of CO2 have no further impact at that wavelength. The resultant effect is to start having significant absorption at other wavelengths. However, because the wavelength of the outgoing IR is a function of temperature, widening of the wings may have no practical importance. It would seem that the current GCMs are based on an unsupportable assumption that is overly simplistic and, if applicable at all, applicable for only a narrow range of conditions. You have given me some things to think about and research.
Rogerlewis: Regarding in the MODTRAN atmosphere model “We have the atmosphere which receives 417.306 W/m^2 from the ground surface and it releases 287.844 W/m^2 (to the outer space) + 348.226 W/m^2(back to the ground) = 636.07 W/m^2.
It’s like the atmosphere “generated” energy by itself at a rate of 636.07 W/m^2 – 417.306 W/m^2 = 218.764 W/m^2.”:
The atmosphere receives 417.306 W/m^2 of radiation from the ground surface. It also receives heat from the ground by means other than radiation and it absorbs some of the incoming radiation from the sun.
Well before he does that he has a lot of explaining to do. First of all he was meeting with Russians!!! Also he was talking well of them!!! Also he has communicated with Trump. ( The connections and conclusions of this clear collusion are frightening.)
Other then that a great and encouraging report Sir.
No doubt I’ll be asked to testify by the dreaded Muller in due course, and the Marxstream media will carry dopey headlines: “Climate denier is Trump’s secret link with the Kremlin shock horror sensation picture more on page 94”. If only They knew …
I have no idea what that football field long strip of paper up above is all about. Seems like somebody having a long conversation with hjsself .
I’m not even going to try and read it.
G
I see simple Simon is still trying to push the religious belief that any change, no matter how small is evil and must be fought with all available resources, no matter how many have to die in the process.
If any degree of change can be linked to humans (however spuriously), I guess the thinking is that they just got it coming.
It is weird, though, this concept of stasis – anyone with any education at all ought to have at least some idea of the dramatic changes the Earth has gone over 4 1/2 billion years, yet guys like Simon seem to think it was all a deliberate evolutionary action to get HERE, and then – after all that – they still seem to think, with their preoccupation with inconsequential elements, that they have the ability to control it all.
Their concept of ‘conservation’ seems to be to preserve nature like a dead butterfly in a display, or a mummified corpse in a tomb.
Another manifestation of the psycho control freak.
Couldn’t help but respond. I worked at McDonnell Douglas for twenty years before Boeing bought us in ’97. They taught us not to fight change, but to embrace it – and find the new opportunities. I hated some of the books they pushed (I still gag at “Who moved My Cheese”), but the bottom line is change does bring opportunities. The dull fight to maintain the status quo – and in the long run they will lose. Avoid them – they are dinosaurs. They will become extinct. So will you – if you cling to the status quo. Buy the new cell phone, trade in the horse for a car, ….
Simon,
It was discovered long ago. And many, many people have discussed it and written papers on it etc. Talking about it in the US will get you attacked by people proclaiming to be MUCH smarter, but apparently Russians find it easy to see and understand. My, how the tables have turned.
Never mind the giberish of 0.04% of an atmospheric gas causing planetary warming – how about the preposterous solution that somehow by decreasing the average planetary temperature (what ever that is) by a tremendous 2 degrees will avert catastrophic planetary demise (according to the IPCC)
…aside – did you like how I used the word ‘planetary’ 3 times to invoke the grand scale of this non problem?
120 years ago rules out any of Faraday`s work who died in1867, although he knew a lot about C02 and its effect.
I think we should be able to work out the error with our combined Glial cells working together without having to be enlightened
Strikingly competent reportage, Lord Monckton!
Bravo!!!
Don’t you just love “From my end of the round table”. Brilliant!
Say what you will about the good Lord M, his writing is highly engaging and well enjoyed. I’m glad he was there, and thank him for sharing.
Mental illness is mostly caused by the individual. The only treatment is the individual himself. But I have the feeling they rather would commit suicide than realizing reality? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
Joseph Stalin
And speaking of “ideas,” anyone who knows how often it rains in London would know why bicycles are an epic fail for commuting, only to be used by young, fitness-oriented SJW’s who aren’t carrying heavy bags or kids and don’t mind getting to work with a big fat wet stripe of mud up their backs.
Our local diner here has a number of waitresses who emigrated from Eastern European communist-bloc countries. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM voted for Trump and are more than happy to tell patrons why!
(Very few leftists eat there any more–too much MAGA was spoiling their already rotten digestion.) Cheers!
Santa Baby,
While you are entitled to your opinion, you aren’t entitled to make statements as if they are facts, without evidence to back them up.
Mental illness is entirely different from thought processes brought on by skewed cognitive thinking, brainwashing, or victimization. Many people have personality traits or disorders that can be corrected or modified greatly by the individual with help. But mental illness, in its medical definition involves complex biological processes that often involve inherited gene mutations, damage from illnesses, infections, parasites, and lesions…not to mention head injuries.
As someone who has spent a great deal of time with people who struggle with both of those categories, I find your definition of both the cause and the treatment of “mental illness” both uninformed, and offensive.
Yeah, most mental illness is not voluntary.
