Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

This will be a long posting, but it will not be found uninteresting.

Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at 8.00 am this Wednesday, 21 March 2018, in Court 8 on the 19th floor of the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Court 8 is the largest of the courtrooms in the Federal District Court of Northern California. They’re clearly expecting a crowd. The 8 am start, rather than the usual 10 am, is because the judge in the case is an early bird.

The judge: His Honor Judge William Haskell Alsup, who will preside over the coyly-titled “People of California” v. British Petroleum plc et al., is not to be underestimated. Judge Alsup, as the senior member of the Northern California Bench (he has been there for almost two decades), gets to pick the cases he likes the look of. He is no ordinary, custard-faced law graduate. Before he descended to the law (he wanted to help the civil rights movement), he earned a B.S. in engineering at Mississippi State University.

clip_image002

Don’t mess with me: His Honor Judge Alsup flourishing a tract by his mentor, the Supreme Court justice whom he once served as Clerk.

Six years ago, in an acrimonious hearing between Oracle and Google, the two Silicon-Valley giants were arguing about nine lines of computer code, which Oracle said Google had filched for its Android cellphone system. In preparation for the case, Oracle had tested 15 million lines of Android code, and had found that just nine lines – a subroutine known as rangeCheck – had been copied keystroke for keystroke. Oracle’s case was that these nine lines of code, though representing only 0.00006% of the Android software, were a crucial element in the system. Judge Alsup did not buy that argument.

Rumors gather about great men. In hushed tones, those who talk of Judge Alsup say he taught himself the Java programming language so that he could decide the rangeCheck case. In fact, he is not familiar with Java, but he does write computer code using qBasic, which used to be bundled free with MS-DOS. On the vast desk in his book-lined office sits a 2011-vintage Dell laptop, the only one he has that will still run qBasic. He has written programs for his ham-radio hobby, for the Mastermind board game, and for his wife’s bridge game.

clip_image004

The 18-year-old Bill Alsup at his ham radio console in Mississippi.

This, then, is that rarest of creatures, a tech-savvy judge. And he has taken the very rare but commendable step of ordering both parties to answer nine scientific questions about climate change in preparation for what he has called a “tutorial” on the subject next Wednesday.

Hearing of this case, and of Bill Alsup’s starring role, I wondered what line of argument might convince a scientifically literate judge that the plaintiffs, two Californian cities who want the world’s five biggest oil corporations to pay them to adapt to rising sea level, that there is no cause for alarm about manmade global warming.

Judge Alsup might well be moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case provided that the defendants were able to establish definitively that fears of global warming had been very greatly exaggerated.

Two propositions: If the following two propositions were demonstrated, His Honor might decide – and all but a few irredentists would be compelled to agree – that global warming was not a problem and that the scare was over.

1. It can be proven that an elementary error of physics is the sole cause of alarm about global warming – elementary because otherwise non-climatologists might not grasp it.

2. It can be proven that, owing to that elementary error, current official mid-range estimates of equilibrium sensitivity to anthropogenic activity are at least twice what they should be.

Regular readers will know that my contributions here have been infrequent in the past year. The reason is that I have had the honor to lead a team of eminent climatological researchers who have been quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the “equilibrium-sensitivity” question.

We can now prove both points itemized above, and we have gone to more than customary lengths to confirm by multiple empirical methods what we originally demonstrated by a theoretical method. The half-dozen methods all cohere in the same ballpark.

Three days before His Honor posted up his list of questions on climate science, my team had submitted a paper on our result to a leading climatological journal (by convention, I am bound not to say which until publication).

The judge’s question: When I saw His Honor’s eighth question, “What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?”, I contacted my eight co-authors, who all agreed to submit an amicus curiae or “friend-of-the-court” brief.

Our reply: Our amicus brief, lodged for us by a good friend of the ever-valuable Heartland Institute, concludes with a respectful recommendation that the court should reject the plaintiffs’ case and that it should also order the oil corporations to meet their own costs in the cause because their me-too public statements to the effect that global warming is a “problem” that requires to be addressed are based on the same elementary error as the plaintiffs’ case.

In effect, the oil corporations have invited legal actions such as this, wherefore they should pay the cost of their folly in accordance with the ancient legal principle volenti non fit injuria – if you stick your chin out and invite someone to hit it, don’t blub if someone hits it.

The judge has the right to accept or reject the brief, so we accompanied our brief with the usual short application requesting the court to accept it for filing. Since the rules of court require the brief to be lodged as an exhibit to the application, the brief stands part of the court papers in any event, has been sent to all parties, and is now publicly available on PACER, the Federal judiciary’s public-access database.

Therefore, I am at last free to reveal what we have discovered. There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models’ calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K. We say we can prove it.

The proof: I shall now outline our proof. Let us begin with the abstract of the underlying paper. It is just 70 words long, for the error (though it has taken me a dozen years to run it to earth) really is stupendously elementary:

Abstract: In a dynamical system, even an unamplified input signal induces a response to any feedback. Hitherto, however, the large feedback response to emission temperature has been misattributed to warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. After correction, the theoretically-derived pre-industrial feedback fraction is demonstrated to cohere with the empirically-derived industrial-era value an order of magnitude below previous estimates, mandating reduction of projected Charney sensitivity from clip_image006 to clip_image008.

Equations: To understand the argument that follows, we shall need three equations.

The zero-dimensional-model equation (1) says that equilibrium sensitivity or final warming ΔTeq is the ratio of reference sensitivity or initial warming ΔTref to (1 – f ), where f is the feedback fraction, i.e., the fraction of ΔTeq represented by the feedback response ΔT(ref) to ΔTref. The entire difference between reference and equilibrium sensitivity is accounted for by the feedback response ΔT(ref) (the bracketed subscript indicates a feedback response).

ΔTeq = ΔTref / (1 – f ). (1)

The zero-dimensional model is not explicitly used in general-circulation models. However, it is the simplest expression of the difference between reference sensitivity before accounting for feedback and equilibrium sensitivity after accounting for feedback. Eq. (1), a simplified form of the feedback-amplification equation that originated in electronic network analysis, is of general application when deriving the feedback responses in all dynamical systems upon which feedbacks bear. The models must necessarily reflect it.

Eq. (1) is used diagnostically not only to derive equilibrium sensitivity (i.e. final warming) from official inputs but also to derive the equilibrium sensitivity that the models would be expected to predict if the inputs (such as the feedback fraction f ) were varied. We conducted a careful calibration exercise to confirm that the official reference sensitivity and the official interval of the feedback fraction, when input to Eq. (1), indeed yield the official interval of equilibrium sensitivity.

The feedback-fraction equation (2): If the reference sensitivity ΔTref and the equilibrium sensitivity ΔTeq are specified, the feedback fraction f is found by rearranging (1) as (2):

f = 1 – ΔTref / ΔTeq. (2)

The reference-sensitivity equation (3): Reference sensitivity ΔTref is the product of a radiative forcing ΔQ0, in Watts per square meter, and the Planck reference-sensitivity parameter λ0, in Kelvin per Watt per square meter.

ΔTref = λ0 ΔQ0. (3)

The Planck parameter λ0 is currently estimated at about 0.3125, or 3.2–1 K W–1 m2 (Soden & Held 2006; Bony 2006, Appendix A; IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.). The CO2 radiative forcing ΔQ0 is 3.5 W m–2 (Andrews 2012). Therefore, from Eq. (3), reference sensitivity ΔTref to doubled CO2 concentration is about 1.1 K.

The “natural greenhouse effect” is not 32 K: The difference of 32 K between natural temperature TN (= 287.6 K) in 1850 and emission temperature TE (= 255.4 K) without greenhouse gases or temperature feedbacks was hitherto imagined to comprise 8 K (25%) base warming ΔTB directly forced by the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases and a 24 K (75%) feedback response ΔT(B) to ΔTB, implying a pre-industrial feedback fraction f ≈ 24 / 32 = 0.75 (Lacis et al., 2010).

Similarly, the CMIP3/5 models’ mid-range reference sensitivity ΔTS (= 3.5 x 0.3125 = 1.1 K) and Charney sensitivity ΔT (= 3.3 K) (Charney sensitivity is equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2), imply a feedback fraction f = 1 – 1.1 / 3.3 = 0.67 (Eq. 2) in the industrial era.

The error: However, climatologists had made the grave error of not realizing that emission temperature TE (= 255 K) itself induces a substantial feedback. To correct that long-standing error, we illustratively assumed that the feedback fractions f in response to TE and to ΔTB were identical. Then we derived f simply by replacing the delta values ΔTref, ΔTeq in (2) with the underlying entire quantities Tref, Teq, setting Tref = TE + ΔTB, and Teq = TN (Eq. 4),

f = 1 –Tref / Teq = 1 – (TE + ΔTB) / TN

= 1 – (255.4 + 8) / 287.6 = 0.08. (4)

Contrast this true pre-industrial value f = 0.08 with the CMIP5 models’ current mid-range estimate f = 1 – 1.1 / 3.3 = 0.67 (Eq. 2), and with the f = 0.75 applied by Lacis et al. (2010) not only to the 32 K “entire natural greenhouse effect” but also to “current climate”.

Verification: We took no small trouble to verify by multiple empirical methods the result derived by the theoretical method in Eq. (4).

Test 1: IPCC’s best estimate (IPCC, 2013, fig. SPM.5) is that some 2.29 W m–2 of net anthropogenic forcing arose in the industrial era to 2011. The product of that value and the Planck parameter is the 0.72 K reference warming (Eq. 3).

However, 0.76 K warming was observed (taken as the linear trend on the HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011).

Therefore, the industrial-era feedback fraction f is equal to 1 – 0.72 / 0.76. or 0.05 (Eq. 2). That is close to the pre-industrial value f = 0.08: but it is an order of magnitude (i.e., approximately tenfold) below the models’ 0.67 or Lacis’ 0.75.

There is little change that some feedbacks had not fully acted. The feedbacks listed in IPCC (2013, p. 818, table 9.5) as being relevant to the derivation of equilibrium sensitivity are described by IPCC (2013, p. 128, Fig. 1.2) as having the following durations: Water vapor and lapse-rate feedback hours; Cloud feedback days; Surface albedo feedback years.

The new headline Charney sensitivity: Thus, Charney sensitivity is not 1.1 / (1 – 0.67) = 3.3 K (Eq. 1), the CMIP5 models’ imagined mid-range estimate (Andrews 2012). Instead, whether f = 0.05 or 0.08, Charney sensitivity ΔTeq = 1.1 / (1 – f ) is 1.2 K (Eq. 1). That new headline value is far too small to worry about.

Test 2: We sourced mainstream estimates of net anthropogenic forcing over ten different periods in the industrial era, converting each to reference sensitivity using Eq. (3) and then finding the feedback fraction f for each period using Eq. (2).

The mean of the ten values of f was 0.12, somewhat higher than the value 0.05 based on IPCC’s mid-range estimate of 2.29 W m–2 net anthropogenic forcing in the industrial era. The difference was driven by three high-end outliers in our table of ten results. Be that as it may, Charney sensitivity for f = 0.12 is only 1.25 K.

Test 3: We checked how much global warming had occurred since 1950, when IPCC says our influence on climate became detectable. The CMIP5 mid-range prediction of Charney sensitivity, at 3.3 K, is about equal to the original mid-range prediction of 21st-century global warming derivable from IPCC (1990, p. xiv), where 1.8 K warming compared with the pre-industrial era [equivalent to 1.35 K warming compared with 1990] is predicted for the 40-year period 1991-2030, giving a centennial warming rate of 1.35 / (40 / 100) = 3.3 K.

This coincidence of values allowed us to compare the 1.2 K Charney sensitivity derived from f on [0.05, 0.12] in Eq. (4) with the least-squares linear-regression trend on the HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies over the 68 years 1950-2017. Sure enough, the centennial-equivalent warming was 1.2 K/century:

clip_image010

The centennial-equivalent warming rate from 1950-2017 was 1.2 K/century

Test 4: We verified that the centennial-equivalent warming rate in the first 17 years (one-sixth) of the 21st century was not significantly greater than the rate since 1950. We averaged the monthly global mean surface and lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from the HadCRUT4 terrestrial and UAH satellite datasets and derived the least-squares linear-regression trend (the bright blue line on the graph below).

The satellite data were included because they cover a five-mile-high slab of the atmosphere immediately above the surface, and have a coverage greater than the terrestrial measurements. The trend was found to be clip_image012, equivalent to clip_image014/century:

clip_image016

Test 5: To confirm that we had understood feedback theory correctly, one of my distinguished co-authors, a hands-on electronics engineer, heard of our result and built a test rig in which we were able to specify the input signal (i.e., emission temperature TE) as a voltage, and also the direct-gain factor μ to allow for direct natural or anthropogenic forcings, and the feedback fraction β (we were using the more precise form of Eq. 1 that is usual in electronic network analysis). Then it was a simple matter directly to measure the output signal (i.e. equilibrium sensitivity ΔTeq).

The most crucial of the many experiments we ran on this rig was to set μ to unity, implying no greenhouse forcing at all. We set the feedback fraction β to a non-zero value and then verified that the output signal exceeded the input signal by the expected margin. Not at all to our surprise, it did. This experiment proved that emission temperature, on its own, induced a feedback response that climatology had hitherto overlooked.

This is where the elementary error made by climatologists for half a century has had its devastating effect. Look again at Eq. (1). The input signal is altogether absent. Although it is acceptable to use Eq. (1) to derive equilibrium sensitivities from reference sensitivities, the mistake made by the modelers was to assume, as Lacis et al. (2010) and many others had assumed, that the entire difference of 32 K between the natural temperature TN in 1850 and the emission temperature TE was accounted for by the natural greenhouse effect, comprising a direct greenhouse warming ΔTB = 8 K and a very large feedback reponse ΔT(B) = 24 K to ΔTB.

However, in truth – this is the crucial point – the emission temperature TE (= 255 K), even in the absence of any greenhouse gases, induces a large feedback response ΔTE. This feedback response to the input signal is entirely uncontroversial in electronic network analysis and in control theory generally, but we have not been able to find any acknowledgement in climatology that it exists.

Just as Lacis (2010) did, the modelers assumed that the industrial-era feedback fraction must be every bit as large as the pre-industrial feedback fraction that they had erroneously inflated by adding the large feedback response induced by emission temperature to the small feedback response induced by the presence of the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases.

It was that assumption that led the modelers to assume that there must be some very strongly positive feedbacks, chief among which was the water-vapor feedback. However, although the Clausius-Clapeyron relation indicates that the space occupied by the atmosphere can carry near-exponentially more water vapor as it warms, there is nothing to say that it must.

Suppose there were a water-vapor feedback anything like as large as that which the models have assumed (and they have assumed a very large feedback only because they are trying to explain the large but fictitious feedback fraction consequent upon their erroneous assumption that emission temperature of 255 K somehow induces no feedback response at all, while the next 8 K of warming magically induces a 24 K feedback response). In that event, atmospheric dynamics requires that there must be a tropical mid-troposphere “hot spot” [I had the honor to name it], where the warming rate should be twice or thrice that at the tropical surface. However, the “hot spot” is not observed in reality (see below), except in one suspect dataset that Dr Fred Singer scrutinized some years ago and determined to be defective.

clip_image018clip_image020clip_image022

Models predict the tropical mid-troposphere “hot spot” (top, IPCC 2007, citing Santer 2003; above left, Lee et al. 2008; above right, Karl et al., 2006).

However, the “hot spot” is not observed in reality (see below). Our result shows why not. The “hot spot” is an artefact of the modelers’ error in misallocating the substantial feedback response induced by emission temperature by adding it to the very small feedback response induced by the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases.

clip_image024

The model-predicted “hot spot” is not observed in reality (Karl et al. 2006).

Test 6: Even after we had built and operated our own test rig – as far as we know, this is the first time anyone has tried to test climatological feedback theory empirically rather than simply modeling it – we were not satisfied that anything other than tests performed under rigorous conditions at a government laboratory would be found widely acceptable.

Accordingly, based on the results of our in-house test rig, we drew up a more sophisticated specification for a new rig, together with four test groups comprising 23 sets of three quantities – the input signal, the direct-gain factor and the feedback fraction. Armed with the specification, I commissioned a government laboratory to carry out the experiments.

However, a problem at once arose – indeed, it was a problem with which our own engineer had wrestled. So very small were the feedback responses predicted by long-established control theory that even the presence of the operator in the same room as the test rig tended to bias the results.

Accordingly, I worked for months with a patient and amiable scientist at the government laboratory. Eventually, by somewhat altering the initial-state values specified for the 23 tests, I was able to give the scientist values that would yield results to the required precision but without loss of experimental integrity.

In due course the laboratory reported, and the results of all 23 tests – to within one-tenth of a Kelvin – were exactly as we had been able to predict theoretically. Again, the most important results were for the group of tests in which the direct-gain factor was set to unity, so that we could reassure ourselves that control theory was correct in predicting that, in the presence of a non-zero feedback fraction, even an unamplified input signal would induce a feedback response that would either amplify or attenuate it.

Another snag arose. When I had originally approached the laboratory, I had not mentioned that the research had anything to do with climate change, because all I wanted to do was to establish that we had understood the relevant control theory correctly.

When the laboratory reported, I sent it a copy of our draft paper, in which the lab results were mentioned. The laboratory panicked and said we were not allowed to use its report.

However, I had written into the contract a term to the effect that we intended to include the laboratory’s results, and a discussion of them, in an academic paper. A compromise was reached, by which we are free to include the laboratory’s results in our paper, as long as we do not mention either the name of the laboratory or the name of the scientist there who built and ran the high-specification rig for us.

The laboratory also kindly confirmed that we had represented its results fairly in our paper and had drawn justifiable conclusions from them. Furthermore, much to our pleasure, it promoted the scientist who had assisted us. He wrote us a charming letter to say that he had not allowed, and would not allow, politics to intrude into the work he had carried out for us.

With these results from a national laboratory (we cannot even mention which country it was in) we were at last content that we had established our conclusion with sufficient rigor.

The true picture: How should the 32 K difference between emission temperature and natural temperature be apportioned? Approximately 23.4 K of the 32 K is the feedback response to emission temperature; 8 K is the directly-forced warming from the presence of the natural greenhouse gases; and just 0.7 K is feedback response to that 8 K warming (panel b):

clip_image026

(a) Erroneous apportionment of the 32 K difference between natural temperature in 1850 and emission temperature in the absence of any greenhouse gases, given in Lacis et al. (2010).

(b) Corrected apportionment of the 32 K, allowing for the feedback response (blue) to emission temperature; the directly-forced warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases (yellow); and the feedback response to that greenhouse warming (red).

Looking at it the other way about, if the feedback fraction were really as large as the 0.75 imagined by Lacis et al. (2010), then the Earth’s emission temperature of 255.4 K would induce a feedback response of 766.2 K, and the 8 K greenhouse warming would induce a feedback response of 24 K, so that the pre-industrial or natural temperature in 1850 would be 255.4 + 766.2 + 8 + 24 ≈ 1054 K, about three and a half times the true value of 287.6 K.

We also considered whether non-linearities in individual feedbacks might vitiate our result. However, to obtain even the 1.5 K minimum Charney sensitivity predicted by IPCC one would need to multiply at least fivefold the empirically-derived industrial-era feefdback fraction f = 0.05.

The reason why even a very large nonlinearity in the feedback sum and consequently in the feedback fraction makes little difference to equilibrium sensitivities is that the curve of equilibrium sensitivities in the presence of various feedback factors is a rectangular hyperbola (see below). Our result shows that the sensitivity calculation is not done, as now, rather close to the singularity at f = 1 (note in passing that for f > 1 Eq. (1) predicts cooling); instead, it is done at the left-hand end of the curve, where the sensitivity increases very slowly with f:

clip_image028

The rectangular-hyperbolic curve of Charney sensitivities in response to feedback fractions f, showing current predictions compared with the corrected result.

The outcome of the case: What will His Honor make of all this? My guess is that he will allow our amicus brief to be filed. With his engineering background, he will have no difficulty in understanding why we say that the notion of catastrophic rather than moderate global warming is rooted in the elementary physical error we have discovered.

Therefore, we hope His Honor will ask all parties to provide formal responses to our brief. On any view, it plainly raises a serious question about whether global warming matters at all – a question that strikes right to the heart not only of the case before him but of numerous other such cases now arising in several jurisdictions – and showing some evidence of careful co-ordination.

The parties will not be able to dismiss our result lightly. To refute it, they would have to show that our pre-industrial feedback fraction f = 0.08, obtained by theoretical means rooted in mainstream control theory, is incorrect; that our industrial-era value f = 0.05, obtained empirically from IPCC’s estimate of the net anthropogenic forcing to date and from the HadCRUT4 temperature record, is also incorrect; that our campaign of ten empirical calculations giving a mean feedback fraction f = 0.12, is incorrect; that the rate of observed warming over the past 68 years is either incorrect or irrelevant; that the rate of observed warming this century to date is also either incorrect or irrelevant; that the results from our test rig are inapplicable; that the results from a government laboratory are likewise inapplicable; and, above all, that it is justifiable to assume that control theory is wrong and that, per impossibile. 255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.