These days it seem to be trendy in certain circles to have some kind of disorder, however. Makes one brave and heroic, doncha know, so it can be an attractive condition to adopt and cultivate for certain personality types.
Very good Lord Monckton. Thank you so much for carrying the light of reason and truth to those in Moscow.
Thank you Lord Monkton for providing some sanity in our unsettled times.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemisofchristchurch.com
I don’t think he actually carried it….
it was already there.
More like HIGHLIGHTED it !!
Hopefully the Russians will realise that they don’t have to bend at all to the AGW anti-science, anti-human, anti-CO2, and LIFE agenda.
oh i think moscow/russia is already pretty familiar with truth and reason…pity a few more places are’nt.
including my own nation
it was a glorious delight to discover that in former Communist countries such as Russia that dismal species of totalitarianism, even when artfully dressed up in environmentalist fig-leaves, no longer holds the slightest attraction for young people.
And the statement by Putin shows realization of this “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” – Vladimir Putin quotes from BrainyQuote.com
All good knock about stuff and our Noble Lord Monkton has many good points. Where things get sticky for all of us is When the Fossil Fuels do run out, and they will, and their EIRO´s have empirically been proven to be falling what then?http://www.roboticscaucus.org/ENERGYPOLICYCMTEMTGS/Nov2012AGENDA/documents/DFID_Report1_2012_11_04-2.pdf
The oil, gas and coal that dominate use today
probably had EROI values greater
than 30:1 to 100:1 in the past [72]. Therefore,
we did not need to be concerned with
their EROIs and the potential ramifications
of decreasing EROI values. Recently, we
have become aware that the EROI and
hence the amount of net energy available
to society are in a general decline as the
highest grade deposits are depleted. Society
has employed Ricardo’s “best first
principle” [6]. We are now facing the distinct
possibility that the energy from these
traditionally high EROI deposits may need
to be supplemented or rapidly replaced by
new deposits or alternative energy sources
to avoid future energy constraints and the
potential effects of climate change. These
“new” energy sources must be sufficiently
abundant and have a large enough EROI
value to power society. In terms of EROI,
wind power might be a viable energy
source but we must consider the cost of
backup systems. Synthetic fuels produced
from tar sands appear to be economically
viable but have high environmental impact
[24, 86].
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/more-on-eroi-letting-greens-know-score.html
Not my problem.
Having read this report prepared for DFID (UK Department for International Development) which itself is an adherent to the AGW religion there are some comments on this.
Firstly it makes the highly pertinent point that past Global Financial Depressions have been driven by High Energy Prices (oil) but makes no projections of the danger of financial depression posed by a switch to the exceptionally high cost of energy from renewables.
This report had its first draft revised and was published in 2012; it thus predates studies on the EROI of ‘fracked’ natural gas and in any case it discounts ‘Fracked Natural Gas’ with the following statement:
“Given the numerous shifting environmental variables and social issues surrounding horizontal drilling and “fracking”, it is difficult to predict the future of natural gas.” An unsurprising approach given the sponsor’s ‘Green’ credentials.
Studies in 2013 found the EROI of .’Fracked’ natural gas to be equal to if not better than Coal.
(http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Bad-News-for-the-Anti-Fracking-Crowd.html)
Natural gas reserves that can be made use of through fracking have been estimated to provide centuries of energy resourse and, as has been fully demonstrated, the use of natural gas has led to the significant reduction in US CO2 emissions over recent years. The report was not asked to cover that aspect.
The researchers do not appear to have obtained any EROI figures on fracked gas which is surprising given that this was already reducing and has since reduced LNG costs worldwide – suggesting that its EROI is very high. Having said that the report is a desk top study of published works over several decades and concluded before the 2013 study on the EROI of Fracked gas.
The EROI figures it quotes (see P 17) cover a range of odd dates from 2010 back to 1999.
Coal has the highest EROI at around 60 to 80:1 – with no signs of that declining;
Natural gas is lumped together with oil to show a combined EROI, But some graphs on page 23 show a range (Pennsylvania) of 150:1 down to around 70:1 whereas in Canada the range appears to be 40:1 down to 20:1. Again this predates the 2013 study which shows Fracked natural gas as having an equal or better EROI to that of coal..
The worst EROI is shown to be Biofuels which range from a negative 0.8 (i.e. more energy required to make than it provides) to 1.6 for corn based ethanol and up to 10 with sugarcane based ethanol..
Old England,
I’m afraid that ‘fracking’ only extends the time somewhat before the EROI problem comes back as the Ghost of Xmas Future to haunt us. I think that low EROIs and expensive energy are both drags on the economy. Until such time, or if, we replace fossil fuels with thorium or deuterium-based energy, we should consider ‘fracking’ as having given us some additional time to solve the formidable problems of virtually limitless energy without covering the land with windmills and solar panels.
@ Clyde Spencer – I fully agree with you re Thorium (not familiar with use of deuterium) …. only caveat I have is that we may well find that we need to maintain or increase CO2 levels for a variety of sound reasons.
Old England,
Deuterium, tritium, and lithium are the isotopes/elements most commonly suggested as being viable for fusion.
Nuclear power.
Fu7ll stop.
Biggest EROI in the universe.
Hi Leo, Thorium SWR is a huge part of the future for our Energy Needs, I agree, Hydro is pretty good too and Wind ain’t half bad. EROI has to somehow factor in decommissioning and waste disposal/Storage these factors bring down the EROI and different treatments get varying results.For existing levels of development an EROI is needed of better than 7:1 EUAN Mearns net energy CLiff is a wonderful visualization of the challenges facing us with future Energy generation. http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners
Hi Leo, Thorium SWR is a huge part of the future for our Energy Needs, I agree, Hydro is pretty good too and Wind ain’t half bad. EROI has to somehow factor in decommissioning and waste disposal/Storage these factors bring down the EROI and different treatments get varying results.For existing levels of development an EROI is needed of better than 7:1 EUAN Mearns net energy CLiff is a wonderful visualization of the challenges facing us with future Energy generation.
http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
Sorry image didn´t embed and link screwed up.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgruber/2014/01/26/shale-oil-charlatans/#3282fc0a68d9
Forbes is not exactly a hotbed of Commie agitation This is a very good article I think its EROI diag is very good.
https://www.tullettprebon.com/documents/strategyinsights/tpsi_009_perfect_storm_009.pdf
” wind ain’t half bad”
Wind ain’t one quarter good.
The sun runs on gravity; not the DTs or lithium.
So without gravity there isn’t snow ball’s chance in hell of getting stable controllable energy from DTL.
Generally a ball of hydrogen about 860,000 miles in diameter provides enough gravity to make free clean green renewable energy. Just don’t try putting it in a bottle.
G
When they do start to run out, in 400 to 500 years (minimum) we’ll let the people of that time, using technology we can’t even dream of, solve the problem.
Something many of us have been saying for years.
Provided we don’t impoverish them with our current obsession with pseudo-environmentalism our five-times-great grandchildren will have no difficulty in producing whatever is needed in their situation when it arrives.
Our five-times-great grandparents didn’t order their lives to suit us and we insult our own descendants (and, I would suggest, those ancestors as well) by pretending that we ought to be ordering ours to suit them. What would we know of the next 100 years, let alone the next 500?
MarkW
Apparently you don’t understand hysteria is the mother of invention, not necessity.
Sarc of course
Hysteria is the mother of intervention.
Ditto to Alex. If kids don’t want to return to an agricultural system with mass starvation, I expect they’ll give the atom another look. If not… they go the way of the dinosaur. Not smart enough to survive.
Why the dissing of hydro? Or was the Three Gorges Dam just showing off? Good to hear that the Russian youth are able to say that the emperor has no clothes.
Malcolm,
It isn’t commonly appreciated that more lives have been lost because of dam failures than all the other energy producers together. Besides that, they have significant environmental impacts to mine the limestone for concrete, require a front-loading of energy to turn the limestone into CO2 and lime, have serious environmental impacts downstream, and are plagued by silting problems. They often contribute CO2 and methane to the atmosphere from decomposing organic material inundated. Lastly, they remove from access for other purposes all the land they inundate. The only thing that is green about dams is the algae that grows in the water in warm climates.
Good to hear of a Science Academy where science is actually discussed.
Delightful prose, Christopher!
Yes, but I think his speech would suffer in translation.
Maybe he had a printed-out version of his speech translated beforehand by a literary translator, perhaps in London.
Sorry, but Lord M of B … is … a Literary Translator !! They don’t come in any larger sizes .
G
and yet the Russian military and industrial investment in the arctic assumes a continuing decline in the sea ice and continued warming…
They are investing billions on the basis of the predictions of climate science… their military strategy is based around it.
Your second paragraph is your own conclusion. They are doing things while the going is good, like everyone else on the planet. It’s called pragmatism.
You come across like a bit of a stargazer. I suggest you wear a white robe and get a placard and wander around the streets annoying people.
He doesn’t need the white robe and placard Alex!
hmm… or I could stay in, post here and just annoy you?
[Griff, you are a classic example of a sea lion . . . mod]
rapscallion
He does for the unwary
Not a usage/term I’m familiar with, mod -unless it means you think I perform to get fish?
[Know your meme Griff . . . mod]
“hmm… or I could stay in, post here and just annoy you?”
That’s all you post for anyway, isn’t it?
You specifically admitted to that on the Guardian CiF blogs – “tweaking the tails of the deniers” was the phrase IIRC.
“hmm… or I could stay in, post here and just annoy you?”
That’s all you’re here for anyway, isn’t it?
You admitted as much on the Guardian CIF blogs, “amusing yourself by tweaking the tails of the d******s” was the phraseology you used, IIRC.
and building the biggest most powerful ice breakers ever.
Makes you wonder why you would need ice-breakers when there will be no ice. Stupid Russians.
Nuclear powered ice breakers at that
The Russians are are making this ‘investment’ in the Arctic to get at the oil/gas under the Arctic ice.
yes, to extend the use of the northern sea route -not to provide it, as was required in the past
When caught in a lie, Griff, as always extends the lie in hopes that others will just give up.
Russian Ice charts show a 14% INCREASE in 70% or more ice coverage since this date since last year.
Why do you continue your constant LYING griff??
Is it your only method of attention-seeking??