We do not believe in magic.

Conclusion: The anthropogenic global warming we can now expect will be small, slow, harmless, and even net-beneficial. It is only going to be about 1.2 K this century, or 1.2 K per CO2 doubling. If the parties are not able to demonstrate that we are wrong, and if His Honor accepts that we have proven the result set out publicly and in detail here for the first time, then the global warming scare was indeed based on a strikingly elementary error of physics.

The avowedly alarmist position too hastily adopted by governments and international bureaucratic entities has caused the most egregious misallocation of resources in history.

Ladies and gentlemen, we call time on a 50-year-old scam, in which a small number of corrupt and politicized scientists, paid for by scientifically-illiterate governments panicked by questionable lobby-groups funded by dubious billionaires and foreign governments intent on doing down the West, and egged on by the inept and increasingly totalitarian news media, have conspired to perpetrate a single falsehood: that the science was settled.

Well, it wasn’t.

Advertisements

946 thoughts on “Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

  1. I don’t see the court case coming to any conclusion. To-date and imho there has never been any case brought by pro-cAGW causes that they wouldn’t take forward knowing that they’d win before they even started.
    Expect delays, obfuscation and eventual abandonment with the pro- side claiming victory.
    With absolute certainty, unless the pro-cAGW side is victorious you’ll see and hear nothing in the media about it either.
    Much as I’ll be taking an interest it’s yet another waste of time and resources.

    • Davd_G underestimates Judge Alsup. He will have before him an amicus curiae brief from numerous professors and doctors of science as well as the likes of me. That brief points out an elementary and serious error without which there was and is no basis for alarm about global warming. The error is fundamental and irreparable. The scare was based on that error. Without it, there is no scare. The judge cannot and will not ignore that. He will lay himself open to an embarrassing appeal unless he accepts the brief. He will probably order all parties to respond to it. And the parties will not be able to flannel him because he has a degree in engineering and thus speaks the language of science, which is mathematics.
      Do not underestimate what is happening here.

      • Typo, early on in the article: “There is no change” should, I think, be “There is no chance”.

      • Lord Monckton, I must disagree. While Judge Alsup may be “technically literate”, he seems to have little appreciation for the US Constitution or US law. He is the same judge who decided that President Trump did not have the legal authority to rescind, by executive order, the DACA, itself an unconstitutional executive order. The idea that a federal judge may restrict the authorized actions of a duly elected POTUS does not bode well for a rational ruling in this case.
        The judge seems much more interested in pushing his own prejudices than actual law.

      • ‘He is the same judge who decided that President Trump did not have the legal authority to rescind, by executive order, the DACA, itself an unconstitutional executive order. ‘
        That is not encouraging.

      • I have been careful not to discuss Judge Alsup’s prejudices. He is a Clinton appointee, and in the Sunstroke State at that. But he has shown interest in scientific matters in the past, and shows interest in climate science by raising the questions one of which we answer in our amicus brief. He will know that if we are right he cannot long hold on to his scientific reputation or his judicial reputation if he ignores our result or refuses to file the amicus brief. In the end, the plaintiffs are purporting to base their case on science, and it is open to us to present scientific arguments that demonstrate the falsity of their scientific position. We think the judge will be interested in our arguments and will ask both parties to comment on it. Even if he ignores our brief and refuses to file it, it has cost us little to submit it. One can either sit and debate these matters with oneself or one can go into the public arena and argue a sound scientific case. We have chosen the latter.

      • Any hope that Judge Bill Alsup will be keen on an honest evaluation of the science is likely misplaced
        He is an appointee of Bill Clinton
        he clerked for Douglas, Whose reputation is far worse that even Stevens or Ginsburg.
        He is in San Fran – the court is in the 9th circuit.
        He blocked the dismantling of DACA, completely misapplying the law and legal standards
        Even though an engineer by degree, the inability to apply correct legal standards should reflect on his ability to ascertain the science. (not)
        I cant find any comments he has made on Daubert – though pro AGW scientists likely to get free pass, while Monckton is likely not to meet the Daubert standard since his views “dont conform to accepted science” (97% consensus).
        numerous rulings appear to be based on politics instead of the facts and the law. AGW is very much a political issue with the prominent proponents being progressives
        see comments of attorney in his court. 4.3 rating out of 10.
        http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=146#comments

      • I see Joel Snider and others make the point that J. Alsup found a right in the constitution for dreamers. I hope Monckton is right, but if he learned con law from William O. Douglas, he has too much to unlearn. Most likely he has pulled this case onto his docket so he can issue a series of progressive tomes with juust a patina of science and law. If he thinks an unlawful exec. order can create constitutional rights, he’s not much of a judge.

      • @Kpar
        I am not the lawyer, nor fond of DACA, but, there ARE some legal reasons a president could NOT rescind a rule written by a former president, even if you think the former president had no right to edict the said rule. You just need the said rule to be a direct consequence of current legislation, that is, the former president did not really edicted the rule, he just wrote it but it already existed in the current legislation, and took care that this legislation was indeed enforced as it should.
        Said otherwise and for instance: the understanding of the Constitution by Judge Alsup is that President Lincoln could have had abolished slavery by executive order, and no president afterward could have rescinded such an executive order.
        Is that so unconstitutional? I don’t think so.
        Now, you may argue, with some reason, that DACA is not such a rule. Obviously Judge Alsup think it is, and he has the upper hand over you.
        Legal matters ARE complicated. More than climate, and this says something.

      • paqy: Your comment is not even wrong, but I would not be surprised if you have correctly described Alsup’s reasoning. Law can be complicated, but not in this instance. Lincoln’s exec order was issued during an open insurrection, and would have been unlikely to survive after that insurrection was ended (ie, after reconstruction). If no insurrection, Lincoln had no more power to abolish slavery than current execs, who cannot “abolish” car ownership. After reconstruction (and assuming no 13th Amendment), a federal court would have been obliged to find Lincoln’s order no longer in effect, and restore the southerner’s property to him. This is so whether or not it was “rescinded”. IF Alsop used Lincoln as precedent (I have not read his decision), then he is further lost than I thought.

      • paqyfelyc March 19, 2018 at 1:19 pm
        @Kpar
        I am not the lawyer, nor fond of DACA, but, there ARE some legal reasons a president could NOT rescind a rule written by a former president, even if you think the former president had no right to edict the said rule. You just need the said rule to be a direct consequence of current legislation, that is, the former president did not really edicted the rule, he just wrote it but it already existed in the current legislation, and took care that this legislation was indeed enforced as it should.
        Under Article 1 of the US Constitution, only the legislative branch can write law. An executive order which doesnt conform to law passed by congress can be rescinded by executive order.

      • I previously mentioned that Alsup clerked for Douglas. Having known several former clerks of scotus justices, one very common theme is the deep admiration for whomever they have clerked for, both professional and judicial philosophy. Alsup has adopted some of Douglas’s worst traits.

      • Whether the Judge understands the science, or not, will not decide the case. Most cases are decided on the pre-determined prejudice of the Judge, politics and how well the case is presented. In fact with ‘climate change’ if your case is technical and complicated all that will happen is the alarmists will appeal to emotion and likely win.
        I do hope I’m wrong!

      • Monckton of Brenchley
        Chris,
        I’m no scientist, a layman in fact, but I think most of us recognise that an engineering degree, or any other degree for that matter, is just a piece of paper saying one has passed an examination.
        The real value, and test of an engineers qualities are in field; observational evidence of their abilities if you like. Brunel’s reputation was built on his achievements, not his qualifications. Has Judge Alsup any meaningful field experience, or demonstrated any meaningful engineering achievements?
        And forgive me if I’m wrong, but I understand US judges are political appointees, as opposed to the UK system of judge selection which is independent of politics.
        The problem, as I see it is, that whilst your evidence is 100% correct, it may be a momentary success, before the debate moves on rapidly, to emotional appeals, the polar bears, seals, penguins etc.
        I was a policeman in Glasgow many moons ago, and I can’t count the number of stonewalled cases I had slip through my fingers, and some very nasty people were all but acquitted when the emotional card was played.
        I wish you all the best and should you prove successful in this endeavour, you can rampage through Britain and Europe, and halt the determined, blind march into totalitarianism. I believe that is, largely unwittingly, what the British public voted for with Brexit.
        Pile on the coals Chris (pun intended) I’m sure sceptics across the world wish you as much luck as I do.

      • joe – March 19, 2018 at 12:47 pm: First, thanks to Lord Monkton for a great ‘why did nobody spot that before?’ moment. Thanks to you for the link. I liked these comments from the ‘the robingroom’. The low scores seem to be from people who lost, were badly pepared or misbehaved. Encouraging I think.
        ‘Assumes the worst of lawyers appearing in his courtroom.’
        ‘Be prepared, play everything straight, and you can stand up to him when he tries to bully you, which he actually kind of likes.’
        ‘Appears to delight in torturing the attorneys that appear before him. A view shared by both sides of the bar.’

      • The best strategy is to pursue as many options as you are capable of pursuing in hopes that one of them will be successful.
        Since this is a fight that was forced on the oil companies by various states, it’s best to try and win it. Ignoring it is not an option.

      • The judge’s qu. #8 was not a public invitation for every man and his dog to send his own pet hypothesis to the court.
        His question was: what is the SOURCE of the heat causing the INCREMENTAL rise in global temperatures? The use of the word incremental suggests he has got a grip on what is going on and does not need or want to be treated like the last kid into the class room. Sceptic bloggers and others seem to be universally taking this condescending attitude to the judge, which will not go down well.
        The sort answer to #8 is , of course, the sun, not PhD thesis submission on feedbacks.

        I would imagine that a technically literate judge who asks a specific question wants an answer to that question, not someone ( everyone ) taking it as a chance to tell him what he really MEANT to ask was something else, and by the way here is my pet theory as an answer to the new question.

        He is a judge sitting on a technical case. No one seems to have considered that he may actually be trying establish the ground rules of the case by getting the position of each side on some fundamental questions down on paper before starting. He probably really did mean to ask: what is the SOURCE of the heat ?

      • MarkW March 19, 2018 at 3:56 pm
        States exercising their legal right to leave the union is not an insurrection.
        FWIW – No state has the legal right to leave the union.

      • Greg presumes to know the mind of the judge. He assumes that all the judge wants to be told is that the source of most of the heat in the coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system is the Sun. But that interpretation cannot be correct, because the judge is asking about “incremental” heat – in other words, why has global mean surface temperature been rising? Since the solar constant has been – well – very close to constant, it is not the Sun that is causing the “incremental” element in the heat within the climate system.
        In fact, there are two main possibilities, neither of them the Sun. First, there is the natural, internal variability of the climate system, which is quite enough on its own to have caused the rather small warming that has been observed since 1850. Secondly, there are the anthropogenic enrichments of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and the feedbacks consequent thereupon. Our research has recently focused on the last of these influences – the feedbacks. And we have reported to the judge that official cllmatology has made a serious error in its calculations, leading to a considerable overstatement of the influence of greenhouse gases on global temperature. Our research, therefore, is directly relevant to the judge’s question.

      • “In fact, there are two main possibilities, neither of them the Sun. First, there is the natural, internal variability of the climate system..”
        In fact infernal variability, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is strongly solar driven.

      • One shouldn’t crow that the AGW monster is now dead Christopher. Their are other physicists out there and you have yet to get peer review.

      • The anonymous “WTF” presumes to preach that I should not express any pleasure at our result because it has not yet been sanctified by peer review. The question, however, is not whether our paper will pass peer review but whether the error we have discovered is indeed the error we say it is. At several points in this thread I have made it clear that the delight that many less pietistic commenters are expressing is contingent upon our result being found correct. However, quite enough is set out in the head posting to allow people to come to their own view on whether it is correct.

      • joe – the non climate scientist March 20, 2018 at 9:09 am
        That was by no means settled law in 1860 and remains unsettled today.
        Regardless of the constitutional legality of state secession from the Union, people at the time however did recognize the right of revolution embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

    • “To-date and imho there has never been any case brought by pro-cAGW causes that they wouldn’t take forward knowing that they’d win before they even started.”
      Dave,
      In October of 2012, the Climate Accountability Institute held a seminar to discuss strategies in how to do to oil companies what anti-tobacco groups managed to do to tobacco companies. Here are some relevant quotes from that seminar:
      “A few principles emerged from the long fight for tobacco control. First, any legal strategies involving court cases require plaintiffs, a venue, and law firms willing to litigate—all of which present significant hurdles to overcome. Robert Proctor generalized about the history of tobacco-related litigation by noting that tobacco
      opponents typically won with simplicity but lost in the face of complexity. As he noted, it is worth remembering that, “The industry can win by making plaintiffs have to pass a thousand hurdles, any one of which can derail
      the whole effort.” Second, public victories can occur even when the formal point is lost. In one effort that sought to stop tobacco research at Stanford University, for instance, no formal ban was enacted but the public outcry led the Philip Morris company to stop its external research programs anyway.”
      “First, lawsuits are not the only way to win the release of documents. As one participant noted, congressional hearings can yield documents. In the case of tobacco, for instance, the infamous “Doubt is our product” document came out after being subpoenaed by Congress.11 State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents to light. In addition, lawyers at the workshop noted that even grand juries convened by a district attorney could result in significant document discovery.”
      “The suit [Kivalina v ExxonMobile] was dismissed by a U.S. district court in 2009 on the grounds that regulating global warming emissions is a political rather than a legal issue that needs to be resolved by Congress and the executive branch rather than the courts. An appeal was filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2009, but was rejected in September 2012. The plaintiffs have yet to determine whether to take further legal action, either by calling for an en banc review of the appeal verdict or by re-filing the case in state court.”
      “Richard Ayres, an experienced environmental attorney, suggested that the RICO Act, which had been used effectively against the tobacco industry, could similarly be used to bring a lawsuit against carbon producers.
      As Ayres noted, the RICO statute requires that a claimant establish the existence of a “criminal enterprise,” and at least two acts of racketeering (with at least one having occurred within the past four years). It is not even clear, he added, whether plaintiffs need to show they were actually harmed by the defendant’s actions. As Ayres put it, “RICO is not easy. It is certainly not a sure win. But such an action would effectively change the subject to the campaign of deception practiced by the coal, gas, and oil companies.”
      ““Even if your ultimate goal might be to shut down a company, you still might be wise to start out by asking for compensation for injured parties.”
      http://www.climateaccountability.org/pdf/Climate%20Accountability%20Rpt%20Oct12.pdf
      Their endgame isn’t winning lawsuits. If they win the lawsuit, that’s a bonus, but even if they lose, they win…or at least this is what they believe.

    • The RIGHT conclusion
      about the future climate,
      is “no one knows”,
      but few people, besides
      me, want to say: “I don’t know”.
      People are conditioned to believe
      “smart” people always know,
      and always have an “answer”,
      and they think a fast answer
      stated with great confidence,
      is better than an answer
      that includes uncertainty,
      or even “worse”:
      Saying you need to think
      about a question for a while,
      and look up data,
      before you try to
      answer the question.
      In general, people talk about many
      subjects and are usually not that smart
      about more than one subject or two.
      The WORST CASE
      (the maximum warming estimate)
      of “Transient Climate Sensitivity”
      to CO2 alone,
      is about +1 degree C.
      per doubling of CO2,
      assuming ALL the warming
      in the weather satellite era,
      since 1979,
      was caused by CO2
      (but do remember that
      there is NO PROOF that
      any of the warming was
      actually caused by CO2).
      (Christy and McNider 2017)
      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
      The BEST CASE
      (the minimum warming estimate)
      is near zero warming from
      CO2 since 1979.
      WORST CASE means
      + 1 degree of warming
      in 200 years (harmless),
      if CO2 rises +2 ppm per year
      … or + 1 degree of warming
      in 133 years (harmless),
      if CO2 rises +3 ppm per year.
      Both estimates assume a lot of fossil fuel
      use in the future, which is a guess too.
      “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”
      makes no sense to me,
      since our planet has never been
      in thermodynamic equilibrium,
      and we have no idea what
      CO2 feedbacks are,
      not even if they
      are negative or positive
      (although climate history
      reconstructions have no evidence
      of any positive feedback ,
      with no “runaway” warming or cooling
      … and much evidence of a
      relatively stable climate,
      suggesting negative feedback(s) ).
      What any judge needs to know,
      is that the demonization of CO2
      is not based on any real science.
      One wild guess of the future climate,
      whether based on a wild guess
      in 1979 (Charney), which is the
      foundation for climate models
      that have wrong for 30 years, so far,
      is just as good as anyone’s wild guess
      = all wild guesses are worthless.
      The era of rising CO2, since 1940,
      has had three DIFFERENT CO2
      average temperature correlations:
      NEGATIVE from 1940 to 1975,
      POSITIVE from 1975 to 2000, and
      NO CORRELATION from 2000 to 2015 (before the El Nino)
      For the effect of CO2,
      that all adds up to:
      “I don’t know”.
      Sometimes the man who says
      “I don’t know”,
      is the smartest man in the room !
      My climate change blog
      for people with common sense,
      which excludes leftists, of course:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  2. Delightful description, as always. You mention a draft paper. Do you plan on publishing it?

    • Did you even read the last paragraph of the section labeled “Two propositions” early in the article? Apparently not. The paper is being reviewed, prior to publication.

      • In response to Mr Wallace, by convention the underlying paper cannot be circulated until it has been reviewed. However, anyone who wants a copy of the amicus curiae brief setting out the argument, or who would like a one-page summary of the argument for circulation to friends, should write to me at monckton[at]mail.com.

      • Greg seems determined not to get to grips with the science in the head posting. Our research has certainly been going on for 18 months. In fact, for two of the co-authors it has been going on for 12 years. The question is not whether the research has been slow and careful or quick and brilliant: it is whether our conclusions are correct. So far, none of the almost 500 comments in this thread has landed a blow on our result. Perhaps Greg would avoid the yah-boo and try to contribute an original scientific thought to this thread.

      • “We averaged the monthly global mean surface and lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from the HadCRUT4 terrestrial and UAH satellite datasets and derived the least-squares linear-regression trend (the bright blue line on the graph below).’
        Lord Monckton, I don’t understand why these datasets were averaged. Do I understand correctly that surface and lower troposphere temperatures were averaged together? What is the rationale behind this?
        “So far, none of the almost 500 comments in this thread has landed a blow on our result.”
        That has no bearing on whether it’s correct.
        “However, quite enough is set out in the head posting to allow people to come to their own view on whether it is correct.”
        This is only true if readers can both follow what was said AND compare it to mainstream climate models to ascertain that they are in fact wrong. This is too much to ask of laymen, and indeed too much to ask of someone with an engineering degree. The argument outlined here must be reviewed by a few people who are able to assess these things before it is taken as correct or constructive.
        Somehow I find it hard to believe that all the groups of modelers independently made the same grievous error. Until that proves to be the case through this or other evidence, there is no reason to abandon the models. This is a question for scientists to work out. Posting this here seems to be a way to garner popular support from people who mostly can’t really evaluate the results.
        “Eventually, by somewhat altering the initial-state values specified for the 23 tests, I was able to give the scientist values that would yield results to the required precision but without loss of experimental integrity”
        This is the kind of thing that skeptics would jump on if this were written by a mainstream scientist, denouncing the whole model as “fake.” For that matter, any model is seen as worthless. It is hypocritical to blindly accept these results just because they support one’s beliefs.
        “When I had originally approached the laboratory, I had not mentioned that the research had anything to do with climate change” This seems very odd to me.
        “When the laboratory reported, I sent it a copy of our draft paper, in which the lab results were mentioned. The laboratory panicked and said we were not allowed to use its report.
        “… A compromise was reached, by which we are free to include the laboratory’s results in our paper, as long as we do not mention either the name of the laboratory or the name of the scientist there who built and ran the high-specification rig for us.”
        Where’s the transparency here? Why is this a secret? What was the lab afraid of? This alone is enough to be alarming. Why was this an issue?
        Being a true skeptic would mean not taking this at face value without adequate review by someone who is experienced with climate modeling.

      • Kristi Silber wonders why we took the mean of the surface and lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets. The reason is that the anomalies are broadly similar, so that we cover both more latitudes and more altitudes, giving a fairer picture of change. But one could also take each result separately. There are no rules about this.
        Likewise, a question is raised about how so many modelers got it wrong. The chief reason is that, one the Party Line had been promulgated, dissent was not a career-enhancing move. This error would have been identified long ago if its identification had not been a career-ending threat to any scientist who dared to dig where we have dug.
        As to the question about how the laboratory tests were conducted, all of the tests are readily replicable, and the details of what was done and why are fully documented in the supplemental material annexed to our paper currently under review.