Griff
How is your sea ice prediction looking?
go back to slandering its what you do best.
well, the extent is holding up better than I predicted -a cold arctic summer.
However that extent (area 15% ice covered) is inflated due to a very large area of quite little ice.
Still a week to go and given the ice condition could be a surprise….
Not a record, but in the top 3 low extents?
The thickness isn’t good and I think the volume is record low…
Put it this way, the decline continues but from year to year figures vary due to better or worse weather for melting. This year seems to have been on the extreme the bad for melting range… in any other year we would have seen a record.
Earlier this year Griffie confidently predicted that the low ice extent this summer would shatter all existing records.
Now Griffie has to lie about what he predicted in order to stay semi-relevant.
“However that extent (area 15% ice covered) is inflated due to a very large area of quite little ice.”
I see, so that never happened in the past…..it’s only recently they got stupid
Top 3 low extents? More like 7th or 8th with an outside shot at 9th, but I know it’s different ice than previous years so that doesn’t count right, well considering this year has been so extreme (according to you anyway) next year has got to be the year that the north pole is finally ice free right? So how about you take me up on the TonyM bet for next year genious.
Oh, is that crickets I hear again?
Where did Griff go, gee I hope a Polar bear didn’t get him.
Just seen this on Paul Homewoods site :
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/pen-hadow-gives-up-blocked-by-sea-ice/
and the accompanying chart of recent sea ice expansion looks a bit scary if you were hoping to claim the Arctic ocean as the “new Med”.
Mikewaite
Bowhahaha! Nice and absolutely predictable, as many here did.
I thought the ice was really sparse and breaking up everywhere up there, guess not.
Hey Griff look at the uptick
If you extrapolate that forward 2 weeks it goes to an unprecedented ice coverage (most ever eva) and that analysis is just as likely as yours because it’s based on an analysis of a wiggly line on a graph.
LdB I’m not entirely sure that’s real… it does that when there’s a glitch. Best confirm tomorrow
See there is the problem if that was the other way you would be bleating on about some death spiral. The wiggly line goes the wrong way and it’s a dead sensor and we should wait. If it’s still like that tomorrow we will have to wait week won’t we. Then if it remains after that you will be finding excuses and you will want next years data. You see the problem we have with you with consistency.
It looks as though the minimum occurs around the 21st, so the ice could get scantier by then.
That’ll be why they are building more icebreakers then?
That the Russians are preparing to claim the resources of the Arctic is hardly surprising. On the other hand it’s not evidence that they believe the ice will soon be gone.
75% of all global warming occurs during arctic and antarctic winters. BELOW FREEZING, oftentimes 15-20 degrees. See:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Griff,
Whether humans are the cause or merely contributors to a trend that has been occurring since the end of the Little Ice Age, it would not be wise to bet against the trend continuing.
Not sure I follow Clyde… the warming trend is clearly continuing.
“Not sure I follow Clyde”
Hardly surprising when you’re paid not to, is it?
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford.
Griff,
There is zero evidence that human activity has contributed a statistically significant amount to the warming observed since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum. We have warmed some areas, cooled some others, but the overall global effect can’t even be assigned a sign with any degree of certainty. In any case, it’s negligible.
Griff,
You said, “the warming trend is clearly continuing.” Yes, that is the point! The Russians aren’t going to assume the trend will reverse, so they are preparing to take advantage of declining ice and be sure that they are the first to establish a presence with their ice breakers.
Griff,
I’ll add to the long list of things about which you know absolutely nothing, yet feel qualified to comment upon, the Russian military.
Yesterday we had an article here criticising Mann because a communist magazine had quoted him. Now we have Monckton championing the commies. Make up your min, are the reds the bad guys or does it just depend which side they take in the argument?
@ Simon
You are confusing a died-in-the-wool communist organisation in the US that wants to destroy capitalism with the Russian state and people who rejected communism decades ago. Whether that is through not reading either article fully, thus leaving a lack of knowledge and understanding or a deliberate attempt to conflate both I have no idea – but in either case you’re comment is simply wrong.
You don’t thing Putin despises the US. You don’t think Putin would happily see the US disintegrate? Really?
Simon
Perhaps Putin doesn’t seem to think that the USA is the centre of the universe, like most Ustasians do.
“You don’t thing Putin despises the US.”
He doesn’t need to.
Much of the US despises itself.
Maybe, just maybe , your current president can turn this around.
I too have had trouble reminding myself that Putin and Russia are not communist, they are neo-fascist. There are no true communists anymore; the term is (mis)used on this site as a euphemism for the charming ad hominem “lib-tard.” Too bad folks can’t separate their science from their politics. But they can’t, understandably perhaps, since Climate Science™ is a purely political creature. In my opinion, however, its politics are not of the authoritarian Right or the authoritarian Left, they are of the authoritarian ‘Third Way’ which has finally come into its own after a very long latency period.
Simon – August 31, 2017 at 1:09 am
Simon, are you so clueless or just completely “brainwashed” as to actually think or believe that the magazine being published and printed in the USA by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA ……. is the officially recognized worldwide “voice” of all Communist Party members, past and present?
Educate yourself @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party,_USA
You surely aren’t one of those MSM Reporters that President Trump has such a dislike for, … are you?
Poor Simon, he actually believes that Russian == communist.
I guess it’s easier than thinking for a living.
Easier than just thinking. Period.
Of course the Russians don’t buy it. They recognise a pseudo-science when they see one, having been at the receiving end of Lysenkoism which cost them dearly.
What would have happened had Texas been reliant upon 100% renewables when hurricane Harvey visited.
In these conditions wind/off-shore wind would not have supplied anything, and solar energy would be well down, and any battery storage would have been exhausted in short time.
With 100% renewables there truly would have been a catastrophe of biblical proportions Never a thought is given to how renewables perform in a disaster scenario by the warmist who seek to apply the precautionary principle.
Richard I would also like to add to your excellent observation, that power stations (gas, nuclear and coal) are built to withstand hurricanes, wind turbines and solar panels, by their nature can never be designed to withstand extreme weather events.
As with conventional power stations, the grid would supply from out of area, if the power lines weren’t down.
If there was a coal power plant in the Houston suburbs, would it be running?
But in the immediate aftermath any renewable microgrids would have been up and running – that’s a solution NY state has been putting in place since Sandy.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/31/microgrids-increase-post-sandy/3305379/
Griffie, you have been informed about the distance limits in regard to out of area power.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Griff
l I have to say is HA HA HA HA HA you are funny.
though what scares me is you believe that.
what limits Mark?
The UK regularly ships power across the North sea – we will be connecting to Germany and Norway by HVDC line.
I know Texas is big, but I think the grid would be up for it.
“Griff August 31, 2017 at 10:34 am
I know Texas is big, but I think the grid would be up for it.”
You have no idea about grid losses over great distances do you? The UK is tiny compared to Texas. New South Wales in Australia is bigger than Texas, and we have about 6 million people living here.
Patrick, I suggest you look up modern HVDC grid transmission systems.
Easily able to cope with Texas distances…
@Griff: Yeah, but there are losses converting to and from DC power.
Richard, “What would have happened to Texas”?
Did you miss this report from years ago?
New research by the University of Delaware and Stanford University shows that an army of offshore wind turbines could reduce hurricanes’ wind speeds, wave heights and flood-causing storm surge.
The findings, published online this week in Nature Climate Change, demonstrate for the first time that wind turbines can buffer damage to coastal cities during hurricanes. “The little turbines can fight back the beast,” said study co-author Cristina Archer, associate professor in the University of Delaware’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/27/claim-offshore-wind-turbines-for-taming-hurricanes/
Would Houston been Saved or as AW put it “a press release I just can’t stop laughing about. Of course, they have no real-world tests of this claim, only “their sophisticated climate-weather model”. No numbers were given on turbine “mortality”, so one wonders how many would survive.”
Was that really a direct qoute? I mean, I know he would have said it in Russian, but is that a direct translation?
Because if so, that was Awesome.
^¿^
I wish that he would set it out here, so that we can all think about it, and discuss it.
The paper describing the long-standing error that has led to the embarrassing official over-predictions of global warming for well over a century is undergoing peer review. As soon as we know its fate, there will be a report here. In the meantime, it makes sense to be rather careful not to publish too much.
My speech at the Heartland Conference earlier this year sets out some of the important considerations. But we discovered the largest error a few weeks later, and that one – if we are right – allows us to prove our result beyond all reasonable doubt. Watch this space.
No doubt the climate mafia expect the youth of Russia to turn on Putin and install a climate-friendly (sic) govt. Think again mafia, my limited experience of Russian youth, obtained via blog and webcam conversations with young Russian women (don’t ask) is that they adore Putin.
The communists are now in Brussels and Berlin. They will finally takeover Europe under the guise of globalization and environmentalism. The patron saint of the EU
Few people realise the Nazis were born of the green movement. The Nazis loved nature and animals, but hated humans.
The Nazi party stands for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. The Nazis were SOCIALISTS.
I’m afraid I have to tell you that is absolute nonsense
[This could have been a teaching moment . . . mod]
As always, Griff just expects us to take his word for it.
Which bit is nonsense, Griff? Any historian worth his salt knows that Nazism grew out of the German obsession with all things environmental. That isn’t even a matter for debate any more.
Neither, really, is the idea that National Socialism wasn’t socialist. Have you read Mein Kampf? Of course it was socialist. As was Italian fascism. Read and learn.
I spent years in germany and actually talked to the ww2 generation about this.
you?
Yep, the socialist in the U.S. (including the ny times, even back then) loved Mussolini.
Read the Arms of Krupp if you want an education, there is very little difference between how Hitler saw the relationship between government and industry and how liberal socialist do now.
This is from the inside book cover of “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg:
That sounds more progressive than conservative.
Jim
Actually even for the usually green wikipedia it agrees but adds the words “minority of authors”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics
Poor old Griff wont even go that far because he is right into the cool-aide.
very well, mod…
https://www.britannica.com/event/National-Socialism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
The problem with that source Griff is type in the term ecofascism and notice what happens, apparently there is no such thing. Now try it in the oxford dictionary. Interesting you can just wash a whole concept out of an encyclopedia.
What do you think Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei translates to, Skanky?
Amazing how adverse you Leftys are to being informed that you adhere to the most genocidal cult ever to besmirch the surface of the planet isn’t it, Skanky?