  3. There are many reasons to suspect that if only we were to measure temperature properly, and carry out a like for like comparison, with unadjusted historic records, we would find that the temperature today, on a point for point basis, is no warmer than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
    This is notwithstanding that since the late 1930s./early 1940s approximately 97% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place, and this suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2, if any at all, may be very close to zero.
    Until we obtain a proper handle on temperature measurements, which will enable us to carry out a meaningful like for like comparison, we will never be able to properly evaluate climate sensitivity.

    • Richard verney: “Until we obtain a proper handle on temperature measurements, which will enable us to carry out a meaningful like for like comparison, we will never be able to properly evaluate climate sensitivity.”
      Exactly right! All of the quibbling over historical temperature data set validity, corrections, coercions, etc. is an exceptionally tedious exercise in futility.

      • Neither Mr Verney nor Mr Homer has grasped the theoretical method by which we derived a pre-industrial feedback fraction one-tenth of the currently canonical mid-range estimates. The method does not depend on finely-tuned temperature measurements. It depends on measuring only two values that are now generally agreed after multiple measurements: the incoming radiance from the Sun and the fraction of that irradiance that is reflected harmlessly back to outer space. With those two measurements and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant one can derive the 255.4 K emission temperature of the Earth directly.
        We have some idea of today’s surface temperature. It is about 288.4 K. And we have some idea that there has been about 0.8 K global warming (however caused) since 1850. Therefore, the mean surface temperature in 1850 was about 287.6 K, about 32 K greater than the emission temperature that would prevail at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases or of any feedback.
        Now, assume ad argumentum that the naturally occurring greenhouse gases induced no radiative forcing at all. In that event, the entire 32 K difference between the natural temperature in 1850 and the emission temperature is the feedback response to emission temperature itself. That is simply 1 – 255.4 / 287.6, or 0.11, That is the maximum theoretically-possible pre-industrial feedback fraction. You can vary both the warming since 1850 and today’s surface temperature quite a bit without much altering that impossible maximum value of the pre-industrial feedback fraction.
        Much the same goes for the industrial-era feedback fraction. IPCC (2013) has a mid-range estimate of 2.29 Watts per square meter of net anthropogenic forcing from all sources up until 2011. Divide that by 3.2 to convert it to a net anthropogenic warming of 0.72 K over the period. The measured warming from 1850-2011 was around 0.76 K (HadCRUT4). So the industrial-era feedback fraction is 1 – 0.72 / 0.76, or 0.05. Suppose there had been, say, 1 K warming from 1850-2011. Then the feedback fraction would be 1 – 0.72 / 1, or 0.28. That value would be more than five times the 0.05 we have just derived. Yet Charney sensitivity – i.e., equilibrium sensitivity to CO2 doubling – would still be only 1.1 / (1 – 0.28), or 1.5 K, right at the bottom of IPCC’s interval of predictions.
        The result outlined in the head posting is, therefore, a good deal more robust than it may appear at first blush, and – for the reason carefully explained in the exposition of the rectangular-hyperbolic curve of Charney sensitivities in the presence of various feedback fractions – even quite large increases in the feedback fraction compared with the 0.05-0.12 estimated in the head posting make very little difference to Charney sensitivity.
        Above all, the current method of deriving Charney sensitivity is based upon the elementary and significant physical error of assuming that the Earth’s large emission temperature induces no feedback response whatsoever, while the next few Kelvin of temperature forced by the presence of the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases is imagined to induce a large feedback. That contradiction is untenable. For half a century, climate science has simply been wrong.

      • Lord M, your just above comment, last paragraph, is the logical core essence of your ‘discovery’. It deserves to be widely dissminated, including to the judge.

      • Lord Monckton,
        Thank you for the additional examples stated just above. It illustrated and clarified much, for me.

      • Mr Istvan is of course correct: the logical core of our argument is that one cannot assume that an emission temperature of 255.4 K induces no feedback response, while simultaneously assuming that a directly-forced temperature of 8 K from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases suddenly, as if by magic, induces a feedback response of 24 K. The point is indeed explicitly made in the argument we submitted to the judge.

      • With due respect, and this is not detrimental to the argument presented here, but 255.4K is a theoretical minimum temperature, not representing reality.
        The figure of 255.4 maximises ΔT due to the greenhouse effect because of this.
        In reality, in 1850 around 80% of emissions came from the atmosphere, as it does today, and the weighted mean emissivity over all radiative angles for blue sky is 0.85, which is popularly accepted. This coupled with average cloud emissivity at a similar level significantly reduces the Earth’s total emissivity to significantly below 1, and raises the actual temperature as might be measured by real world instruments.
        As a result of this the temperature calculated as Earth’s emission temperature as a real number, not a theoretical minimum is more like 265K (ε=0.87) rather than 255.4K (for fictional ε=1). This significantly reduces ΔT by around 10K for the sum of forcings and feedback parameters irrespective of mechanism.

      • Indeed, with due respect – do we have the ability to measure this ‘greenhouse gas’ property? If yes then it answers itself, if not we need to consider why we can’t. How do we know it exists if it can’t be measured?
        The greenhouse gas property is today’s celestial spheres. Celestial spheres were introduced to explain the orbital patterns of planets as if the Earth were the center of the universe. These spheres functioned quite well, but does that determine their existence? Your argument above is that there is an amount of Earth’s temperature that can’t be explained, and ‘greenhouse gases’ are introduced to fill that gap. That means the property exists? Measuring this property would be very persuasive, just as the inability to measure it is.

      • “Mr Istvan is of course correct” , as he so often is. However, I fear that his “lordship” has failed to get the sense of Riscan’s comment.

      • Greg still seems to have no scientific point to make. Mr Istvan has recommended that a particular part of our argument should be drawn to the attention of Judge Alsup in our amicus curiae brief. It has been.

      • Greg March 20, 2018 at 9:16 am

        “Mr Istvan is of course correct” , as he so often is. However, I fear that his “lordship” has failed to get the sense of Riscan’s comment.

        Why on earth are you being so impenetrable? Not one comment of yours that I have seen here actually contains any serious physical argument, it’s all innuendo and put-downs. E.g. the scare quotes around “lordship”, when we know very well that Christopher is indeed a lord. And as well, he didn’t sign his post with “lord” in any case. I think you are just a mischief maker, and, by the absence of any solid argument, an ignorant one in the bargain. And your lack of any details as to how Christopher “failed to get the sense”. Oh, and your anonymity… what a specimen!

      • Christopher said
        “Now, assume ad argumentum that the naturally occurring greenhouse gases induced no radiative forcing at all. In that event, the entire 32 K difference between the natural temperature in 1850 and the emission temperature is the feedback response to emission temperature itself. ”
        Christopher ,
        You will be laughed out of court with arguments like the above. A feedback has to have some actual physical meaning. Any feedback has to either involve sound, electromagnetic light waves either seen or not or pressure of some sort. There has to be some phsical process. So when you are talking about gases in the atmosphere they change temperature because of some physical process. Any feedback from that temperature change also has to involve a physical movement of some kind of energy through some medium. A temperature cannot change a temperature. A temperature doesnt exist. It is only a measuring tool of mankind, not a physical entity. So what you really mean is that the initial temperature change was caused by reflected IR being absorbed by greenhouse gases which caused more evaporation and enabled more IR to be trapped as a feedback. You cannot have a temperature change without having a net (incoming – outgoing to space) IR amount being trapped.
        But this is where the alarmists are wrong. The real graph should be around 31.4 K for the clouds and water vapour part with the rest being CO2 for about 0.8K. The 1st key thing is that in the beginning there wasnt any clouds and water vapour in the atmosphere but there was CO2 and a lot of it. Therefore the temperature rose from the emission temperature 255.4 to the equilibrium temperature of 287.6. That initiated evaporation from the oceans enabling clouds and water vapour to form for the 1st time and thus an equilibrium temperature was reached. The 2nd key thing is that there is always enough water vapour in the air to absorb the net difference in IR. And when the amount gets saturated, precipitation happens and the amount drops back. Thus the total global level of H2O vapour in the atmosphere has never really changed from the beginning. Thus when the CO2 levels went down 325 million years ago because of increased plant growth ( the plants really got started big time around 325 million years ago) the temperature also dropped. There can never be a feedback (ie increased water vapour) from increased CO2 because the levels of CO2 since then by itself cannot cause a large enough temperature change. So when you talk about feedbacks you need large amounts of CO2 as in 8000ppm like the atmosphere had 530 million years ago. So the initial feedback to create the clouds and water vapour in the 1st place is really the only big feedback that has occurred. If mankind was to put 1000’s of ppm CO2 into the air we could get the temperature up but we would have to burn every last piece of carbon in the ground. dont forget that since 1980 mankind has burned 75% more fossil fuels but has only increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 21%. The alarmists have no answer for that statistic.

      • Mr Tomalty asks about the physical processes by which feedbacks operate. The principal feedbacks relevant to the derivation of equilibrium sensitivity are the water vapor / lapse rate feedback, the albedo feedbacks and the cloud feedback. If it were assumed, per impossibile, that there are no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today, then all 32 K of the difference between emission temperature of 255 K and the 287 K natural temperature in 1850 would be attributable to the feedback response to emission temperature, arising from the operation of these feedbacks.

      • You’re So Wrong
        … For So Long,
        T. Homer:
        The temperature measurements
        could be perfectly accurate
        (really +/- 0.1 degrees,
        margin of error,
        not just haphazard
        surface measurements
        falsely claimed to be that accurate)…
        … and we would still NOT know
        how much, IF ANY,
        of the warming since 1940,
        (the era of man made CO2)
        … with most of the warming from
        the early 1990s to early 2000s,
        as I read the charts,
        … was caused by CO2.
        So climate sensitivity
        would still be a mystery,
        (although perhaps a worst
        case warming from CO2
        ESTIMATE would be slightly different
        than the +1 degree C. estimated today
        using satellite data since 1979,
        if we had perfectly accurate measurements
        and global average compilations.
        I think the result
        would be the same:
        = CO2 is harmless
        (in my opinion,
        based on real science,
        adding CO2 to the air,
        with cleanly-burned fossil fuels,
        is very beneficial for
        our low-CO2 planet,
        causing no harm at all.)

    • And since we can never know with the same accuracy what the temperature was pre-industrial for the base scenario then we can never use temperature data to separate out the “natural warming” from “man-made warming”. Climate change never will be capable of allowing true science – replicated experiments using a control case that can be falsified.

    • MoB
      You have no basis for saying:

      Neither Mr Verney nor Mr Homer has grasped the theoretical method by which we derived a pre-industrial feedback fraction one-tenth of the currently canonical mid-range estimates.

      i fully understand and appreciate the point you make :

      the current method of deriving Charney sensitivity is based upon the elementary and significant physical error of assuming that the Earth’s large emission temperature induces no feedback response whatsoever, while the next few Kelvin of temperature forced by the presence of the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases is imagined to induce a large feedback. That contradiction is untenable.

      But whilst that is interesting, it does not answer the fundamental issue whether the Earth’s atmosphere actually has a climate sensitivity to the presence of varying amounts of CO2. That can only be ascertained by measuring the system in operation, and its actual and real response to varying levels of CO2. That observational test cannot be done without knowing properly the temperature and temperature changes that have TRULY taken place, and we simply do not have data that is fit for purpose to enable us to carry out that task.
      Many posters on this blog, I included, have repeatedly pointed out that there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what constitutes feedbacks, and that if there is a water vapour feedback then that is a facet of temperature, not forcing. I, like many posters, have pointed out that in the paleo record this planet has been 10 degC, possibly at times 18 deg C, warmer today and that there would have been runaway warming if water vapour was the positive feedback as posited by the GHG conjecture. What we know of the paleo record establishes

      the next few Kelvin of temperature forced by the presence of the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases is imagined to induce a large feedback. That contradiction is untenable.

      • It seems that Mr Verney and I are in agreement after all,. But we have found a method of proving that our argument is correct and that, therefore, Charney sensitivity cannot much exceed 1.2 K. What is more, that proof depends upon the exposure of a material error of physics in official climatology. That is a very definite result. If we are correct, then IPCC and others will be compelled to take full account of our result. If we are right, this is game over.

      • But Christopher,
        You’re still using as a baseline the 1.1C of so-called ‘no-feedback’ surface warming, which is wrong.

      • Christopher
        According to your calculations the maximum value for “f” = 0.112 Plugging that value into equation 1 gives a maximum value of deltaT eqi = 1.23 K so your chart to the right of f= 0.112 should be shaded with a legend of impossible.

      • Okay RW but what you are arguing is directly against the CAGW science and you may well be perfectly correct but Christopher is simply using the CAGW science as is and proving that even their basic equation is untenable. If we win on Christopher’s basic argument we don’t need any further arguments. CAGW will be dead in the atmosphere.

    • CoB
      I am not seeking in any way to downplay the significance of your paper.
      You are putting some meat on the bone, and in a manner that a Judge, with an engineering background, ought to both readily understand and to appreciate its significance.
      But one area where Climate Science gets a free pass, is whether warming is bad, and if so at what level? The 2 degC figure is an arbitrary figure which was simply plucked out of thin air, with no assessment having been undertaken as to what impact say each 0.25 degC of warming will cause both benefits and detriments.
      We have already recently seen that the 2 degC danger figure has now become 1.5 degC. How long will it be that this figure is further reduced, say perhaps to 1.2 degC, and then below that?
      Further, at one time it was thought that the dangerous warming was from the 1970s when the alarm first arose, but now it is from the pre-industrial era. This revision means that the natural warming pre 1950, is now included in the danger zone.
      Yet further, anyone who has seen the numerous revisions to the temperature record, well knows that the past is being cooled and the present warmed which is also produces an (apparent) increase in the overall warming from the pre-industrial era. See for example:
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NASA-Global-Temperatures-Massively-Adjusted-1910-to-2000-climate4you.jpg
      The upshot of this revisionary stance is that very soon, we will have seen 1.2deg C warming from the pre-industrial era such that any further warming, however small, will exceed even your assessment.

      • What you forget is that they cant adjust the CO2 figures. And based on Christopher’s finding they cant argue that the max temp diff will be any more than 1.23K for a doubling. The one thing that Christopher will have to work out is the response parameterization of Temp diff to doubling at all points on the CO2 scale. Obviously depending on where you start on the CO2 scale a doubling will have different consequences depending on the initial value of CO2. It makes sense to me that a doubling of CO2 from 1ppm to 2 ppm will not produce the same temperature change as from 310ppm to 620ppm I take 1950 as the benchmark that Christopher did as when industry fossil fuel burning really took off. That was the year I was born so I am a product of the fossil fuel burning age Blame me cause when “I came out of the womb I was shouting I want all those plastic XMas toys that you are gonna give me growing up to become a teenager”. So I take this global warming hoax personally. Thus in 1950 the CO2 level was at 310ppm. we have yet to see a doubling . So if we have had 0.8K increase since 1950 that means in another 33 years we will see another 0.4 K till the year 2050 based on a 1.2K increase per century as in Christopher’s thesis. However I doubt that we will see a CO2 level of 620 ppm in 2050. It only seems to be increasing about 1/2 % a year so I figure based on that rate we will only hit 489 ppm as of 2050. So that wont even be a doubling . So that must mean that the forcing factor is much lower than the maximum of .112 and much closer to Christopher’s 0.08.

      • verney sez:
        “But one area where Climate Science gets a free pass,
        is whether warming is bad, and if so at what level?
        The +2 deg C figure is an arbitrary figure
        which was simply plucked out of thin air,”
        Comment:
        Modern climate “science”
        is almost entirely
        plucked out of thin air !
        There is no real science
        beyond simple lab experiments,
        using closed systems, to show
        that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”.
        Beyond that is no real science at all.
        Warming caused by CO2,
        assuming it’s large enough to measure
        = a wild guess
        +2 degree tipping point
        = a silly wild guess
        Water vapor positive feedback theory
        = a sillier wild guess
        There has already been AT LEAST +2 degrees C.
        of warming since the late 1600s cold period,
        during the Maunder Minimum, in the Little Ice Age
        — and people LOVED the warming that followed,
        per anecdotal written evidence.
        The minor warming since 1750
        have been accompanied by HUGE
        IMPROVEMENTS of human:
        prosperity,
        productivity, and
        health (lifespan).
        Where is ANY evidence of ANY harm
        caused by +1 degree of warming since 1880?
        ( +/- 1 degree C., in my opinion )
        Let me answer:
        No harm at all !
        More CO2 in the air is a blessing,
        not a curse — the over-emotional leftists
        are wrong … as usual.
        My climate blog
        Over 15,000 page views so far:
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • Yes, the Forces of Darkness can tamper with the temperature record: but they can’t escape from the fact that they have made a strikingly elementary error of physics in not realizing that some 23.4 K of the 32 K difference between emission temperature and 1850 temperature is a feedback not to the 8 K directly-forced warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases but to the pre-existing 255 K emission temperature. Once the penny drops on that one, the scare will be over and there will be no point in their trying to continue to tamper with the temperature record. The tampering only arises from their desperate attempts to make the temperature record fit their theory. But now that their theory has been proven materially in error, that’s that.

      • The alarmist graph is correct if you consider that it represents the situation 4.6 billion years ago when there were no clouds or water vapour in the air buts gobs of CO2. Then there was enough CO2 to iniitiate a large temperature change to initiate evaporation and thus clouds and H2O vapour. But since then the CO2 levels dropped drastically so that as of 1850, 31.4K of the equilibrium difference in temperature is because of H2O and clouds and 0.8 because of CO2. Once the levels of CO2 dropped 325 million years ago there hasnt been enough CO2 to force anything. So the only thing that CO2 does is increase the temperature a tiny bit. We will never be able to burn enough fossil fuels to worry about it. The whole theory of CO2 forcing more water vapour only occurred more than 325 million years ago when there was up to 8000 ppm CO2. Since then there hasnt been enough. We need more CO2 not less.

      • I agree with Mr Tomalty that more CO2 would be a lot better than less CO2. And I agree that in a reasonable world not dominated by totalitarian ideologues his version of events might well be readily accepted. But the totalitarians have adopted a Party Line on climate, and they do not allow it to be debated, and they direct hate speech at those of us who dare to ask questions.
        That is why it is necessary for us, having found a major and significant error in their calculations, to draw that error to the attention of the scientific community. If we are found to be in substance correct, then the totalitarians will lose the entire debate and that will be that. Game over.

  4. Court proceedings, while far from perfect venues for discerning the truth, at least offer the opportunity for a fair presentation of the evidence, and robust give-and-take. It sounds like this judge might be unusually capable of understanding the science and giving skeptics a fair hearing.

    • Court cases typically include the process of discovery, which has been avoided by the CAGW crowd like the plague. I seriously doubt the Climate Cabal will ever pursue a full court case to defend their meme.

      • Mr Yaussy is correct. The judge is scientifically literate. He will understand the argument in the amicus curiae brief, and he will soon detect any evasion or flannel on the part of the parties replying to it.

      • It is too late unless they withdraw the case. This is the alarmists’ biggest strategical mistake. It will be the 1st time that there has been a worldwide debate on this.

      • Monckton writes: “Mr Yaussy is correct. The judge is scientifically literate. He will understand the argument in the amicus curiae brief, and he will soon detect any evasion or flannel on the part of the parties replying to it.
        Your submission contains a number of references to the scientific literature. What happens when the authors you cite tell the judge how you have mis-applied their findings? Drs. Lacis, Soden, Bony, and Held certainly aren’t going to say that the values from their work that you cite were meant to be applied in the equations you used.

      • In answer to Frank, a game that has often been played by the climate fanatics in the past is to take a result cited by me and then contact the scientist, misstate what I said about the result and then get the scientist to express hostility. No doubt that approach will be wheeled out yet again this time. But there will be a difference. Now that we have identified the large error without which there is no climate problem, the only legitimate method of preventing our argument from prevailing is to demonstrate, fairly and objectively, that we are incorrect. The fraud authorities of several nations are now watching. If there is any repetition of past activity by self-appointed busybodies misrepresenting what we have said and inviting third-party scientists to comment on those misrepresentations, the busybodies concerned will face fraud charges.
        Let me be very clear. The tactics of the climate fanatics have steered dangerously close to fraud in the past, and in one or two cases the fraud authorities have come very close to prosecuting. We are keeping them abreast of developments from now on. If there is anything genuinely amiss with our results, peer review – which we can expect to be hostile – will expose it. If we are wrong, we are wrong and that is that. But if we are right and false methods are used in a dishonest and corrupt attempt to make out that we are wrong when we are right, there will now be prosecutions. I should make it plain that those prosecutions will not be instigated by me but by the public authorities in several jurisdictions.

      • The judge is scientifically literate. He will understand the argument in the amicus curiae brief, and he will soon detect any evasion or flannel on the part of the parties replying to it.