The truth really hurts you Socialists, doesn’t it?
Griff,
You are so astonishingly ignorant upon all topics which you feel qualified to comment, that you don’t even have a clue how profoundly, totally, completely and utterly ignorant you have the shame to be.
Nazis were deeply Green:
What LCM does is show people that if you have the guts, you can SPEAK OUT.
I wish more real scientists would realise this. !!
Monckton, so good to hear from you again. I’m not surprised that Russia sees behind the curtain of this CO2 magic show. A nation of chess players isn’t easy to fool, especially by the gang of low talent designer-brained perps of this shallow subterfuge.
I’ve remarked on this site that Russia is becoming the repository of European-Western culture and values that are being shredded and jettisoned by the NWO аррагатснiкs of EU-UN-Democrat-Liberals (NAmerica).
I’ve also noted that the target of the Pan-Globalists has been USA and Russia – they have most of the rest in the bag except for a few Eastern EU holdouts. China, of course simply adopted an opportunistic position in the CAGW scheme and they are much loved by the Totes because of the centralized power. The Democrats, who hoped to deliver the USA have blamed the Russians for the “Deplorables” foiling the plan.
I’m disappointed that Brexit is turning into a wishy washy waffle. A quick exit was essential, but the homogenized parties there are still clinging to the continent and the CO2 suicide. Can’t you and Nigel Farage get back into it and yank UK out of this idiocy? Trump has basically closed the AGW shop. Can’t Miss May see this?
@ Gary Pearse – August 31, 2017 at 3:40 am
I concur with your above statement. And to paraphrase it, to wit:
I’m disappointed that the cancelation of Obamacare is turning into a wishy washy waffle. A quick cancelation was essential, but the homogenized Congressional parties therein are still clinging to the Affordable Care Act and the eventual suicide of reasonable and affordable health care in America.
Being re-elected to a Congressional Office is always highest priority and takes precedence over doing what is right and just for the America citizens.
Samuel, I share your disappointment. Trump should have gone for the economic stuff first. Family is not a good advisor on things political. A success early was essential to get the ball rolling. I would have held my rallies in the states where Republican senators were holding up legislation, too.
If there is another financial crisis, the EU may come under such stress that it agrees to the UK’s terms.
Indeed Gary. Why is Farage rooted in his European parliament seat? Why doesn’t he return home already and address the farce with Monckton directly in the origin? i.e. in the place of MetOffice, BBC, Grauniad, Malthusian monarchy and Thatcher’s UNCACA legacy.
In reply to Gary Pearse, the UK Government is becoming mightily tired of the EU’s surly obstruction of the British people’s will to break free from the dismal tyranny-by-clerk that is slowly stifling Europe.
Wait till you read the paper recently put before the EU’s negotiators by our officials, setting out in meticulous detail the legal reasons in E.U. treaty law why the tyranny’s demand for approaching $200 million in severance tribute is unlawful.
We expected the EU to be difficult, because the kleptokommunist kommissars are terrified (rightly) that other nations will follow Britain’s lead. Don’t worry: now that the EU has annoyed not only Ministers but also our previously pro-EU bureaucracy, we shall be getting a great deal tougher with the diktators from here on. Democracy will prevail, as Margaret Thatcher used to say.
You seem like a busy Lord. I’m writing here only on my own behalf, but feel quite confused by your actions and words:
Are you saying the CACA monster Thatcher unleashed in the UN is slew by a fistfight with your island’s neighbourhood? By seeking for alliance with a country, which according to Damien Sharkov and despite of everything might still idolise Stalin? http://www.newsweek.com/putin-behind-stalin-top-russias-most-outstanding-people-poll-629032
Cannot exclude the Sons of Liberty in Boston drew right conclusions already in 1773. As did Mahatma Gandhi about 150 years later.
Surely you meant $200 billion? If the true random is “only” $200 million, I say put up the funds and be rid of the mess!
And of course, “random” should be “ransom” in the above post.
It’s always a pleasure to read Lord Monckton’s posts and this one is no exception.
Many thanks to the effervescent Luc Ozade, and to so many others here, for their very kind comments.
… of more imediate concern is the currently minor tropical storm Irma in the east Atlantic. In the last 12 hours the maximum wind velocity has picked up from 55 to 85km/h
Sucking up heat, sending it aloft, and thence to space. It may not make landfall in the U.S.—the odds are against it, based on the last 12 years.
let’s hope it doesn’t make landfall at all. Maximum velocity has moved up to 104km/h which is double of what it was about 18 hours ago.
I don’t know what’s worse for the Russia science community. A president with short arms and deep pockets or one who will throw money away to get on the right side of history.
Come on Griff enlighten us or we’ll have to conclude you are one of the useful idiots referenced in the video.
idiot yes, usefull, not so much
enlighten you as to what in particular?
Lord M’s pronouncements on the mundane world I believe to be inaccurate in the extreme – the aristocracy is not, by definition, the man on the street – but I wouldn’t venture to comment on his mathematical wizardry
Griff, where is your counterpoint to his presentation?
Snicker…….
Passive aggressive jabs do not a rebuttal make.