        No one will need to “reply” CoB’s friendly interference in the proceedings unless directly instructed to do so by the judge. That is most unlikely IMO and he will probably simply ignore it or dismiss it, as Ristvan suggests.
        The judge is expecting an answer to HIS question, not to be told he is too stupid to ask the right question and needs a lesson from *SNIP* No personal attacks allowed. Maintain respectful discourse. — Mod

      • I am going to ask the moderators to remove the comment from the furtively anonymous “Greg” that describes me as “Monckey”. The site’s rules are quite clear: unless your full name is on your posting, you may not make personall attacks on those of us who have the courage to say who we are.

        • I removed the offensive wording and left a warning for Greg. He and other posters should know what was out of line.
          Thanks,
          MOD

      • Lord Monckton wrote: “a game that has often been played by the climate fanatics in the past is to take a result cited by me and then contact the scientist, misstate what I said about the result and then get the scientist to express hostility. No doubt that approach will be wheeled out yet again this time. But there will be a difference. Now that we have identified the large error without which there is no climate problem, the only legitimate method of preventing our argument from prevailing is to demonstrate, fairly and objectively, that we are incorrect.”
        Your “large errors” will be meaningless when climate scientists whose values for lambda_zero and F_2x you cite say it is inappropriate to use those values in linear models to describe phenomena that are inherently non-linear over the range you use. Which it is.
        The worst problems is that courtrooms are not the appropriate forum for deciding these issues. Especially if a jury is involved. The idea that ordinary citizens or even a judge can understand these issues is totally insane. Even you can’t or won’t go back to the fundamental physics and understand when a linear approximation is appropriate and when it isn’t.

      • In response to Frank, nonlinearities apply just as much to the present estimates of Charney sensitivity as they do to ours. But our estimates of Charney sensitivity will inevitably be lower than the present estimates.
        Also, we allowed for nonlinearities by testing the explicitly linear zero-dimensional-model equation by informing it with the official imputs – reference sensitivity and the feedback fraction. We were able to reproduce the official CMIP5 interval of Charney sensitivities exactly, even though the ZDM is linear and the GCMs of the CMIP ensemble are not. Besides, the smaller the fedabck fraction the less any nonlinearities will matter.

    • Courts can and sometimes do, especially in controversial civil cases, take notice that some particular thing is TRUE. Therefore, no argument or evidence of any kind that said pronouncement is not correct is allowed. Your entire defense is based on a shelf load of published historical or scientific literature showing that something else is the case? Too bad; looks like you lose before you get started.
      In criminal cases courts can, and often do, interpret the law to the jury. Sometimes, especially in sensitive cases that might challenge a government position, no evidence, such as the wording of the law itself, that their interpretation might be flawed is allowed to be presented.

  5. Don’t you just love this guy? I saw him once in action and his delivery – and knowledge base – were absolutely compelling. Thank you Christopher Monckton – the incredible effort you and your colleagues have put into this proof deserves the admiration and applause of sceptical scientists everywhere.

    • I am most grateful to Mr Wright for his very kind words. Many commenters here seem to have been taken by surprise on realizing that a proof of large error on the part of official climatology now exists. Yet we submit that, though one might nibble at the proof around the edges, it is fundamentally sound. To use a tired cliche,. if we are right our result is a game-changer, for 1.2 K global warming per CO2 doubling is nothing like enough to worry about. It is too little and too slow to do harm. End of scare.

      • My application of best subsets regression to the Central England Temperature record since 1850 suggests a heating effect of 0.006K per ppm of additional CO2 to the atmosphere.
        https://mynaturaldiary.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/whither-the-weather-2/
        Statistical process control methods to examine the trends is a better guide to the behaviour of these types of time series, as all months and even the annual data show periods of temperature falls and stability. This behaviour is due to trends in teleconnections over periods of time, and acts to override any CO2 effect in the short term.

      • As stated above (by Mr Verney I think) if, indeed, it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K and the vested interests are unable to prove otherwise then it will not be long before they announce that disaster will follow from just 1 degree of warming.
        This was exactly what happened in Paris, downgrading the end of the world delta from 2 degrees to 1.5 degrees when it was realised that we will come in under 2 degrees on a business as usual basis.
        Thank you, Lord Monckton and welcome back.

      • Christopher,
        As another Wright – and another Christopher to boot! – I would like to say I agree 100% with John.
        I wish you the very, very best of luck in this venture – if luck is actually needed!
        I’ll need to read your post again very carefully before I fully understand. But it does have the ring of truth to it.
        What an mazing thought: that this whole catastrophic failure of science can be tied to a simple equation that is provably wrong!
        Many thanks and good luck.
        Chris

      • The problem with Mr Robinson’s approach is that it is not easy to allocate the observed warming as between natural and anthropogenic effects. That is why, in my submission, the best approach is to demonstrate that an elementary error of physics has been perpetrated.
        I am grateful to the second Mr Wright for his kind comments.

    • Three Cheers for Monckton.
      Maybe even four.
      Keep up the good work.
      Judge the quality by the amount
      of flak you get from
      those always angry leftists.
      Lefts are usually stupid-heads,
      but they seem to know who
      to character attack (their only skill).
      I want more CO2 in the air
      to green the earth,
      and optimize the growth
      of plants used for food
      by people and animals.
      If more CO2
      causes any nighttime warming
      at high latitudes,
      that’s even better!
      So let’s go,
      to 1,000 ppm CO2,
      to green the Earth,
      based on real science!

  6. Regarding “There is little change that some feedbacks had not fully acted. The feedbacks listed in IPCC (2013, p. 818, table 9.5) as being relevant to the derivation of equilibrium sensitivity are described by IPCC (2013, p. 128, Fig. 1.2) as having the following durations: Water vapor and lapse-rate feedback hours; Cloud feedback days; Surface albedo feedback years.”: There is warming that is still “in the pipeline” because the upper ocean’s response takes decades due to its thermal mass.

    • Let us suppose for a moment that the climate model projections are in fact correct, and that it was agreed that all emissions of CO2 had to be eliminated as soon as possible. In the event that such a herculean task were successfully carried out, would the climate cease to change? If not, what is the point of it all?

      • Tebla sez:
        “Let us suppose for a moment that the climate model projections are in fact correct”.
        .
        .
        My comment:
        The climate (GCM) models
        have been grossly inaccurate for 30 years,
        except one Russian Model,
        that is obviously colluding with Trump,
        so we can ignore that one,
        meaning that 97% were wrong.
        Are we supposed to ignore the 97%
        being wrong for three decades … so far ?
        Modern climate “science” is the “Assume Science”.
        If you assume something, then it’s true!

    • The response of the upper oceans would matter more to the coastlines than it would to deep interiors of continents.
      Beyond that, this is the weakest of all the feedbacks, slowing the alleged temperature rise by only a few thousandths of a degree or less per decade.

      • Yes, the oceans do affect the temperature of the oceans, however the level of impact drops of sharply after the first hundred miles or so.

    • In reply to Mr Klipstein, ocean overturning introduces a nonlinearity into the feedback response, but the overturning cycle is of order centuries to millennia. The ocean thus acts as a giant heat-sink. Besides, the amicus brief, and the head posting, make specific allowance for quite large nonlinearities in the feedback sum and therefore in the feedback fraction.

      • There is a lot of upper ocean that is not heatsunk by the lower ocean except by the overturning that takes centuries-plus to do so and slower-still heat conduction to the lower ocean. Dr. Roy Spencer has used simplified climate models that neglect the lower ocean and comes up with response taking decades. I think he’s close to right there. The difference is that there is still a small amount of warming remaining in the pipeline until centuries-plus have passed so that overturning warms the lower ocean.

      • In response to Mr Klipstein’s further point, our derivation of the pre-industrial feedback fraction is obviously not disturbed by ocean overturning, which would have to exercise a far larger influence than was evident in the pre-industrial era before it would greatly increase the equilibrium sensitivity we have derived.

      • Ocean overturning’s effect on warming from past GHG increase being in the pipeline for centuries-plus to an extent that may be insignificant does not negate significance of warming from past GHG increase being in the pipeline for decades.
        I hereby note a paper with your name being one of its 4 named authors, at wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf
        Especially its Table 2.
        Assuming ECS without IPCC-named feedbacks (IPCC-favored) is 1.1 degrees C per 2x CO2 (using IPCC-favored effect of CO2 change before the feedbacks that they name, of 3.7 W/m^2 per 2xCO2) and the figure above of 1.2 degrees C per 2xCO2 are correct, this means .1 degree C per 2xCO2 being from positive feedback to an extent of .33-.34 W/m^2 per degree C of surface temperature change. I expect this means about 2/3 of the 35% (100%-65% for positive feedback factor of .5 W/m^2 per 2xCO2 if I understand this correctly) of the ultimate warming that gets achieved after 25 years (22% by a somewhat conservative calculation). This means about 78% of warming due to an increase of CO2 happening within 25 years, about 22% taking longer than 25 years.
        For that matter, I take issue with time lag being zero if the IPCC-named feedbacks are net-zero or negative.

      • David Klipstein said
        ” I expect this means about 2/3 of the 35% (100%-65% for positive feedback factor of .5 W/m^2 per 2xCO2 if I understand this correctly) of the ultimate warming that gets achieved after 25 years (22% by a somewhat conservative calculation). This means about 78% of warming due to an increase of CO2 happening within 25 years, about 22% taking longer than 25 years.
        For that matter, I take issue with time lag being zero if the IPCC-named feedbacks are net-zero or negative.”
        Explain this so us morons can understand it please.

      • Lord M,
        “our derivation of the pre-industrial feedback fraction is obviously not disturbed by ocean overturning”
        Yes, it is disturbed. You say
        “some 2.29 W m–2 of net anthropogenic forcing arose in the industrial era to 2011. The product of that value and the Planck parameter is the 0.72 K reference warming (Eq. 3)”
        The argument is that 0.72K warming would be required to provide a balancing flux to the 2.29 forcing (should it be 2.9?). But the 2.29 flux only needs to be balanced if it has nowhere to go. And for a very long time, it can flow into the sea, leaving only a fraction that needs to be balanced by warming.

      • In reply to Mr Stokes, let us examine the pre-industrial era and assume that by 1850 the climate was approximately in equilibrium following the accumulation over geological time of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The pre-industrial feedback fraction, assuming an albedo 0.293, is then 1 – (255.4 + 8) / 287.6 = 0.084,, where 255.4 K is the emission temperature, 8 K is the additional forcing-driven temperature from the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and 287.6 K is natural temperature in 1850.
        Given that today’s feedback fraction works out at 1 – (2.29 * 0.3125) / 0.76 = 0.05, not much different from 0.08, what difference in the behaviour of the oceans between the pre-industrial era and today justifies a very much larger feedback fraction than that? The oceans, like any heat sink, absorb incident heat quickly and release it very slowly.
        Even if one assumed that the oceans were absorbing as much warming as has been observed, the feedback fraction would be 1 – 0.72 / 1.5, giving a feedback fraction of 0.52, and warming of 2.2 K per CO2 doubling, still only two-thirds of even the mid-range estimate made by the CMIP5 models.

      • Regarding “The pre-industrial feedback fraction, assuming an albedo 0.293, is then 1 – (255.4 + 8) / 287.6 = 0.084,, where 255.4 K is the emission temperature, 8 K is the additional forcing-driven temperature from the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and 287.6 K is natural temperature in 1850.”:
        Although 8% (8.4%) of the absolute temperature here is from feedback, radiation (incoming and outgoing equaling each other) are proportional to temperature to the 4th power (assuming equilibrium and constant emissivity). This means 70.4% of the radiation being received is what would warm the world to (255.4+8) Kelvin without condensing GHGs and 29.6% is from feedbacks, assuming constant albedo of .293. Keep in mind that a 263.4 K world has much higher albedo than a 287.6 K one, but then again also some condensing GHG.

      • The oceans, like any heat sink, absorb incident heat quickly and release it very slowly.

        Where does that little gem of thermodynamics come from?

    • The CO2 change has been occurring since industrialisation. The forcing function is logarithmic so earlier ppm increases in CO2 had more forcing than present ppm increases. In fact since the 1980s the increase in CO2 has been almost linear so the rate of increase in forcing has been diminishing in the last decade compared with the 1980s.
      The thermal mass of the oceans adds inertia to the climate system so the temperature rise is much slower than it would otherwise be without that inertia. The ocean temperature in the top 2000m is showing a gradual upward trend since measurements have been available. This trend is much steadier than measurements in the troposphere.
      A simple ocean model that takes a logarithmic forcing with rising CO2 and the thermal inertia of the top 2000m of oceans yields a TOTAL forcing coefficient of 3.1W/sq.m to match the historic rise in ocean temperature and projects to 0.31C further rise from present to 2100.
      Of course if CO2 only rises linearly then its forcing will diminish as the ocean temperature rises by virtue of logarithmic forcing function of CO2 and fourth power cooling with temperature. On the other hand the ocean temperature continues to rise almost linearly and is 0.6C warmer in 2250 than in 1980. BUT that is hardly alarming.

    • Donald K,
      “There is warming that is still “in the pipeline” because the upper ocean’s response takes decades due to its thermal mass.”
      Yes. The supposed timings of feedback are irrelevant. The 0.72K Planck “reference warming” of Test 1 assumes that the warming has to counter the flux of 2.29 W/m2 that would be otherwise emitted to space. That is the basis for the arithmetic. But when the flux 2.29 first comes into existence. it is not available to be emitted. Most is absorbed in warming the ocean. That tapers gradually over many decades. Only when the oceans are not absorbing nay more can you equate the 2.29 forcing with the temperature required to emit it to space, via Planck.

      • Nick
        Silliness again for Co2 to cause the ocean warming the atmosphere has to first warm otherwise there is no insulating effect and no oceanic warming.

      • In reply to Mr Stokes, given that the pre-industrial feedback fraction 0.08 is not affected by ocean overturning that is yet to manifest itself, why should the industrial-era feedback fraction be substantially greater?

      • “why should the industrial-era feedback fraction be substantially greater”
        The issue is that you compare a theoretical response with a supposed observed response. The Planck response, 0.72K is the calculated equilibrium response to a forcing of 2.29 W/m2. The 0.76K by which it is divided in Test 1 is the total warming response observed to date, which awaits ocean equilibration. One number is equilibrium by fiat, one is transient and will change.

      • Mr Stokes complains that comparing the feedback fractions obtainable theoretically for the pre-industrial era and empirically for the industrial era is not comparing like with like, because the climate can be presumed to have been in equilibrium in 1850, at least as far as the temperature effects of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases are concerned, but that in response to our recent perturbation of the climate the system has not yet settled back to equilibrium because the oceans have taken up much of the heat we have generated, so that it does not yet appear in the surface but will do so in a few decades’ time.
        However, he has not explained why it is that one should expect a substantially larger feedback fraction in the industrial era than that which can be shown to have obtained in the pre-industrial era. The pre-industrial feedback fraction is only 0.08. That fraction, applied in the industrial era, would give a global warming of just 1.2 K per doubling of CO2. What mechanism is there by which the current climate should exhibit a substantially larger feedback fraction than the pre-industrial climate? After all, Lacis (2010) finds the two values the same (albeit an order of magnitude too large).

      • “Mr Stokes complains that comparing the feedback fractions obtainable theoretically for the pre-industrial era and empirically for the industrial era is not comparing like with like”
        The theoretical calculation is not for the pre-industrial era. The 2.29W/m2 is the calculated heat flux (rate) added by the GHGs that have accumulated during the industrial era. The Planck parameter gives the temperature rise that would accompany emission of that whole 2.29 W/m2 to space. That would happen at equilibrium. But what happens in the meantime is that a large part of the 2.29 W/m2 is not emitted to space. It goes into warming the ocean. The 0.76°C rise observed so far, is not associated with an emission of 2.29 W/m2 to space, but a much smaller fraction. As time goes on, the fraction being emitted to space will increase as flux into the ocean tapers, and the temperature will rise. That happen would even if there were no further increase in GHG.

      • Bob Boder: Greenhouse gases can warm the ocean by absorbing thermal radiation from it and sending thermal radiation back to the ocean. Greenhouse gases are part of the insulating nature of the atmosphere.

      • ” But when the flux 2.29 first comes into existence. it is not available to be emitted.”
        Of course it is. It is travelling at the speed of light.

      • Mr Stokes has misunderstood the head posting. The theoretical calculation for the pre-industrial era is based on the difference between natural temperature as it stood in 1850 and emission temperature. There is then an empirical calculation for the industrial era. The two feedback fractions thus derived are both small.

      • “The theoretical calculation for the pre-industrial era is based on the difference between natural temperature as it stood in 1850 and emission temperature.”
        Let’s go through it again. The calculation of the 0.72°C multiplies
        a. 2.29 W,/m2, the calculated radiative forcing resulting from the changes in GHG and aerosols, but mainly CO2, between 1850 and now, and
        b. The Planck factor 3.2 W/m2/K, which is basically Stefan-Boltzmann for emission to space, and doesn’t belong to any particular period
        No mention of “emission temperature” there. And it assumes that the entire 2.29 W/m2 is indeed emitted to space, which means that the fraction going into the sea has tapered to zero.

    • We have had almost 7 decades since 1950. Old man ocean is slow but I didn’t know he was that slow.

    • DLK,
      I cannot follow your thermal mass logic. If there is heat in the ocean pipelines, where is it? What factors liberate it, and over how long?
      The same argument applies to those who argue that the last 100 ears of warming have been a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. To succeed with this argument, they have to show the mechanism. Has there been stored heat that has been dribbled out over the past 100 years? i doubt it, so there must be another mechanism. What is it? Geoff.

      • The thermal inertia of the oceans delays the temperature response to any increase in net surface heat flux. Heating water from the top down is a slow process. In a time scale of interest to humans, the heat in the top 2000m of the ocean appears to matter. The input to my model is the thermal response in this layer since 1980 to present time.
        In the 1980s the heat imbalance at the ocean surface was around 1.12W/sq.m to achieve the thermal response experienced. Wind/wave mixing near the surface and deep thermohaline currents transport the heat to greater depths over a long period of time. The average temperature of the water column was 0.25C cooler in 1980 than that required for thermal equilibrium.
        With almost constant rise in CO2 from the 1980s the oceans are getting closer to thermal equilibrium because the heating function is logarithmic with CO2 while the cooling function is 4th power of surface temperature. At the present time the net heat flux imbalance is down to 1.1W/sq.m. By 2100 it will be down to 0.88W/sq.m. By 2250 the imbalance will be only 0.6W/sq.m and that would require an increase of 0.16C to achieve thermal equilibrium.
        So after almost 300 years of warming the ocean temperature has risen by 0.6C and is now 0.18C from thermal equilibrium compared with 0.25C 300 years earlier. Of course if the CO2 continues to rise at a constant rate there will never be equilibrium but equilibrium is always getting closer.
        I have not taken the model beyond 2250.
        There are implicit assumptions in my model. The first is that CO2 is the sole factor in causing ocean temperatures to rise and its forcing is a logarithmic function. The second is that the top 2000m of the oceans is the sole energy store in the climate system. The third is that heat loss from the planet is the 4th power of surface temperature. The fourth is that the ocean thermal gradient is static over the time frame of interest.

        • There are such big uncertainty errors in you assumptions that you cannot possibly rely on the effects of an N x 0.1 K temperature change.
          Are you certain that oceans can effectively absorb incident IR so quickly r efficiently that some of it does not report elsewhere? Who d crees when an ocean is indeed in thermal equilibrium with the air?
          Etc etc. Geoff.

      • I’ve not seen your model but I like your clear statements of the assumptions made. Very Feynmann like.

      • RickWill’s comment is most helpful. Since the ocean is almost at thermal equilibrium, there is not much in the way of “missing heat” to come back and interfere with our empirical derivation of the feedback fraction in the industrial era.

      • “ocean is almost at thermal equilibrium, there is not much in the way of “missing heat” to come back”
        It isn’t a matter of missing heat. The ocean takes time to warm in response to a warming of the atmosphere. A long time. And while the heat flux to do that is passing into the ocean, it isn’t being emitted to space, and can’t be included in the Planck calculation which leads to the 0.72°C.

      • In response to Mr Stokes, the ocean takeup of heat from the atmosphere will make some difference to our numbers, but not a lot. Even if one were to multiply the industrial-era feedback fraction by a factor 5 to allow for this phenomenon, Charney sensitivity would barely reach 1.5 K.

    • Donald K: There is a simple way to approach the warming that remains in the pipeline. The current forcing is approximately 2.5 W/m2. According to ARGO, the current radiative imbalance is 0.7 W/m2. That means that the Earth has warmed enough to “emit” an additional 1.8 W/m2 to space. (Here “emitted energy” can refer to both emission of LWR through the TOA and reflection of SWR.) So 72% of the radiative imbalance created by rising GHGs has already been eliminated by warming. That means equilibrium warming will be 40% more than we have experienced so far.

      • In response to Frank, let us suppose ad argumentum that the warming of 0.76 K from 1850-2011 should be increased by 40% to attain equilibrium. In that event, the industrial-era feedback fraction will be 1 – (2.29 / 3.2) / (0.76 * 1.4) = 0.32, in which event equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentration will be (3.5 / 3.2) / (1 – 0.32), or about 1.6 K, instead of the 1.2 K we found.