Let’s just say I regard the presentation as fantasy, not worth addressing.
We Brits expect a little eccentricity from the aristocracy.
I repeat, passive aggressive jabs do not a rebuttal make.
“Let’s just say I regard the presentation as fantasy, not worth addressing.”
You are not in a position to address it if you wanted to, are you?
“We Brits expect a little eccentricity from the aristocracy.”
What would a little chip-on-shoulder Lefty like you know about the British aristocracy, Skanky?
Griff,
Are Courtney father and son the “aristocracy”?
You are such a nitwit twit.
Over 4,000!! (up 2,200 since 6/9) views on my WriterBeat papers which were also sent to the ME departments of several prestigious universities (As a BSME & PE felt some affinity.) and a long list of pro/con CAGW personalities and organizations.
NOBODY has responded explaining why my methods, calculations and conclusions in these papers are incorrect. BTW that is called SCIENCE!!
SOMEBODY needs to step up and ‘splain my errors ‘cause if I’m correct (Q=UAdT runs the atmospheric heat engine) – that’s a BIGLY problem for RGHE.
Step right up! Bring science. (Comment on the WB site.)
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
Will be over 4,100 this time tomorrow.
Europe is stepping up to the plate to help the USA
Up to 20 petrol tankers are loading-up in order to take the refined fuel to the USA’s east coast (BBC-TV news)
“Does the panel not agree with me that…”
If they nodded their head in agreement, they are saying that the panel does not agree with you.
My question to the panel woiuld have been preceded in Latin with the word “Nonne …”, which, roughly translated, means, “Surely you agree that …”. They understood perfectly what I was asking.
I’d have used ‘num’
nickreality65
I’m sure that you’re on the high side of being right but surely the radiative gases in the atmosphere make it behave differently to an atmosphere of non-radiative gases? Certainly in terms of cooling but what about warming?
An interesting sample point.
In an attempt to discover whether water vapour in general raised (nightime cloud) or cooled (daytime cloud) the earth I sampled few points all at the same latitude. Some desert, some maritime
Diurnal range in the desert was massive of course, but the average temperatures were broadly the same.
A result I did not expect.
If anyone else wants to pick that baton up and run with it, its interesting.
If the math teachers of America have their way, we will soon have a generation of people that have no clue what the above arguments are about and will argue that it you don’t include social justice in the discussion, you have no point to make. Here is the position of math teachers:
*Two national organizations of math teachers are on a mission to prove that math education is “unjust and grounded in a legacy of institutional discrimination.”
*In a joint statement, the groups complain that making students “master the basics” leads to “segregation and separation,” and call on math instructors to adopt a “social justice stance” in the classroom.
The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM) and TODOS: Mathematics for All “ratify social justice as a key priority in the access to, engagement with, and advancement in mathematics education for our country’s youth,” the groups declared last year in a joint statement, elaborating that “a social justice stance interrogates and challenges the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in the current unjust system of mathematics education—and in society as a whole.”
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9627
Soon, Underwater Basket Weaving will be considered a sexist class and be banned from the curriculum.
Good Lord!
And… as others have alluded to, don’t get caught colluding with the Russians.
Excellent article – thank you Lord Monckton.
We have known for decades that global warming alarmism is a false crisis, because the scientific evidence shows that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low. The Russian scientists are in general agreement with this position, as are the competent scientists in the Western world.
That is the science – now to the politics:
Is the Russian government encouraging and financing the global warming alarmist movement? There is significant evidence that it is doing so.
Let’s consider why the Russian government would encourage the global warming alarmists:
Russian in economically dependent on oil and gas exports to the west, especially to Western Europe. Low energy prices, recently driven by technological improvements in the fracking of gassy and oily shales, have severely harmed the Russian economy.
Two of the main pipelines supplying Europe from Russia are called “Druzhba” or “Friendship” (oil) and “Brotherhood” (natural gas). More Russian pipelines to supply Europe are underway.
Global warming alarmists, anti-fracking groups and anti-pipeline groups have all been active in Europe and North America, trying to sabotage energy developments in the Western democracies. They do so because cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society, and by driving up the cost of energy and reducing its availability and reliability they are attempting to cripple the economies of the western democracies. This is the front line of the “New Cold War”.
This reality is not new. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, described the takeover of environmental organizations by Marxists (aka “useful idiots”) in an essay entitled “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” (1994) http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
If I have time later today, I will source some of the references that show the covert funding of green extremist groups by foreign sources, including the Russian Federation. They are of course aided by the usual gang of “useful idiots”, but we should not rule out the possibility that some of them too are being funded by foreign interests.
Regards, Allan
Here are just two articles about foreign funding of phony environmental groups by the Russians and others.
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredit-natural-gas-fracking-635052
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/vivian-krause-the-cash-pipeline-opposing-canadian-oil-pipelines
More re Russian funding of USA enviro groups
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/russia-fights-us-fracking-using-shell-company-to-f/
Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace…
The anti nuclear testing group of which he was a founder joined with many other groups in the foundation of Greenpeace.
At which point Patrick, whose interest was only ever in opposing nuclear tests, promptly left.
More of your usual nonsense Griff.
I know Patrick Moore and have corresponded back and forth with him.