  7. “The zero-dimensional model is not explicitly used in general-circulation models.”

    Therein lies what I suspect the responses will be. When they do occasionally come down the steps of the ivory towers, it usually seems to be to say that their critics are not criticising what they do, just what they think they do.
    And maybe that is not untrue. That is the inbuilt advantage they have: you usually have to be one of the in-group to make any telling criticisms about their mechanisms (and machinations). Few have the time, will, and ability to gainsay that. However, criticising the outcome of the models does not require technical knowledge of how they work. The failings are there to see, for all who choose to look.

    • In reply to Mr Hart, however much the climatological establishment may wriggle, the fact is that the use of official inputs in the zero-dimensional model (it is in IPCC 2007, for instance, at p. 631 fn.) does faithfully reproduce the interval of official outputs in the form of the Charney-sensitivity interval 3.3 [2.0, 4.5] K. We conducted a careful calibration exercise, as mentioned in the head posting, to ensure that the ZDM is of diagnostic value even though the general-circulation models do not use it. They do not use it, but they must reflect it.

  8. The reason why even a very large nonlinearity in the feedback sum and consequently in the feedback fraction makes little difference to equilibrium sensitivities is that the curve of equilibrium sensitivities in the presence of various feedback factors is a rectangular hyperbola (see below).

    Actually, there is darn little about the climate that is Linear-Time-Invariant (LTI). Everyone uses linear methods. I suspect it’s because that’s what they learned in school. I bet they can’t formally justify their use of linear methods.
    In systems analysis, we use linear methods as a simplifying assumption. For well understood systems, we can get away with that. Otherwise, it’s pretty dodgy.

    • In response to “Commie Bob”, the head posting makes explicit allowance for nonlinearities in the feedback sum, and it also demonstrates, using mainstream data and methods, that the pre-industrial and industrial-era feedback fractions cohere on the narrow interval [0.05, 0.12], suggesting that, because the feedback fraction is so small, nonlinearities therein will not make very much difference to equilibrium sensitivity.

      • … the feedback fraction is so small, nonlinearities therein will not make very much difference to equilibrium sensitivity. …

        The transient sensitivity can be confirmed by the observed data. IMHO, the reason ‘they’ invoke the equilibrium sensitivity is that the transient sensitivity is, observably, not enough to worry about.
        My problem is with the calculation of the equilibrium sensitivity. The time constants, of the processes that make equilibrium sensitivity different than transient, are measured in decades, centuries, and millennia. The more complete quote is:

        The reason why even a very large nonlinearity in the feedback sum and consequently in the feedback fraction makes little difference to equilibrium sensitivities is that the curve of equilibrium sensitivities in the presence of various feedback factors is a rectangular hyperbola (see below).

        I will accept that a very large nonlinearity in the feedback sum and consequently in the feedback fraction makes little difference to the equilibrium sensitivities. It doesn’t matter. The calculation of the equilibrium sensitivity, even without feedback, as far as I can tell, depends on unwarranted LTI assumptions. ‘They’ might, or might not, be able to get away with that but, as far as I can tell, ‘they’ don’t seem to have justified their approach.
        We bang back and forth between glaciations and interglacials. The system is observably not LTI.

  9. A judge w/an engineering background is one in a billion. If he hasn’t forgotten his engineering, he can be trusted to make rational decisions.

    • Hurrah! Beng has understood why we bothered to submit an amicus curiae brief when a number of commenters here would not have bothered. The judge will have little difficulty in understanding our argument. His chief doubt will be whether the premises are sufficiently mainstream. And his quickest way to find that out is to ask all parties to comment, indicating specifically which of the premises they disagree with, and why.

      • Christopher I think you have to directly answer Nick Stokes post above. He is under the impression that the time scale of heat sinks for the globes ocean will come back to bite us in a 100 years. What Nick is forced to realize is that he cannot argue with the amount of direct forcing nor with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He cant fudge those 2 figures. His only argument now is that the ocean heat sink scale is in centuries. It cannot be decades or else we would have seen more forcing water vapour feedback by now. However as you will explain to him , the amount of latent heat released from precipitation from water vapour feedback forcing due to evaporation from the oceans can not all end up in the atmosphere. If that happened
        there would be runaway global warming without any CO2. Nick will argue that the evaporation latent heat will be much more than the feedback surface radiation. However the oceans have had 4.6 billion years to absorb all the heat they can. Obviously there is a limit to how much heat they will absorb before boiling away. But then the sea wouldn’t be rising then would it. It would be falling fast. So the oceans are a heat sink and also give off heat before the boiling process starts (which is what has been happening for 4.6 billion years. Therefore how would an extra small fraction of CO2 produced heat cause the oceans to evaporate any more than they usually do? If it takes a century for the oceans to retain the heat and then release it, by what physical mechanism are the oceans releasing the heat other than through evaporation? The answer is that there is no other physical method of the oceans releasing the heat except by evaporation. unless Nick wants to argue that the heat sneaks its way down to the bottom and then travels to the centre of the earth and back up through the land . Ha Ha Ha If the oceans are a heat sink and a heat releaser only through evaporation as proved above and which Nick Stokes agrees to then how can they evaporate any more water than they usually do unless they are boiling away? We know that both the ocean and the atmosphere get colder in the process of evaporation. Nick is trying to argue that the latent heat will come back to bite us. Well it has been biting all life forms for 4.28 billion years. You cant have a heat sink forever building up heat unless the medium boils. So the oceans have always hit their heat sinking capability because the sun has never refused to shine in the last 4.6 billion years. They hit their heat sinking ability all the time because the oceans are constantly evaporating. There isn’t some magical limit of heat that hides in the ocean and then comes back to bite us. It is temperature in the atmosphere that causes evaporation. Nick is arguing that the process is reversed.

      • In reply to Mr Tomalty, the approach we took was to begin our research by considering the position in 1850, by which time one may safely presume that the ocean – like the rest of the climate system – had reached equilibrium with respect to the warming directly forced by the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, to the consequent feedback response, and to the feedback response to emission temperature. The emission temperature is 255.4 K; the directly-forced greenhouse warming is 8 K; the natural temperature in 1850 was 287.6 K; and, therefore, the feedback fraction was 1 – (255.4 + 8) / 287.6, which is only 0.084. Contrast that with the estimate in Lacis et al. (2010) that the feedback fraction – both for the pre-industrial era and for the present – is 0.75, an order of magnitude too large.
        The question is this. If the pre-industrial feedback fraction was overstated by an order of magnitude, and if the pre-industrial and industrial-era feedback fractions are considered identical, as Lacis finds, then why should we assume that ocean overturning will now have an effect that it did not have in the pre-industrial era? It is precisely because climatologists had thought that two-thirds to three-quarters of the 32 K difference between the 255.4 K emission tempeature and the 287.6 K natural temperature in 1850 was driven by feedback that they consider today’s feedback must be of order 0.67-0.75.
        The advantage of doing the theoretical calculation for the pre-industrial era, therefore, is that it entirely removes the complication caused by ocean overturning. The pre-industrial feedback fraction is an order of magnitude below climatology’s estimate. Therefore, it would be incumbent on those who wish to impugn our result to show what changes have occurred in the oceans since 1850 to cause the feedback fraction to be a great deal larger than the 0.05 that we have derived for the industrial era.

      • MoB, I think that is a more helpful and succinct description than you give in the main article.

      • Alan
        First ask Nick how CO2 warms the oceans, once you get his answer you will see how quickly his premis falls apart.

    • Great stuff! Can he apply for a new birth certificate? Otherwise a life of crime beckons with the state having no way to punish a dead man I assume.

  10. Interesting, but it still contends that CO2 can ‘heat’ the earth. This does not even pass the sniff test, as anyone familiar with thermal laws should know. Simply said, you can’t HEAT the solid/liquid earth using a trace gas. IF, and that is a big IF, there was any rise in temperature, FOR ANY REASON, the radiation RATE of the earth would increase, which would have the immediate affect of cooling the earth which would then lower the radiation RATE. This response is based on the 4th power of the heat increase/decrease. We see this every day – even if the sun is blocked by clouds, the earth is heated.
    Simple lab experiments would prove that CO2 can’t heat a solid via thermal emission any more than nitrogen can. This could be as simple as a glass container of CO2 and another of N2 heated artificially above room temperature. Then two identical black bodies could be placed in identical locations to the two vessels. Then it would be a simple matter of watching the temperatures of the two black bodies. I contend that they would be identical. Global warmers would expect the one exposed to CO2 radiation to be higher. Switching the containers but not the black bodies would eliminate any skew in the setup. Lastly, removing the heating source would expose the decay of temperature of each gas. I contend they would track. GWers would expect the CO2 vessel to cool faster. It won’t.

    • @ John March 19, 2018 at 6:53 am
      Yes, this line of thinking/experimenting more directly gets at the very heart of the matter, regardless of what feedbacks are. Does CO2 do what we claim it does, yes or no? Show proof.

    • It’s not the CO2 that heats the earth, but rather the CO2’s supposed ability to further delay the release of absorbed solar energy back out into space via increasing the IR opacity of up IR through the atmosphere, i.e. reducing the amount of IR transmitted from the surface into space.

      • I know that is the hypothesis, but it still doesn’t hold ‘water’. There are probably a billion surface molecules for every CO2 molecule – and maybe more. When one CO2 photon hits earth, a billion photons leave. At some point, people need to step back and recognize economies of scale. As I’ve said before, try to heat a stove with flashlights. A thousand flashlights. The stove is far more efficient at radiating than the flashlights bombarding it with photons. And the earth is far more efficient at radiating than the photons from gh gases are at ‘warming’ the earth. MOST of earth’s radiation makes it to space. Only a small part of it is intercepted in gh gases. It is ludicrous to propose that those comparatively few molecules would actually have the ability to warm the air of the earth. And, if the air of the earth is warmed, the surface would also be warmed BY that warmed air, and then the earth’s radiation RATE would increase to offset it. No, CO2 is not some kind of a blanket – it is a red herring. It is not even INVOLVED in climate. How educated scientists in the various areas of thermal laws, gas laws and the like have come to believe that CO2 can have ANY affect on earth’s climate is indicative of how people can be made to believe something even if it violates physical laws.
        The temperature of earth is what it is due to gravity, and the compression of all gases of the atmosphere, which, for those familiar with the gas laws makes no discrimination about ANY specific gas – gas is gas, and it all works the same. If there were no gases on earth, it would radiate at a given temperature. If you place an atmosphere of ANY one gas, the temperature will increase because of the weight of that gas. It becomes compressed, and when you compress a gas, its temperature increases. If we could increase the mass of the atmosphere by adding enormous amounts of nitrogen, the average temperature of earth would increase. It’s that simple. But you won’t get any grant money for writing about that.

      • So I say to the scientific community, prove it. Prove that scattering IR, or absorbing and then emitting exactly the same amount of IR, or increasing IR opacity, causes the lower part of a laboratory atmosphere to heat up more than an atmosphere without CO2. Experimentally confirm the theory. We assume that’s how CO2 warming works but I always assumed that science tested its assumptions through actual experiments as opposed to calculations based on what the self-consistent theory is telling them. Maybe something is happening/not happening that the theory assumes must be happening? Shouldn’t the most basic of tests be done to confirm that the warming mechanism exists in the real world? It can’t be that we’re unable to test this mechanism, which essentially works on the molecular level, except that “we’re doing the experiment now– in earth’s atmosphere.”

      • John,
        I don’t think you understand the theory of how added CO2 *should* warm the surface by some amount. The key thing being ‘some amount’. It doesn’t even mean the climate must warm. It could just cool a little less, for example. It doesn’t even mean the net anthropogenic influence is warming either. This side of the debate, including Monckton himself, has accepted far, far too much, and it’s really hurt our ability to combat this.

      • John March 19, 2018 at 8:31 am
        Agree. Would any of us want to carry around an unequalized (that is, just coming down from on top) atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi on our backs? Do the math: not only would you not want to, but you couldn’t; it’d flatten you into a pancake. And we suppose the only thing this pressure does is, well, basically nothing?

      • John,
        Just argued the same position with an idiot who claims Venus is so hot due to greenhouse effect of co2 in its atmosphere! Never mind that its atmospheric pressure is over 90 times that of earth and 25% closer to the sun, its the co2. This was a published response in an astronomy publicaion to a question from a reader. I doubt my response to hers will see the light of day. But I have seen this comment regarding Venus multiple times from supposedly educated PHDs. Go figure.

      • John,
        “MOST of earth’s radiation makes it to space. Only a small part of it is intercepted in gh gases.”
        This is not correct. Only about 25% of the radiation from Earth’s surface passes directly into space. About 75% is absorbed by GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere.
        I admire your passion, but you need to study the actual science better. What you’re describing as to how GHGs further warm the Earth’s surface isn’t what the theory even claims.

      • further delay the release of absorbed solar energy back out into space
        =========
        the oceans and land surface both absorb energy and delay its release to specs. how is this any different than CO2?

      • Last time I checked, PV=nRT ie T=PV/nR. Heat energy that actually gets to the surface of a planet can be trapped by various atmospheric phenomina, water vapor, clouds, methane, etc. CO2, not so much, at least not on Earth. As for Venus which I noted, pressure and proximity to the Sun is still the answer to its temperature irrespective of its atmospheric composition.

      • MarkW March 19, 2018 at 8:46 am:
        “A sheet weighs a lot less than I do, but putting one over me at night makes me warmer.”
        Your point? That a sheet slows convective heat transport? Thank you for the illumination.

      • @JimG1 – once “fake science” is out there, it is very difficult to get rid of it. However, you can do so for most people by simple reference to Wikipedia (which seems to be an “authority” on everything for most of the “Illuminati”).
        I don’t have it handy, it’s been quite a while and three computers since I last posted the calculations – but all you have to do is cite the temperature measured at the 1 bar level by multiple Venus probes. That temperature is quite a bit higher than sea level “global” temperature on Earth, which is where you do have to explicate a (tiny) bit of elementary physics, the inverse square law, and a (tiny) bit of mathematics. Just about every bit of that higher temperature is then explained by the higher insolation at Venus orbit. In fact, so much is explained that I wonder whether even the lower sensitivity obtained by Lord Monckton begins to fail at extreme concentrations of GHGs – and is perhaps much lower.
        (Side thought – from the brief explanation of the Monckton Apparatus – I hereby dub it as such – I wonder whether it can be adjusted to emulate the conditions of Venus and Mars. The results could be very interesting…)

      • “RW March 19, 2018 at 8:51 am
        John,
        “MOST of earth’s radiation makes it to space. Only a small part of it is intercepted in gh gases.”
        This is not correct. Only about 25% of the radiation from Earth’s surface passes directly into space. About 75% is absorbed by GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere.
        I admire your passion, but you need to study the actual science better. What you’re describing as to how GHGs further warm the Earth’s surface isn’t what the theory even claims”

        Rather inventive claims there, rw.
        Especially, when you tell someone else they need to study the actual science; that’s an ad hominem logical fallacy.
        CO₂ absorbs a miniscule fraction of the infrared light frequencies. Even there, only one wavelength range is not overwhelmingly dominated by water vapor.
        CO₂ can not absorb the vast majority of infrared frequencies.
        Your simple invented claim about ghg’s, ignores water vapor’s swamping all atmospheric infrared interactions, even in the driest environments. It also ignores that H₂O is infrared active in all three physical states; liquid, solid and vapor.
        Indeed, CO₂ is the smallest of mice compared to H₂O’s blue whale.
        Given the baseless claims for massive temperature increases due to a miniscule increase in CO₂, Earth should have been baked by water vapor’s effects eons ago.

      • Show a change in daytime high to night time low that is less today than in the past! If a delay in heat loss can’t be shown for even a single day, how is any significant retention of heat possible on any longer scale? This is the simplest of the many stupid AGW precepts!

      • John,
        “If you place an atmosphere of ANY one gas, the temperature will increase because of the weight of that gas. It becomes compressed, and when you compress a gas, its temperature increases. If we could increase the mass of the atmosphere by adding enormous amounts of nitrogen, the average temperature of earth would increase. It’s that simple.”
        If it were that simple your refrigerator would not cool anything. In a refrigerator a gas within a loop of tubing is compressed past its triple point into a liquid that is hot due to the compression. Afterwards the liquid is allowed to return to its starting point where it expands back to its initial pressure. This expansion and the resultant phase change back to a gas cools the gas. If the compression and expansion I just described were all there was to your refrigerator the gas after expansion would be the same temperature as before its compression, or very close.
        If you switched on this refrigerator that had been sitting in your kitchen at room temperature, after running for a few minutes the compression part of the cycle would be hot while the expansion part of the cycle would be near ambient temperature. No part of this refrigerator would be cooler than your kitchen because this refrigerator is missing a vital function, and that function is also missing from your simple description of gas in an atmosphere being heated by compression due to the weight of the gas above it.
        The question is: What happens after compression raises the temperature? This question applies to both a refrigerator and a planet.
        In a normal refrigerator the hot liquid is passed through a radiator/heat exchanger that releases to the air in the room much of the heat of compression. Thus when the liquid inters the expansion part of the cycle, it is much cooler than it was right after compression. Expansion results in the gas being much cooler than it was before compression. The cooler temperature achieved corresponds to the amount of heat removed in the radiator/heat exchanger. Radiation matters.
        A planet radiates heat to space. All heat produced by compression eventually radiates to space. This is true for the lithosphere as well as the atmosphere. The lithosphere just takes a lot longer to cool.
        Each night the atmosphere over my house radiates heat to space at a rate sufficient to produce cooling of 3 degrees F. per hour when the sky is cloudless. Luckily for me, the sun heats the ground in the morning, which reheats the air at a typical rate of 5 degrees F. per hour when the sky is cloudless.
        The heat of compression in the atmosphere created when the world formed is long gone. All that matters now is the rate of heating each day compared to the rate of cooling each night, and the number of hours per 24 hour day of each. I know atmospheric water affects the rates of both heating and cooling. The big question is whether atmospheric CO2 effects the rates of heating and cooling.
        If CO2 influenced the rate of cooling at night to any significant degree, the change in the rate of cooling of dry air at night should be detectable. Isn’t there any place with very low humidity and almost no clouds where hourly temperatures have been measured for say, the last 50 years? Maybe Antarctica?
        SR

    • “You can’t heat a massive body with a trace gas” – turns out to be false in a very tangible sense. Consider three cases.
      Nº 1- you, on a cold day, with a down outer layer – (I have ice fished in Minnesota!) The jacket and pants weigh at most 1% (or the fluff inside, less than that!) of your mass. Yet it has the ability to retain 95% or more of the heat generated by your body is remarkable… while you might not be toasty per se, you are at least not freezing to death. RETENTION is the key to this example.
      Nº 2 – the limit(s) of the ecosphere – my definition … ecosphere … as the layer of Planet Dirt influenced by the radiation of the Sun, the effects of atmospheric blanketing, the dynamics of both climate generally and weather specifically, and of course the compounding and modulating effects of the Earth’s diverse biota. This layer is remarkably thin, actually. Heat transmission from rock only 20 meters down is essentially zero. Even if 20 m down the rock is well over boiling water temperature, it takes hydrothermal water vapor and liquid movement to comport the heat to the surface. Otherwise, the very low thermal transmission of rock insulates its outflow.
      OVER A YEAR? Well… of course there is substantial outflow. 31,557,600 seconds is quite a duration. But the RATE remains “milliwatts per m²” continuously.
      Nº 3 – wavelength conversion … in the 1970s and 1980s there was a huge push for solar water heating for houses in America. The idea was simple even if brilliant: put a bunch of heat-collecting black pipes in a box with a transparent window of glass above, not touching. The glass lets in the visible and IR, the black pipes absorb it efficiently, heating themselves and their entrained water, and the IR emitted by the pipe is so much longer (conversion!) in wavelength that it both doesn’t emit efficiently from the blackbody (pipe) surface, nor does the windowpane above transmit it to the outside. Indeed: for added efficiency a nearly invisible layer of long IR reflective coating was placed on that inner surface to further keep those pipes from losing their captured thermal energy.
      These are all tangible, first-person observable phenomena that in turn dismiss the idea that something thin would be ineffective at raising (or retaining) the temperature of something massive. Whatever your opinion … remember that it has to pass these sniff tests.
      Just saying.
      GoatGuy

      • Your No. 1 example is interesting which is not an example of the radiative theory at work.
        Why do Arctic explorers use Arctic weather gear consisting of layer upon layer of conventional materials eventually looking like this:
        http://community.berghaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/11.jpg
        Rather than using one piece of extremely light clothing made out of metal foil, eg., an adaption of the following:
        https://img.grouponcdn.com/stores/3xfU8ZhZgGcGokacgfMn4a2RXdT9/storespi2346619-1000×600/v1/c700x420.jpg
        Could it just be that in the real world, thermal blankets are not really that effective.

      • Richard, those foil sheets are dangerously mislabeled; people go out into extreme conditions without proper sleeping gear, thinking those sheets will suffice. Physics disagrees. I believe in Sweden (or somewhere in the Land of Tall Blondes) it is illegal to label them as “blankets”.
        But one obvious problem is that if the metal foil is touching you, it conducts heat away superbly. (There are other problems too.)
        Those things do work well as reflectors if you can keep them from tearing. So if you are sleeping next to a fire and have it stretched smoothly behind you, but not touching you, it will reflect those precious little photons back at you.

      • Which of those scenarios involve a trace ghg, goatguy?
        Especially, a trace ghg that is active in a tiny portion of infrared frequencies?
        Wrong infrared frequency? Then CO₂ is transparent to the infrared frequency.
        Which brings up the next question; exactly what is emitting the specific infrared frequencies CO₂ can absorb?

    • I am rather surprised that the moderators have allowed comments by “John” suggesting that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. There is. It can be measured in the laboratory, and is evident regardless of the pressure of the atmospheric mixture. The quantum mechanism is well understood, and is even touched upon in the head posting.
      But, as will be apparent to all, the head posting is not about whether CO2 causes warming. It does – get over it. It is about the one-half to nine-tenths of equilibrium sensitivity (current official best estimate two-thirds) that is caused not by direct forcings but by feedbacks. Maundering on and on about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not only contrary to this site’s policy (there are plenty of flat-Earth sites that will publish such stuff): in the context of the head posting it is simply off topic.

      • John has not said anything that violates our commenting policy. While we might disagree with what he said, he hasn’t invoked the usual name-calling like we get from the “slayers”. Disagreement is welcomed as long as it is presented in a civil manner and without thread-bombing.

      • Not sure I should dare question Monckton of Brenchley, but where and when has the greenhouse effect been measured directly in the laboratory? Not the radiative effect– we all agree on CO2 absorption– but the direct measurement of its effect on temperature? Because I have found no such definitive experiment.
        Not to take anything away from your work; I sincerely hope it will be the beginning of the end of all this nonsense. And you’re right that this is a distraction from your highly-significant topic. Still … the experiment that demonstrates the quantum mechanism, please?

      • Can you point out a modern measurement in laboratory specifically for a doubling of CO2? There is a reason why they can point only to the archaic Tyndall measurements, by the way. And ‘greenhouse effect’ is not the IR absorption/emission spectrum (which of course can be measured in laboratory), but the effect in reducing the heat conductivity through the mixture of gases, which indeed does change at CO2 doubling, it is calculable (quite easily) and NOT measurable in laboratory for the normal atmospheric composition change (unless they now have some mighty better instruments than the last time I checked), because it’s very tiny. And the change is dominated by molecular weights, not by the radiative details. At least at normal temperature and pressure. Argon is a non greenhouse gas. CO2 is a catastrophic greenhouse gas (according to climastrological religion, in fact is a very weak greenhouse gas). They have comparable ‘molecular’ weights. CO2 about 44 g/mol, Ar about 40 g/mol. At 300K, CO2 has a thermal conductivity of 16.8 mW/(m * K) and Argon, being lighter, 17.9. The difference is due of the different mass, not because Ar is non greenhouse. Source: https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal-conductivity-gases.htm There is somewhere a paper where they tried CO2 in laboratory against the Argon control, and failed to show the ‘greenhouse effect’ empirically. The same paper tried to show that the ‘greenhouse effect’ still exists by a one dimensional false model (using the ex falso, quodlibet method so dear to pseudo sciences). I guess they thought they can freely crap on experiment using a model. The same paper claimed that convection does not matter for climate, which is pure lunacy. I don’t have the link handy, but I think you could find it by some search on arxiv.

      • The greenhouse effect is
        proven only by simple
        laboratory, closed system
        experiments.
        The actual greenhouse effect
        on earth is likely to be different,
        net of unknown feedbacks
        not seen in any laboratory,
        especially the wild guess claims
        of strong positive feedbacks
        from water vapor, just assumed
        with no evidence whatsoever
        (a wild guess assumption
        that should be ignored).
        The only logical conclusions,
        based on the limited science,
        is an transient CO2 sensitivity
        ESTIMATED range,
        … from VERY LITTLE warming,
        (perhaps too small to measure
        with the large margin of error
        surface “measurements”,
        that are mainly wild guess infilling)
        … up to MILD, HARMLESS warming
        of + 1 degree in 125 to 200 years.
        (with +2 ppm to +3 ppm CO2 increase
        every year).
        More than +1 degree C.
        is going beyond
        an educated guess
        of the MAXIMUM
        expected warming.
        More than +1 degree C.
        is just a wild guess —
        even close estimates,
        such as +1.2 C.
        or +1.15 C.
        are examples of false precision.
        + 1 degree C. is close enough,
        based on how little we know.
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • John,
      Your lack of the basic understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is showing, and your physics limited. You are putting noise in this important point being made by MoB. Please keep out of comments with your lack of understanding.

      • Leonard, I think the gentlemen have a point. Where is the laboratory experiment isolating co2 concentration as it relates to its impact on temperature?
        My understanding, after having seen this posted at least 3 dozen times since I’ve been reading and commenting, is that I’ve yet to see a single person provide the evidence such an experiment had been performed. Would it then not be purely theoretical?
        I’m not scientifically literate but I do pay attention to the scientific tennis of sorts by the commenters. I’m trying to piece this puzzle together

      • @Leonard Weinstein March 19, 2018 at 3:11 pm
        Proof that the greenhouse effect acts like the theory predicts? Will water vapor in a column warm the bottom of the column more than one without H20? “Everyone knows.” No. Until they do the experiment, they only assume.
        And yes, this is a distraction so I’m trying to be brief and to keep out of it. But let’s not put our assumptions front-and-center and declare them immutable truths. I know what the theory predicts; I do not know that this prediction has ever been tested. If the experiment has been done, then let’s see it.

    • Your request for “proof” is just silly. Any engineer who designs heaters has to take into account the amount of CO2 and H2O in the flue gas using its temperature and emissivity to calculate the radiative heat transfer to the heated surfaces, as well as the forced and natural convection coefficients, or risk significant design errors. Hottel charts for this purpose were published in 1949 after hundreds of laboratory tests. To summarize, CO2 and H2O absorb and re-emit infrared radiation simply due to having a temperature whereas N2 and O2 are transparent and let infrared pass through no matter their temperature. When viewed from ground level towards outer space, CO2 and H2O give the sky a temperature as opposed to a transparent view of outer space at -270 C. So delta T^4 relations means the ground is going to be a little bit warmer to radiate the Sun’s daily heat output back to space when there are radiative gases in the atmosphere compared to not having them.

      • @ DMacKenzie March 19, 2018 at 6:06 pm
        Without CO2 and H20 the temperature of the atmosphere would be -270? So atmospheric pressure has no effect at all? Wouldn’t those N2 and O2 molecules be moving awfully slowly? Does that make sense?
        Not disagreeing with the engineering. The question is, how exactly does this work in the atmosphere?

      • Don132, NOT what was said. What was said was that if you point a sensor up at sky, you will find the sky has a temperature higher than deep space because of atmospheric IR absorption by GHG. (Actually, what is seen is the backradiation temperature from the emissive altitude. Since N O, and Ar are transparent to IR, in the absence of GHG the sensor would see the temperature of deep space. You need to beter learn basic GHG and GHE theory if you want your comments to be taken seriously here.

      • ristvan March 20, 2018 at 1:57 pm
        I’m not seeing where I even replied to you. Are you using a different name?
        GHGs absorbs radiation, yes, and emit exactly the same amount at exactly the same time, for all practical purposes. Apologize for my misunderstanding of what DMacKenzie said. Does said absorption translate into a surface warming greater than would happen in absence of GHG? Theory says yes. Theory has never been confirmed. Suggest that if you want your theory to be taken seriously you do the experiment to prove it.
        GHG theory is all theory and no proof. I don’t care if GHGs scatter or back-radiate or absorb or whatever: I would like someone somewhere to prove that this atmospheric scattering of LWIR results in the warming of a surface. This should have been done long ago. Yes, I understand absorption. No, I don’t assume that this automatically translates into a distortion of the lapse rate.
        What would your sensor say in the absence of GHGs? The temperature of deep space? And what does that say about the temperature of N and O at the surface? Because they are not registering on the sensor, does that mean they have no heat content? Does it mean they are at 255K (I highly doubt it)? If they are at 255K, then why don’t they register as “warm” on your sensor?

      • ristvan March 20, 2018 at 1:57 pm
        If you warm nitrogen up to 300K and then point an IR thermometer at it, what will its temperature register?

      • Don132 and ristvan: “If you warm nitrogen up to 300K and then point an IR thermometer at it, what will its temperature register?”
        You will measure the temperature of whatever is behind the nitrogen, of course! (:)) Nitrogen is transparent to the iR used in a thermometer. That is why we observe from space thermal IR with an Intensity appropriate for a blackbody near 290 degK in the atmospheric window where no GHGs absorb. And why we see a much lower intensity appropriate for about 210 K in the middle of the CO2 band (which only becomes somewhat transparent in the thinner stratosphere).

    • How would any lab experiment duplicate the atmosphere ?. It wouldn’t matter what gas you put into the container because the container itself will trap the heat like a real greenhouse. So you must provide a way for some of the heat to escape. But as soon as you do that then heat cant be trapped because the gas escapes..

      • @ Alan Tomalty March 19, 2018 at 10:34 pm
        Then don’t heat it. GHGs should take whatever heat is there and “back radiate” it. Measure this.

      • In response to Don132, one should be careful of the phrase “back-radiation”. The process, at the quantum level, is that when a photon in the principal absorption band of CO2, a couple of microns either side of 14.99 microns, interacts with a CO2 molecule, it induces a quantum oscillation in the bending vibrational mode of the CO2 molecule, whereupon the molecule acquires a dipole moment. Thus, the molecule is “switched on” like a tiny radiator”, and it then radiates heat in all directions. The major processes by which that heat reaches the surface are not radiative but non-radiative transports, notably subsidence and precipitation. The descending air packet or rainfall will be warmer than it would otherwise have been. Back-radiation, in the sense of radiation being directed downward till it reaches the surface by radiative transport, is not the major player here.

      • Mr Tomalty asks the fair question why a lab experiment would duplicate the atmosphere. Our experiments did not do that. They did something much simpler. They investigated the characteristics and performance of a typical feedback amplifier circuit, since the math is the same for all dynamical systems in which feedbacks operate. There is a substantial literature int he climate journals about the relevance to the climate of feedback theory as derived for electronic network analysis.

      • ” the math is the same for all dynamical systems in which feedbacks operate.” Unfortunately our climate system is dynamical chaotic system, so your math is not applicable.

      • In reply to Monckton of Brenchley March 25, 2018 at 11:09 am
        I know there are several ways of describing what CO2 does, and what you’ve described is, so far as I understand, the most current description. What I do not know is that any experiment has ever demonstrated that the radiative properties of CO2 warm an atmosphere as predicted.
        It seems, for example, that we should be able to measure (in a laboratory, perhaps) whether a descending air parcel warmed by CO2 will indeed be warmer than otherwise, or if this warm air parcel will immediately rise and cool– or in any case, just what is happening? Experiment, please?

    • In response to “vboring”, no small part of the reason why it took so long for us or anyone to check the official mathematics of global warming is the fierce treatment meted out to those who dare to question the totalitarian Party Line on this subject. When we published a previous paper that first outlined the possibility of this result, one of my distinguished co-authors was subjected to a vicious hate campaign not only in leading formerly scientific journals such as “Science”, “Nature” and “Scientific” American, but also on the front pages of such totalitarian papers as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. This campaign of hate continues. I had to intervene with the chief trustee to rein in the head of the institution where my co-author works, who had himself libeled his employee in an academic journal.
      And, since the early drafts of our paper began to circulate among reviewers in the scientific community, the institution where one of our co-authors belongs has suspended him for the rest of this academic year by resurrecting a trumped-up charge against him that the police had twice examined and had determined to have been insufficiently evidenced.
      Look at the CreepyMedia entries of most of the co-authors. The savage hate-speech we have all had to endure has made our researches difficult and painful. My co-authors deserve considerable credit for their courage in having nonetheless persevered, at great cost to their reputations.

      • sad to hear this is the way people with a different view are treated this way by the academic establishment in this day and age. glad to hear a quiet word has helped in one instance.

    • vboring- lots of people checked the basic maths and it is correct. It is Mr. Monckton
      who is wrong. There is no justification for replacing the delta T’s in his equation for
      f with absolute temperatures. And the suggestion that an emission temperature on
      its own would cause additional feedback is nonsense. Imagine the case where there
      was no atmosphere – then the emission temperature is fixed by simple conservation of energy and yet the argument presented above would suggest that even in this case the
      emission temperature would rise by an additional 20 degrees meaning that the earth would radiate more energy than it received.

      • Geronimo
        Imagine the case where there was no atmosphere.
        Such a case is not relevant to Monckton’s argument; CM states:
        “If conditions precedent to a feedback response are present in a dynamical system, then any input to that system, whether or not it is amplified, will induce a feedback response.”
        If there is no atmosphere, then “conditions precedent to a feedback” are not present either. No atmosphere, no feedback.
        You could just as well say “imagine that there was no universe, no space and no time”.
        Or alternatively, return to your analogy of an airless globe, but this time spray painted with a layer of CO2 molecules on its surface. In this case an equally nonsensical feedback increase in temperature would be predicted from the CO2 radiative forcing, resulting in the same impossibility of more radiation emitted than received.
        This line of reasoning simply reinforces Monckton’s argument of the equivalence of the emission temperature and the incremental temperature from CO2 forcing.

      • Phil,
        you might be right that the lack of an atmosphere is not relevant but the point still
        remains that the emission temperature by itself will not cause any feedback. The
        first equation describes what happens when you perturb a system from its equilibrium
        and that equilibrium is described by the emission temperature so when the temperature
        equals the emission temperature the system is at a fixed point and will not change.

      • Germinio wrote
        “There is no justification for replacing the delta T’s in his equation for
        f with absolute temperatures. And the suggestion that an emission temperature on
        its own would cause additional feedback is nonsense”
        Regarding your 1st comment
        Replacing delta Temps with actual temps doesn’t make any difference as long as the actual temps are both derived from their individual references. As for your 2nd complaint. there have been times in the earths history when CO2 has been many times the level now. Even if the atmosphere had no CO2 there would still be a H2O forcing feedback . The role of evaporation from the oceans requires that there be a feedback. The reason that the water vapour by itself doesn’t cause runaway global warming is that the net ( latent heat released minus latent heat that escapes to outer space after precipitation) latent heat released upon precipitation from the atmosphere does not exceed the temperature drop in the atmosphere when the ocean water originally evaporated Water on earth is neither created nor destroyed. That is why the Goddard Institute couldn’t prove after 20 years of satellite data any more H2O in the atmosphere at the end of 20 years than at the beginning. So Hansen shut down the H2O measuring division in 2009. Since then there are no more measurements of water vapour in the atmosphere, we can only assume that the level is the same as it always has been or else the oceans would be decreasing not increasing as in reality. Don’t forget that all rivers eventually deposit their water into the oceans. No one has shown that water vapour in the atmosphere has increased. So there is feedback whether or not CO2 is present in the atmosphere. Mr. Monckton has demonstrated the CAGW basic flaw of assuming no feedbacks before significant man made CO2. As for your 3rd complaint of no atmosphere then we would all be dead. Germinio If you don’t have the math background nor the physics background to argue sensibly you are just wasting everyone’s time. At least Nick Stokes has the chemistry background.

      • Geronimo
        equilibrium is described by the emission temperature so when the temperature
        equals the emission temperature the system is at a fixed point and will not change.

        If Monckton is correct then it would mean that in our atmosphere there is not and can never be equilibrium and thus no equilibrium temperature either. That if the dynamics of the system predispose it to feedbacks, then the system will be endlessly chasing its tail and never arrive at rest or equilibrium.
        I can’t judge if he is wrong or right here. But it seems to point to an even deeper question here – have we stumbled upon a proof that, if the “feedback landscape” make the system chaotic-nonlinear, then there can be no talk of equilibrium or an equilibrium temperature. That its temperature must endlessly change. “Climate change” is a continuous and mathematically inescapable property/behaviour of the system.
        This statement itself is a tautology – if it’s chaotic then it won’t come to rest. But it is one not without meaning – profound meaning. Like Feigenbaum, Monckton might have found a very simple mathematical key to chaos (in Feigenbaum’s case the threshold for system bifurcation and doubling).
        To me it makes sense that climate equilibrium can never exist. “O for the wings of a dove – that I may be forever at rest” the system may forlornly cry, but such equilibrium might only come at Steven Hawking’s heat death of the universe. The climate is a dissipative open system with continuous flow through of heat from wobbling equator to poles while spinning at the same time, driving ocean currents through a complex sea floor topography that is itself slowly changing. The chances for equilibrium in such a 4-dimensionally dynamic system must be those of a snowball in hell.
        So if – I emphasise if – Monckton is right here then what he will have done is destroyed the concept of an equilibrium temperature in the climate. That in the presence of climate feedbacks – which is ultimately what this entire discussion and issue is about – give the system the properties of (a) friction, coming from negative feedbacks, and (b) excitability, coming from positive feedbacks (and the system is open and dissipative) then there can be no equilibrium, ever, and therefore no such thing as an equilibrium temperature.

      • Of course the earth temperature system can never be in equilibrium. The earth has been subject to many nuclear winters caused by both super volcanos and large asteroid impacts. No one can deny those facts. The nuclear winters then cause an ice age which has happened many times. There are only 2 causes to get out of an ice age. Either the sun increases in intensity or else there is a natural feedback of temperature increase. It cant be the sun or else once the sun slowed down enough in intensity the ice age would not then disappear. If the sun wouldnt slow down in intensity, then there would be runaway global warming caused by the sun and that hasnt happened in the last 3.8 billion years or else all of life would have been wiped out. If you are going to argue that the sun’s increased intensity only lasts exactly the length of time to get rid of the ice age then there would have to be some magical connection between the two. So after proving that it is the 2nd cause we must then conclude there there is a tiny non equilibrium positive increase in temperature that gets us out of every ice age. This has been happening for 4.6 billion years. It should be possible to calculate what that exact increase in temperature forcing is based on the number of ice ages and the length of time that it took to get out of the ice age.
        Even when CO2 levels were as high as 8000ppm 500 million years ago , there was still more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. When CO2 levels dropped to 400ppm 300 million years ago that didnt change the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. There is always the same amount of water on the globe. If there was less H2O in the atmosphere when there was little CO2 then there would have been no way to have a small increase temperature forcing and no way to get out of each ice age. Therefore H2O has to be the major cause of our moderate livable temperatures. However the tiny increase in temperature forcing that is required for the earth to get out of ice ages is suppled by the CO2. There is no connection between CO2 and H20. Therefore since H20 has at least as much IR absorbing capability as CO2 then the determining factor has to be which one is more prevalent. Looking at feedbacks is the wrong way to look at things. All you have to do is look at the amount of IR temperature forcing that occurs. Sure CO2 will have some minor affect on temperature forcing but it cant be any more than about 0.8K . It is the clouds that provided the initial feedback along with the H2O that give the earth 31.4K and the CO2 that provides the extra 0.8K to get us to 32.2.Add that to the earth emission temperature of 255.4K and you have 287.6 K. This is the actual temp in 1850 of 287.6K Since the CO2 levels were 280ppm in 1850 and we have increased to 408ppm by 2018, then 128ppm of CO2 have increased the globes temperature by about 1.2K in 167 years. This is not alarming and shows that with the increase of CO2 from 1950 to 2017 the earth has not accelerated the temperature increase. The globe always has a natural temperature increase with low CO2 levels. Massive amounts of CO2 increase will have negligible increase of temperature. IF THIS WASNT TRUE THEN WE WOULD HAVE SEEN MASSIVE INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE 500 MILLION YEARS AGO WHEN CO2 LEVELS WERE AS HIGH AS 8000PPM. So in the end yes CO2 has some effect on the long range slight temperature forcing that the earth must have to get out of ice ages but that affect is dwarfed by clouds and H2O. So I contend that Christopher’s Moncton’s graph of clouds and H2O being 23.4K of forcing and CO2 being 8.0 K and furtherH2) forcing caused by the CO2 of 0.7K is wrong.
        My take on it is that clouds and H2O account for 31.4 K and the CO2 accounts for 0.8K Since clouds and H2O wont change over the eons of time it is actually the small amounts of CO2 which causes the
        disequilibrium. So what an irony; the alarmists argument that CO causes global warming is RIGHT but the dis irony is that amoiunt is so puny that it is laughable.