Read his essay “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, written in 1994 and referenced above. It describes why he left Greenpeace, sometime after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989).
Greenpeace was founded originally in 1969 as the “Don’t Make a Wave Committee”, 25 years before Patrick wrote his 1994 article.
Patrick’s own website states:
“Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.”
So Griff:
1. In what universe is this long period of Patrick’s involvement in Greenpeace considered “promptly”?
2. Why do you keep repeating the same old BS from the radical enviros – why can’t you check your facts before spouting off?
“Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace…”
Yet another lie.
You really are a despicable little specimen, aren’t you?
Griff,
You have been shown over and over again that this false assertion of yours is a blatant lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.
You are ineducable, because you refuse to learn. Hence, you’re doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over again, ad infinitum.
“You are ineducable, because you refuse to learn.”
No, he is doing what he’s paid to do, which is lie to discredit anyone who opposes the AGW hoax.
No more and no less.
“You are ineducable, because you refuse to learn.”
No, he is doing what he’s paid to do, which is lie to discredit anyone who opposes the AGW hoax.
No more and no less.
“Western Communists” from the people who recognize the ideology. A very telling moniker that should wake up the people claiming conspiracy theory when the proof is right in front of them and echoed by the people that suffered beneath it.
Good to hear you had such an enthusiastic welcome and an audience that was willing to listen.
James Bull
I’d much enjoy hearing it spoken. Would Lord M. do an audio version? In his own voice would by far be preferable.
“you were the only Westerner who sounded as though you knew what you were talking about”
Classic, absolutely classic!!!! 🙂
Was his first name Justin? And was he from Canada?
In case you’d like to know how various US cities rate in meeting “sustainable development goals” a report was recently published on the subject:
“The U.S. Cities Sustainable
Development Goals Index 2017”
San Jose is #1 in meeting development goals;
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/US-Cities-SDG-Index-2017.pdf
San Jose didn’t win the gold for the sub category (goal) noted as “AFFORDABLE and clean energy.” The judges, authors of the report?, seem have had their fingers on the scales as they forget to include any metric for the “affordable” portion of goal 7. Somehow I am reminded of diesel gate, MTBE gate, fuel cell gate, weapons of mass destruction gate, etc.
The investors in the various RE projects that led CA to meeting it’s RE goals want their money so someone is going to have to pick up the tab for the next 20 to 25 years.
The utility that serves San Jose had some thoughts about about costs recently-
“ Commitment Costs and Default Energy Bid Enhancements”
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/PGESupplementalComments_CommitmentCosts_DefaultEnergyBidEnhancementsWorkingGroup.pdf
Looking at this from a skeptical point of view, why should we be modeling this as a circuit with feedback at all? It could be a valid way to model it, but it isn’t based in physical reality (which would be far too complex), so its usefulness is determined by how well the model works in practice. As of now, the model does not work properly since it has been shown to be incorrect in practice.
In reply to SocietalNorm’s interesting question, climate is a dynamical system on which feedbacks operate, and the mathematics of feedback loops is the same for any such dynamical object. In all other fields of science where feedbacks are studied, the mathematics are done in one particular way, for very good reasons set out in a landmark paper by Harold S. Black of Bell Labs in 1934 and subsequently codified in a best-selling textbook by his colleague Hendrik Wade Bode published annually from 1945 until the digital revolution in electronics got underway. But climate “science” operates the feedback loop incorrectly, and this is perhaps the chief reason why official climatology predicts about twice as much global warming as has actually been occurring over the past century.
Correcting the errors perpetrated by official climatology allows an upper bound to be placed on feedbacks’ contribution to equilibrium sensitivity, and that contribution turns out to be quite small.
I had originally hoped to develop these ideas with a series of columns here, but numerous paid climate-Communist trolls determinedly disrupted the discussion threads, so I recruited some additional co-authors with expertise in the relevant fields of mathematics and physics, we wrote a paper and we have now submitted it for peer review. In due course, I shall hope to be able to explain everything here (if we prove to be right, of course).
Moncton,
I wonder if it might be possible to develop a simple feedback loop of a predictable or testable system to compare the results of how climatologists do their looping versus how you say they should be doing it? It would be most instructive.
Two thousand troopers would be two very large, full strength regiments while in depot, or three, four, five or more in the field.
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_cavalry.htm
Unless you count the horses, too.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/09/02/borodino_01_wide-40b31c5905c18ecdb2873b6fb207008bc3ea5606-s6-c30.jpg
Mounted Borodino reenactors.
Milord,
You might also have mentioned the horrific environmental costs of making windmills and PV panels in China.
I wonder if the center of the civilized universe is shifting to the East. The Russians seem to be taking an intelligent, scientific approach to energy production and climate. The former Soviet Republics appear to be taking a sane approach to population and demographics. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and perhaps others, are taking a sane and sensible approach to immigration from third world countries. The “West’s” greater wealth has allowed it to cover over its mistakes and postpone the need to pay the piper.
Charles,
Lord Acton observed that “power corrupts and …” I wonder if the corollary to that might be that societies that become powerful and wealthy, don’t have to struggle, and have lost any purpose, degenerate into progressives that find purpose in saving the world by re-shaping it into the way they think it should be?