      • Geronimo, whether the delta T is C or K makes no difference except when applying Planck, in which case it must be K. Your comment makes no sense to me with a pretty strong math background. I support Monckton here, even though have quibbles with other of his maths, see bof example my Climate Etc post on is irreducibly simple equation paper. It was further reducable, and made simpler, to the point I coild program it on an HP12C calculator.

      • In response to Germinio, the emission temperature would be 255 K in the absence of any non-condensing greenhouse gases and in the absence of any feedback. However, feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback are present in the climate. Therefore, the emission temperature is not an equilibrium temperature but a reference temperature. Feedbacks, denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of that reference temperature, will induce a feedback response, i.e., an enhancement of the emission temperature. But climatology at present takes no account of that feedback response, and imagines that it somehow forms part of the large feedback response to the small warming of about 8 K from adding the non-condensing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere,

  11. RE oil companies, Confucius say –
    Person who straddle sewage ditch first to fall in.

    • I should have said the latent heat feedback is slightly higher than the temperature lost to the atmosphere from evaporation. So that is the crux of the matter. The way the earth evolved was that its magnetic core enabled a magnetic shield to block enough of the suns electromagnetic storms so that the oceans water would not boil away as happened on Mars. BUT due to a very slow water vapour feedback, the earth will have a natural tendency to warm ever so slighty through the ages. What stops this continual very slow warming? Asteroids.
      If you look at any moon or planet without an atmosphere, you will see many pock marks. All caused by asteroids of differing sizes. Whenever one significant asteroid hits earth it causes a nuclear winter which blocks a lot of the suns rays and thus we have a glacial period. Sure the sun may have some slight effect on long range climate but it actually it is the continual slow H2O feedback warming and then sudden long lasting glacier cooling that has been the earths climate from the beginning. Nothing will stop these 2 processes until the sun doesn’t shine any more. You will have drastic cooling in the earths climate history but not drastic warming. The little extra CO2 that man has put in the atmosphere since 1950 from 310 to 408ppm today is of negligible consequence. It would be laughable how this has got all our knickers into a knot except that mankind has spent over a billion $ on a problem that doesn’t exist.
      Christopher I think you have to clean up your submission when you talk about feedbacks. Before 1850 there was only 280 ppm CO2 But you say there was a large natural feedback . What would cause this natural feedback which is the blue bar in your graph. ? Are you talking about clouds?

      • In response to Mr Tomalty, the blue bar in panel (b) of the graph apportioning the 32 K difference between the 255.4 K emission temperature and the 287.6 K natural temperature as it stood in 1850 is the feedback response to the presence of the 255.4 K emission temperature. One cannot logically argue that an emission temperature of 255.4 K induces no feedback at all and then that an additional 8 K of directly forced warming from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases somehow induces a massive feedback of 24 K. A temperature feedback is a feedback driven by the presence of a temperature. The feedback is not concerned with whether the temperature is the emission temperature or the 8 K enhancement of it from the greenhouse gases. It is concerned only with the magnitude of the temperature to which it is responding.

      • Christopher Monckton said
        “A temperature feedback is a feedback driven by the presence of a temperature. ”
        Please do not argue that in court. You will be laughed out of court. A temperature is not a real phenomenon.
        A temperature is only a measurement. A measurement cannot affect another measurement. Temperature is not something that can create a feedback. For the temperature to go up the amount of total energy of the molecular motion of the gases must go up. The only way that would happen is either an increase in the incoming solar radiation that gets absorbed by clouds or an increase in IR by greenhouse gas absorption. Well there is a 3rd way . You would have to have a huge heat source pointed to the atmosphere. Heat cannot be created out of nothing. The 2 most important greenhouse gases are H2O and then CO2. When you measure the temperature of a gas you are not measuring the amount of heat. You are measuring the average kinetic energy of the gaseous molecules. The amount of heat is the total energy of molecular energy of the gas. Internal energy is directly proportional to temperature. Heat can either be sensible or latent.
        Heat transfers by conduction or thermal radiation, Convection is really only a form of conduction but it is conduction within fluids and gases. Conduction on the other hand only takes place in solids. The temperature will never be exactly the same anywhere even in a system at equilibrium.
        Enthalpy on the other hand cannot be directly measured. Enthalpy is a systems internal energy plus the product of its pressure and volume. What climate scientists really need to do is calculate the earth’s entropy. Only the difference in enthalpy can be calculated.

      • Mr Tomalty says a temperature is not a real thing. He should take that point up not with me but with official climatology, which holds that a temperature feedback is denominated in Watts per squre meter per – wait for it – per Kelvin of the temperature that induced it.

  12. This is a liberal judge in a liberal California court. I very much doubt science will be considered at all in his judgement for the plaintiffs.

    • “Nechit” should read a little philosophy, starting with the short and amiable tract by Francis M. Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica. There it will learn that “There is only one reason for doing anything: all the rest are reasons for doing nothing.” No small part of the effort to stop our researches on the part of the thermo-totalitarians has been the relentless message that there’s really no point in doing anything to stand against them and their beliefs. Nechit is free to do nothing if it wishes, but my team has chosen to put forward what we consider to be proper science, revealing and quantifying the fundamental error of physics made by official climatology. If we are wrong, at least we bothered to try. If we are right, then the tens of millions who die every year because international global warming policy denies them affordable, reliable, continuous, base-load, coal-fired electricity will in future be spared and allowed to enjoy the benefits of electricity that we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted. To us, therefore, the do-nothing option is the genocidal option.

      • If this judge is a true liberal/leftist, then none of this matters. Modern liberalism/leftism has become a religion and for the true believers, blasphemy is not tolerated. This is especially the case with the AGW component of the religion. This case will be decided on how much of a liberal/leftist the judge is. If he is just “left leaning”, then justice may indeed prevail, but if he is a full blown liberal/leftist, then his religion will prevail. It’s as simple as that.

      • I very much admire the way you stay calm and sincerely respond to comments.
        I’m believe that, for the most part, I understand your argument and my heart is racing with excitement. I know there are some commentators on this blog who understand the maths well enough to comment critically. Hopefully they are taking the time to be thoughtful. Meanwhile, I am eccstatic.

      • whereas the biologists didn’t get gender.fluidity installed as part of the curriculum…
        whereas the adam smith & von mises guys didn’t get quantitative easement established as a cure for ailments…
        whereas the libertarians just don’t do ‘rule’…
        it wasn’t aristotle who established that many wrongs establishes a precedent…
        so my cup of optimism is way less than half empty when you try to repel stupid with reason.
        it doesn’t work.
        you might ask yourself what is the argument that gets stupid into the curriculum and steal that trick.
        it does seem to work all the time.

    • “This is a liberal judge in a liberal California court. I very much doubt science will be considered at all in his judgement for the plaintiffs.”
      I certainly agree. To assume that this case will be decided by this judge in a rational way is pure folly & wishful thinking.
      Alsup’s anti oil decision will ultimately will go to the US Supreme Court where it will be overturned.

      • I’m not sure one should underestimate Judge Alsup. I think he will give us a fair hearing. But, as Wally points out, if his finding is inconsistent with the evidence put before him, then the oil companies will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, which will not stand any nonsense.

  13. Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, my warmest greetings! When I sat down to enjoy my delicious morning cup of coffee, I was absolutely delighted to see your name stretching majestically across the screen. I shall dig in.

    • If you read carefully, right below the headline, even Monckton has by now accepted that he is not a Lord. How long will it take you?

      • Nice one Max 🙂 I had also missed that he isn’t a Lord, I was too busy trying to understand, you know, the SUBSTANCE of the argument. Silly me!

      • One thing I love about the chap is his celebration of language. He could pump pure piffle and it would still be a treat to take in. He seems like the kind of fellow with whom it would be fun to enjoy a spot of tea.

      • As I recall, Lord Melbury didn’t refer to himself as “Lord Melbury’. He called himself Melbury.
        Melbury: I beg your pardon?
        Basil: Could you put both your names please?
        Melbury: I only use one.
        Basil: You don’t have a first name?
        Melbury: No. I am Lord Melbury, so I simply sign “Melbury.”

    • It’s well worth digging in! I had tried to follow the feedback analysis in earlier similar posts, and had some trouble, even with a background in math and electrical engineering (I’m not a professional electrical engineer, just a hobbyist) along with some digital signal processing experience involving feedback loops. Even with all that it was still challenging for me to follow the argument, until I saw this part:
      “and they have assumed a very large feedback only because they are trying to explain the large but fictitious feedback fraction consequent upon their erroneous assumption that emission temperature of 255 K somehow induces no feedback response at all, while the next 8 K of warming magically induces a 24 K feedback response”
      NOW I get it! Brilliant, Lord Monckton 🙂 Hope the judge gets it too!

  14. Thank you for this very significant post.
    Would like to add that in Andronova 2001 she had written that more than half of her empirical ECS could be explained by solar variability.
    Another interesting paper is Gregory 2002 who showed that the assumed symmetry of the ECS distribution (by Charney and the IPCC) does not exist. He and Aldrin 2012 have described distributions that are skewed right.
    Anyway, it seems from Knutti 2017 and a Nature editorial that climate science is ready to give up on ECS because of the uncertainty issue and move on to the more reliable proportionality between temperature and cumulative emissions (CCR or TCRE). See Matthews 2009.
    I described this proposed change of direction in a recent work and added my evaluation of the statistics in the computation of CCR/TCRE.
    Please see:
    https://ssrn.com/abstract=3142525

    • Chaamjamal raises the interesting point that the climate establishment is about to move the goalposts yet again, this time by abandoning the concept of climate sensitivity. However, if we are right there will be too little warming to matter, whether it is quantified as now or as proposed by Knutti and Nature.

  15. If, in some of these laboratory tests, you can’t disclose the laboratory or country, isn’t that like telling someone they can’t see the code of a simulation? We have to take your word for the results. I would want to see the reputation of said laboratory and what potential conflicts of interest there may be. Additionally, and more importantly, will the exact tests and results be released? Can the court order you to disclose that information?
    I would be much more persuaded if there were more than one lab to produce the results you wish to convince a judge of. Perhaps I have misunderstood something?

    • Lord MoB:

      The laboratory also kindly confirmed that we had represented its results fairly in our paper and had drawn justifiable conclusions from them. Furthermore, much to our pleasure, it promoted the scientist who had assisted us. He wrote us a charming letter to say that he had not allowed, and would not allow, politics to intrude into the work he had carried out for us.

      Clearly by not allowing you to fully identify the laboratory and obviously not allowing for complete reproduction and dissemination of their report, they have allowed politics to intrude on their work. I managed a large independent laboratory for many years and it was our policy (and that of virtually all such labs) that clients had an iron clad right to use our reports as they saw fit as long as they provided them in their entirety. Doing otherwise, in my view, indicates an unwillingness to stand behind your work. This should be even more important in a government national lab. I get that in “climate science” any appearance of support for the skeptical side will bring down the wrath of the faithful. Sad that this has apparently managed to compromise some of the most important ethical standards of traditional scientific practice.
      We’re all accustomed to advertisers use of unnamed “laboratory tests show our product is better than anyone else’s” hype. But if they don’t name the lab and refuse to supply the full documentation, it’s safe to assume it’s nonsense. I would say that the lab you used has acted badly and should be challenged on their position.

      • Rick:
        I suspect that is the difference between “independent laboratory” and a “government laboratory”.
        Ideally, government labs should be meticulous in method and independence; today’s governments have flooded a number of alleged science departments with politically aligned researchers.
        Worst case scenario is operative in government labs, many of those government researchers fear breaching consensus greatest of all.

      • ATheoK: At least in the US, Federal Labs often compete with independent labs and charge commercial customers significantly higher fees. Many consider government labs to be more credible than any other labs. e.g. LP Smartsiding Tested by NASA.

        It is, of course, nonsense. There are dozens of commercial independent labs that could have done more credible siding impact tests than NASA did.
        One would hate to think that NIST -The US keeper of calibration standards, would have any employees who would be the least bit concerned with political pressure. But then there is the expression “good enough for government work”.

      • I have great sympathy with the government laboratory. Its research was impeccable, but it was terrified to have its name associated with the destruction of the global-warming theory subscribed to by its paymasters in politics. We are able to append the lab’s report to our paper (albeit that only the editor gets told which lab it was), so people will see exactly what the lab did, even down to the list of components and circuit diagram for the test rig.

  16. “There is little change that some feedbacks had not fully acted.”
    Should that be chance?

  17. These suits have are on shaky ground and I don’t think will go far. The ‘People of California’ have continued to use these products despite their ‘knowledge’ or belief in global warming. It can also be proved that the benifs have far exceeded the risks. But I’m glad it’s happening. It will be interesting and informative. I can hear the attorney general now.

    • Going a step further, “The ‘People of California’” via their governments continue to issue building permits and business licences to filling stations, continue to license and permit the 19 or so refineries in California to operate and refine around 2 million barrels/day of oil, continue to license and permit the various oil fields in California to pump and ship crude, continue to allow super tankers to dock and offload oil at Long Beach and elsewhere. And continue to receive considerable tax revenue from all these activities. The biggest stench in the air over California these days is not from hydrocarbon combustion, it’s hypocrisy.

    • Just video the complainants coming to court in their fossil fueled vehicles and bring it in as evidence they do not take their own complaint seriously

      • how do they heat their homes in Chicago in the winter time. It is too expensive to heat with electricity. Even in Quebec where the price of electricity is the lowest in Canada , it is still cheaper to heat with natural gas.

  18. “When the laboratory reported, I sent it a copy of our draft paper, in which the lab results were mentioned. The laboratory panicked and said we were not allowed to use its report.”
    Why am I not surprised but still disgusted. Can this be used as evidence that suppression of evidence is in fact an ongoing problem? Would it make any difference in this particular trial?

    • Tom in Florida is right to be outraged at the news that the laboratory, on discovering that its results demonstrated that catastrophic global warming is nonsense, would not allow its name to be used. But do not blame the laboratory: instead, blame the then true-believing government that expects the totalitarian Party Line on climate to be ruthlessly and profitably enforced.
      We are proposing to deal with this and other irregularities decisively by reporting in due course to the fraud authorities in relevant jurisdictions. Our result, if it survives scrutiny, will at last reassure them that, when they move against the actually small number of evil and fraudulent scientists who have been driving the global warming scare, they will not be putting the planet at risk.
      For instance, two of my co-authors have been savagely victimized by their institutions as a direct result of their participation in this project. A detailed and factual brief is being prepared for the relevant national and international fraud authorities, and we shall be making it plain to those authorities that they will be subjected to judicial review in open court if they fail to carry out their duty of investigating what appears to us, as to Professor Niklas Moerner, as the most substantial fraud in human history.
      Does this mean that every true-believer in the New Religion is a fraudster? No. But we have identified a small number of individuals and institutions whose actions have been demonstrably fraudulent. They will in due course face prosecution,

      • Lord M o B: As the manager of a large independent lab for many years, I consider this government lab’s action to be unethical and cowardly. They have clearly let politics interfere with their duty to objectively report results of their work and stand behind them. If you paid for their services, I think you are entitled to a complete report that should be your property to do with as you see fit. The only caveat (which, by the way, is included universally in some form by nearly all independent labs) is the the report be reproduced in its entirety and any use in advertising be reviewed for misrepresentations.

  19. Interesting modeling, yielding results similar to the estimates of Lindzen and Choi as far as ECS. It does seem reasonable that the Pre-industrial temperature was operating under the same physical constraints as post-1850 temperatures, and coming up with a rationale why that is not the case will straIn the ingenuity of the green blob.

    • No. Revised Lindzen and Choi had ECS below 1 (0.8ish IIRC). Negative, 1.2 here is a slight positive over the posited ‘no feedbacks’ sensativity to doubling CO2 of 1.1 posited here.

      • Both Mr Halla and Mr Istvan are correct. Lindzen & Choi found feedbacks to be net-negative though we find them very slightly net-positive. But our results are indeed in the same ballpark as those of Lindzen & Choi. They found Charney sensitivity to be 0.7 K; we find it to be 1.2 K. Compare either of those values with the 3.3 K mid-range estimate of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models and you can see we are in the same ballpark.

      • Yes, the net feedback must be positive, otherwise, the surface temperature would only be 255K. As I’ve said before, feedback only applies to the linearity, which is the domain of Joules and each W/m^2 from the Sun results in 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions which is comprised of 1 W/m^2 from the forcing and 0.6 W/m^2 from the ‘feedback’. The 600 mw/m^2 of feedback is the fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere and returned to the surface AT A LATER TIME. The temporal difference between the forcing power and the feedback power is crucial to understand and completely unappreciated by the consensus. To offset each W/m^2 of incident energy, about an additional 600 mw/m^2 is emitted from the atmosphere into space to be added to the 400 mw/m^2 of the 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions that are passed through the atmosphere without being absorbed.

  20. Court cases are won by understandable stories, convincingly told. The success of global warming movement has not been built on its scientific underpinning, but on its ability to tell an understandable story in a convincing way (think about the simple pictorial graphs in textbooks). This paper may be a brilliant conclusion, and elegantly written to convince the peers of the authors, but if the conclusions can not be reduced to a “story” that everyone can understand, then it is unlikely to have a fundamental impact on the public debate. My suggestion: consult with some marketing professionals to develop a simple story, an “elevator speech”, a grade school text book illustration, a political cartoon critique, all based on the foundation of good science and math. Being right, being respected by peers, are important goals, but influencing the public debate by telling a convincing story would be a bigger gift to posterity.

    • Mr Krause makes a good point and a bad one. The bad point is to underestimate the willingness of the judge in this case, who has a degree in engineering and is known for the enthusiasm with which he tackles scientific points of dispute, to get to grips with this case rather than simply toeing the totalitarian Party Line.
      The good point is that we need to be able to describe our result in as few words as possible, so that the general public can understand it. If Mr Krause and anyone else who is interested would write to me at monckton[at]mail.com, I shall send a copy of our one-pager.
      This blog, however, caters not so much for the general public as for those who want to get to grips with the scientific arguments. The head posting sets out the whole argument in a form that is readily accessible to anyone with high-school math and sufficient determination.

      • Please see my post above about your comment about heat feedback. My response is extremely important to your argument.

    • Raymond Krause … at 7:50 am
      …The success of global warming movement has not been built on its scientific underpinning, but on its ability to tell an understandable story in a convincing way…

      Bingo!
      From my file of tag lines and smart remarks:
      Never underestimate the power of carefully worded nonsense.

    • The real problem is that at it’s fundamental basis, the CAGW adherents only have correlation to fall back on. There is no mathematical or empirical underpinning they can use for proof. In essence they have hearsay and that is what I would argue. I suspect the studies they will use to show global warming are mostly on the so-called effects should there be warming, not really proof of how the warming is happening. Again not relevant as proof of fossil fuels causing it. Also make sure the judge must rule on using the fake Global Temperaure as a measure of anything. Temperature data used for this NEVER uses errors as they should be used and the do not measure HEAT at the different locations so you have a common base for calculations.

  21. Does anyone have an updated version of the graph that plots the published work showing sensitivity results (left axis) over time (bottom axis)?

  22. Does any one have the full list of questions judge Alsup asked?
    Also, if BP is good enough to foot the legal fees, wouldn’t it be good to let this case go through, considering that it is presided over by a judge capable of technical skill?
    the outcome would then be precedent for future use?

    • The Court invites counsel to conduct a two-part tutorial on the subject of global warming and climate change:
      (1) The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historical cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes, and global warming. Each side will have sixty minutes. A horizontal timeline of major advances (and setbacks) would be welcomed.
      (2) The second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding. Each side will again have another sixty minutes.
      Specifically, the court ruled:
      For the tutorial on MARCH 21, please include the following subjects:
      1. What caused the various ice ages (including the “little ice age” and prolonged cool periods) and what caused the ice to melt? When they melted, by how much did sea level rise?
      2. What is the molecular difference by which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not?
      3. What is the mechanism by which infrared radiation trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere is turned into heat and finds its way back to sea level?
      4. Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect any sunlight back into space such that the reflected sunlight never penetrates the atmosphere in the first place?
      5. Apart from CO2, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels? How, if at all, does this collective heat contribute to warming of the atmosphere?
      6. In grade school, many of us were taught that humans exhale CO2 but plants absorb CO2 and return oxygen to the air (keeping the carbon for fiber). Is this still valid? If so, why hasn’t plant life turned the higher levels of CO2 back into oxygen? Given the increase in human population on Earth (four billion), is human respiration a contributing factor to the buildup of CO2?
      7. What are the main sources of CO2 that account for the incremental buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?
      8. What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?
      9. Please bring to the tutorial a copy of the full GCC presentation referred to in Paragraph 67 of the Oakland complaint as well as the full GCSCT memo referred to in Paragraph 68.

  23. I still say that the easiest way to check the IPCC ‘feedback’ hypothesis is to examine the climates transient response to any major event whose driving force can be estimated reasonably accurately.
    Pinatubo would be ideal. The albedo increase should be multiplied by the same feedback that the IPCC models allege.
    If that results in a snowball earth that never happened, then case proved.
    We have all the data to examine the earth’s response to a non CO2 driver right there.
    Remembering that the feedback hypothesis applies to ALL drivers that modulate temperature, not just CO2…

    • The amount of stuff lifted into the atmosphere by Pinatubo is just an estimate.
      The distribution of particle sizes and compositions is also a guess.
      The impact of dust on aerosols on clouds and cloud formations is still being studied and argued over.
      This isn’t the simple experiment that you think it is.

    • Leo, good points. It seems after a significant volcanic event the temperature depresses and when the air is clear again, the temperature recovers, overshoots a bit and then falls back to trend. Possibly a short term rapid heating or cooling event gives an over-surge of feedback a la Hookes Law.

    • In response to Mr Smith, there are various ways of attempting to derive the correct feedback fraction. However, our method has the merit of great simplicity and it depends not upon contentious volcanic outputs but upon premises that are all, or very nearly all, agreed by the “mainstream” scientists whom we are attempting to persuade that the game is up.
      There is also considerable merit in exposing a sufficiently serious error in the official calculations. In the end, if we are right that the error is an error and is as large as we say, official climatology will not be able to adhere to anything like its current estimates of equilibrium sensitivity without committing fraud.

      • You have in previous posts said that the rate of warming had slowed down doesnt this simple statement contradict your statement in this post that co2 causes warming so get over it. And doesnt this post disregard the prevarication of bert bolin maurice strong who hijacked the presumption that Co2 caused global for purely ideological reasons to enforce what Christiana Figueres said was a new economic structure for the planet? And how does this post co relate to historical proxy data that indicates temperature has been higher with co2 lower and vice versa. It seems to me that more or less you are validating what `scientists say’ want us to believe that Co2 does cause warming just not so much?

      • In response to Mr Wells, the fact that the rate of warming had slowed down until the recent el Nino does not in any way vitiate our result, which concerns itself with what the feedback fraction should be.
        If our result is correct, the plans by the likes of Edenhofer and Figueres to enforce the end of capitalism will be thwarted.

  24. One can appreciate the interest in a model of climate, since that is the basis for the hysteria over Global Warming/Climate Change. But is it a mistake to presume that the prediction, whether it be 1.5K or 4 K, has any relation to reality. I find Pat Frank’s critique more compelling in that it shows the demonstrable error in the annual prediction of water vapor/cloud cover grows to such a point that nothing can be discerned in the noise after even a decade, let alone a century. But again, it does not address the fundamental error, which is the presumption that CO2 is the driving force. The absorption and scattering of radiation in our atmosphere is dominated by H20. And the variability of H2O is enormous, and cannot be modeled. CO2 affects only a small fraction of the spectrum, and it has already pretty much maxed out in the absorption of radiation in its niche. Further, the environment uses CO2 to sustain life, and these processes serve as dynamic sinks that consume and store the substance. Water, on the other hand, is what characterizes the earth, and it is available to atmosphere in vast quantity, given only a little heat from the morning sun.

      • Mr Stewart thinks it is a mistake to presume that any prediction, whether it be climatology’s 4 K global warming per doubling of CO2 or our 1.2 K, has any relation to reality. He may care to read the head posting. What we say is that, on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error but that which we have identified, exposed and quantified, there will be about 1.2 K global warming per century, or per doubling of CO2. Since 1950, warming has been occurring at 1.2 K per century equivalent (HadCRUT4); since 1979 warming has been occurring at 1.3 K/century (UAH) and since 2001 warming has been occurring at 1.3 K/century (mean of HadCRUT4 and UAH). Our estimate of Charney sensitivity thus seems consistent with observation, while the official mid-range estimate is manifestly inconsistent with observation.
        And we submit that we have proven that an error exists. If we are right, then that is the end of the global warming scare.

      • Yeah, but Christopher, 1.2C is still a modest warming. And again, you’re using the 1.1C as your baseline starting point. That assumes the 3.6 W/m^2 is equal to Pi (post albedo solar power in) in intrinsic surface warming ability.

      • In response to RW, 1.2 K per CO2 doubling is indeed a modest warming, and indeed we start with the CMIP5 models’ estimate that the reference sensitivity is 1.1 K before accounting for feedback. But we accept such values ad argumentum. We do not warrant that they are correct. We say that, if official climatology has made no other error but that which we have identified, Charney sensitivity is 1.2 K or thereby.

      • Christopher you have to have a doubling equation. Doubling from 1ppm to 2ppm isnt the same as from 280 to 560. Also notice that it will take a lot longer than a century to double the CO2 on present rates of addition to atmosphere. Even doubling from the 330 level in 1950 will take another 58 years.

      • Mr Tomalty says doubling CO2 from 1 to 2 ppmv is not the same as 380 to 560 ppmv. In fact, the interval over which the approximately logarithmic CO2 forcing obtains is [100, 950] ppmv. Therefore, without error we may safely assume the logarithmic forcing is correct, for little error will arise.

    • Bob, the biological sink for CO2 is also an endothermic process so it is a heat sink too. The 15+% expansion of planetary forest cover coincided mainly with the Pause – hmm … maybe at least a small contributor?

    • Bob Stewart wrote
      “and it has already pretty much maxed out in the absorption of radiation in its niche.”
      I have seen this quote many times by dozens of people and not one explained exactly why this is so.
      Also the alarmists need a large forcing by CO2 of water vapour for their theory to work. For that to be true H2O levels have to increase over time. James Hansen then director of the Goddard Institute in 2009 shut down the section that measures water vapour after they couldnt prove any increases after measuring it for 20 years. To this day any further measurements of the global atmospheric H2O content are unavailable.

  25. Christy’s 29 March 2017 congressional testimony proved that the CMIP5 models run hot. The missing modeled tropical troposphere hotspot is but one disagnostic. The reason was simply explained in guest post here last summer Why Models Run Hot. A more mathematically grounded explanation was given in earlier, longer guest post here The Trouble with Models. So modeled ECS 3.3 must be rejected.
    The question becomes, what is the ‘true’ ECS. The energy budget approach produces ~1.65 using iPCC AR5 WG1 values (e.g. Lewis and Curry 2014). Or ~1.5 using Steven’s updated aerosol forcing estimates (Lewis 2015). Both results are posted at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
    A separate set of observational considerations previously commented on here (in discussion the irreducable equatiin Monkton posts) suggests the AR5 net f (here 0.67, my previous comments used 0.65–close enough given uncertainties) is high by at least half. First, Desslers 2010 paper actually showed net cloud feedback is ~0, not the inferable 0.17 (or 0.15 in my previous comments). Second the water vapor feedback must be less than half of the 0.5 remainder (0.67 – 0.17). There are two lines of reasoning: (a) modelled precipitation is about half observed, so rainout leaves less water vapor than modeled, (b) the observationally missing modeled tropical troposphere hotspot is a water vapor feedback issue. So this leaved an inferrable f of something less than 0.25, therefore an ECS something less than 1.6.
    This post offers a third way to approach the estimate using a combination of theory and observation. More top down than bottom up. Whether the ‘true estimate is 1.65, 1.6, 1.5, or 1.2 as here the result is the same—cancel the alarm. Game over.
    There are, re this lawsuit, two further difficulties for the warmunist California cities. 1. Their bond offerings identity no risks such as they are suing big oil for. 2. There are no present damages to monetize, and since sea level rise is not accelerating since before 1950 (natural) there can be no future AGW SLR damages either.
    This lawsuit and the mandated ‘tutorial’ will backfire on the warmunists.

    • The ever-thoughtful Mr Istvan is quite right that our approach to the derivation of the feedback fraction is top-down and theoretical rather than bottom-up. There is a good reason for this. For a start, in the climate, no individual feedback can be directly quantified by any measurement, or distinguished by any measurement from any other feedback, or even from the forcing that induced the feedback response. What is more, not only is any empirical derivation of individual feedbacks impossible, but there is no theoretical method of deriving a respectable estimate of any individual feedback. Various attempts have been made, but without convincing both sides of the argument.
      We submit that our approach, which demonstrates that both theoretical and empirical methods of deriving the overall feedback fraction (which is the product of the feedback sum and the Planck sensitivity parameter) are available, and that the results of these methods cohere.

      • You clearly are fully aware of the great value your appraoch and undisputable (except on the edges of data details as you admit) has. Very well done. Highest Kudos.

      • That is your problem, not mine, Do read up more on CAGW theory.in my primer was provided as last long probative chapter in 2012 ebook The Arts of Truth. I would rewrite more negatively in light od Blowing Smoke, and aubsequent posts.

      • TO, yes. The long version is explained in detail with illustrations in essay Sensitive Sensitivity in ebook Blowing Smoke. Here is a short over simplified version. Adding GHG (e.g CO2) to the armosphere causes a radiative imbalance (more SW in than LW out). This property was first measured in the lab by Tyndall in 1859 IIRC. That radiative imballance will cause Earths surface to warm until radiative balance is restored by the resulting increased LW IR radiation from higher T. This new higher temperature balance is called the ECS, equilibrium climate sensativity, by definitional convention to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. It must be some number expressed as some delta T, and it must be positive else Earths surface woild be 255K rather than observed 283K (see some elses longer comment upthread for logic details). What it is above the ‘lab measured’, computable from first principles (see an early 2010 Climate Etc Curry post, or from fundamental observed parameters as in this post depends on net feedbacks. The ECS value without feedbacks is always between 1.1 (this post) and 1.2, (Lindzen). My own calculations of no feedback ECS produces a value of 1.16. Posted tye calcs in a comment here long ago to a different Monckton post. So ECS must physically exist. It must be some value greater than 1.1. The fight is over how much greater. We know the IPCC 3.3 from climate models is wrong. See my long comment upthread for why.
        But to think some positive ECS >1.1 does not exist indicates a very weak grasp of the basic physics. Please do not tar knowledgable skeptics withnsuch a ‘dummy’ brush.

      • ristvan (March 20 at 2:31 PM)
        Thanks for taking the time to respond. My understanding is based upon the definition
        of ECS. It is the ratio of the change in the global surface air temperature at equilibrium
        to the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The equilibrium temperature (called
        the “steady state temperature” in the engineering literature) is not observable. Thus, if by the
        “true” value of ECS one means the “observable value,” there isn’t one.

      • ECS is a theoretical concept dreamt up by alarmists to show that CO2 causes warming. What somebody needs to do is to pump in CO2 at 400ppm into one container that is at the same temperature as the average troposphere at 5 Km high and then pump in H2O vapour in another container each with a black body and have the temperature measurements to see which gas absorbs and then reflects the heat to the black body. and then have a 3rd container with a mixture of the 2 gases with the same measuring tools. I believe that this experiment has never been done.

      • I forgot to add that there should be a 4th container where you pump in double the CO2 along with H2O vapour.

      • Alan Tomalty:
        The seeds of the ECS concept seem to have been planted by Arrhenius with his “radiative forcing” concept. Radiative forcing is a Platonic rather than a scientific way of organizing a study that has the shortcoming of generating models whose claims are not falsifiable. In IPCC AR4, report of Working Group I, the IPCC admits they are not falsifiable but claims that in the modern era falsifiability has been supplanted by peer review. Actually, falsifiability is the so-called “line of demarcation” between settling an issue by observation and by the unsubstantiated claim of an authority. There was a conflict between the Vatican and Galileo because the Galileo favored observation and the Vatican favored authority. The Roman law of heresy sided with the Vatican.

      • Terry Oldberg March 21, 2018 at 9:02 am
        We keep hearing about the alleged radiative imbalances inducing an alleged temperature change. Back to Nahle’s experiment: if you believe in this alleged mechanism, then repeat the experiment to prove that this warming caused by back radiation exists.
        I know what the theory says. We all know what the theory says. We all know what the calculations say. What we don’t know is if any of this has been demonstrated experimentally. Nahle seems to have done a simple and elegant experiment– after Wood and Pratt– to test it. Tyndall did NOT prove the alleged mechanism of absorption/emission leading to temperature change. No one has!
        Just because a paradigm is self-consistent and assumed to be true by everyone doesn’t mean it’s true. We need an experiment, please. Basic science, or asking for the impossible?

      • Don132 (March 21 at 9:28 am):
        Thanks for the citation.
        The lesson to be learned from Woods’ experiment is that it is possible for convective heat transfer to
        counterbalance radiative heat transfer such that the temperature at Earth’s surface does not rise. That
        this is the case is predicted thermodynamically. I’m not aware of any modern day global warming
        climatologist who takes issue with this conclusion.
        On the other hand, there are few if any modern day global warming climatologists who do not incorporate
        the idea of “radiative forcing” into the advice that they offer to politicians on climate change. The role of
        radiative forcing is not to deny the results of Woods’ experiment but rather is to express a theory
        of the climate system that is Platonic rather than being scientific. Like a modern day climatologist, Plato felt
        that abstract objects were real and concrete objects were imperfect copies of them.
        Now, to return to the issue of whether ECS has a numerical value that is “true,” there are solid grounds for stating that ECS is a property of an abstract Earth. For a scientist an abstract object is not real. For a Platonist, on the other hand, an abstract object is real. With nearly perfect consistency, journalists and left-leaning politicians confuse Platonists with scientists. Right-leaning politicans make the same mistake but argue that the left-leaning politicians exaggerate the magnitude of ECS. In the lawsuit between the oil companies and the cities that are suing them for damages, both sides seem prepared to confuse Platonism with science. Scientifically, the cities have no case but this not because combustion of oil has no effect on Earth’s surface air temperature. It is only because the research on climate change has thus far been conducted by Platonists rather than scientists.

  26. Wow! I love the empirical test rig. I will stay tuned.
    It seems churlish to point out the use of ‘small change’ where I think you mean ‘small chance’.
    Lastly, do you think this error you have found has been masked by the assumption of steady state and ignoring of day/night temp variations in all theoretical considerations of greenhouse behaviour?

    • In response to Mr Dixon, again, apologies for “change” where the context requires “chance”.
      We think that the reason for the error we have discovered is the importation by climate science of equations from control theory without having understood them sufficiently.

    • As the term “empirical test rig” could be misleading it would be better to call the rig an “analog computer.” Rather than test Lord Monckton’s theory, this computer computes the response of Monckton’s theory to its inputs.

  27. Bode’s LINEAR feedback analysis for quantifying POWERED (active) gain does not apply to the climate system. Feedback analysis requires a strictly linear system in order to be useful. When an audio amplifier starts to clip and goes non linear, Bode’s analysis no longer works. Climate feedback specified as W/m^2 in and degrees K out is not even approximately linear over the relevant ranges of temperature found on the planet. The second missing precondition for applying Bode’s feedback equations is the implicit power supply that can not also be the forcing input. The significant difference is that an active amplifier measures the input forcing and feedback to determine how much output to deliver from an implicit source, while the climate system consumes the forcing and feedback to comprise its output. The COE constraint this imposes is not taken into consideration in any AR.

    • co2 –
      Whereas I understand the basics of what you’re saying, not being an electrical engineer makes it difficult to fully digest your point…
      Thus, are you taking issue with the IPCC’s approach or Monckton’s? Or both?
      rip

      • ripshin,
        I’m objecting to the general approach of applying Bode’s feedback analysis to quantify the climate, especially given the massive amount of feedback claimed by the IPCC.
        Christopher is correct that the consensus analysis has been horribly botched and while his analysis shows this, even in the context of an improper application, my point is that there’s a more fundamental reason for why the ‘consensus’ is so wrong.
        Joules are joules and each Joule from the 240 W/m^2 of NET energy arriving from the Sun does the same amount of work to increase the surface temperature, that is, Joules are interchangeable. That being said, each W/m^2 of the 240 W/m^2 arriving from the Sun results in a NET if 1.6 W/m^2 emitted by the Surface, or about 600 mw of ‘feedback’ per W/m^2 of input where the ‘feedback’ is prior surface emissions that were delayed and bounced back to the surface after being absorbed by the atmosphere.
        The confusion arises because the IPCC considers the absolute gain to be far smaller than the incremental gain in violation of the precondition for applying Bodes’s analysis and dramatically inflates the incremental gain from 1.6 W/m^2 per W/m^s of forcing input measured for the average all the way up to 4.3 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing input for the nominal sensitivity claimed by the IPCC. The linearity restriction requires the incremental and absolute gains to be the same.
        BTW, the climate is very linear in the energy domain, as COE requires, which means that the next W/m^2 of forcing will only contribute another 600 mw/m^2 of ‘feedback’ which is consistent with the 0.2-0.3 C per W/m^2 sensitivity generally considered as the sensitivity by Lindzen and others.

    • In response to “co2isnotevil”, the head posting went to some lengths to point out, first, that the linear Bode feedback equation, even in the simplified form used in climatology, precisely reproduces the official interval of Charney sensitivities if the official inputs are deployed therein; and secondly, that even quite strong nonlinearities don’t matter where the feedback fraction is sufficiently small, because the response curve of equilibrium sensitivities in the presence of various values of the feedback fraction is a rectangular hyperbola, and our result shows that the calculation should be performed not, as now, at the right-hand end of the curve close to the singularity at a feedback fraction of unity but at the left-hand end, at a feedback fraction an order of magnitude smaller, where even quite large variations in the value of the feedback fraction have very little impact on equilibrium sensitivity.
      Therefore, pleading that the Bode equation is linear is not only insufficient to overthrow our result but also incorrect, for even where the inputs to the equation are all linear the output signal is not.

      • This from an old engineer. Feedback was generally used to overcome nonlinearities of components like like paper capacitors, carbon resistors, and even active components in order to achieve stable gain over a large portion of the operating range. If nonlinearities would upset the circuit, back to the drawing board. So the fact that those in our climate don’t change things much doesn’t’ bother me at all. They shouldn’t bother anyone who has dealt this before.

      • Christopher,
        I agree that your analysis show how wrong they are when conforming to the incorrect assumptions the consensus makes. My point is that there are more fundamental reasons for the many errors made by the consensus related to ‘feedback’.

      • Jim,
        Feedback is not to eliminate non linearities, but to make the resulting gain independent of the variability in the open loop gain, or the variability in mu per Bode. The closed loop gain is significantly smaller than the open loop gain and if negative feedback sets the closed loop gain to 1000, with only 0.1% negative feedback, the open loop gain can vary between 1 million and 10 million and have little effect on the closed loop gain., The general equation is,
        1/Go = 1/Gc + f
        where Go is the open loop gain (Bode mu), Gc is the closed loop gain and f is the fraction of the output returned to the input and can only be between -1 and 1. Note that this requires that the dimensionality of the output must be the same as the dimensionality of the input. In general, Bode requires the dimensions of the input and output to be linearly related to each other, for example, volts in and amps out, which are linear through Ohms law.

  28. Bravo! Make these court cases scientific inquisitions! Get the serious scientific objections written into evidence that “scientific” journalists must finally read, and the television mouthpieces must finally report to their audiences.
    The general public is naturally skeptical based on practical experience, but is generally unaware that serious scientific objections to the proposed catastrophe exist.

  29. your analysis appears correct. feedback is a response to temperature. not a response to GHG. thus you must account for the feedback (water vapor) that results from 255k temp in the absence of GHG.
    thus the 32k of observed warming is due to 255k feedback + GHG + GHG feedback. which reduces GHG + GHG feedback. and this reduction explains why the tropospheric hotspot was predicted and not observed.
    brilliant!! the missing hotspot was strong evidence of an error in GHG theory. it appears you have located the error!!
    well done!

    • i assume that is why lord monckton did not respond to the comment up the page from germinio. i am also slightly perturbed that i can grasp the basic premise here, though hopefully that is a good sign for when it comes before the court.
      one thing for sure, lord monckton is certainly back with a vengeance ! nice work lord monckton, i hope it stands the test of time and examination by your peers.

    • My take on it is the 32.2 K difference between non atmosphere temp and present temp is 31.4 (clouds and H2O) contrasting with CO2,methane etc accounting for 0.8 K The chaotic feedbacks of evap and precipitation make it impossible to separate out the clouds and the water vapour. But with the CO2 and H2O we can measure them. You can make the 1/Go = 1/Gc + f equation try to fit the present situation with the atmosphere but in the end it boils down to ppm of each gas in the atmosphere absorbing and reflecting in all directions the IR. So because H2O is anywhere from 50 to a 100 times more ppm than CO2 that is why I give the CO2 such a small total effect. i think that giving CO2 = the importance of 8K by both the alarmists and Monckton is false. However Monckton’s choice was simply taking the alarmist number and turning it against them. I would like to see the true number for CO2 from Mr. Monckton.

    • Here’s my theory,
      based on 20 years
      of study — and also
      three strong martinis:
      .
      The tropical hotspot is hiding
      at the bottom of the oceans!
      .
      .
      Why not?
      .
      Anything goes in modern climate “science”:
      .
      you just have to say the same thing
      year after year, with with great confidence,
      .
      mention a 97% consensus,
      .
      state that the “science is settled”,
      .
      maybe even claim 95% confidence,
      or even better — 105% confidence !
      .
      and repeat all this over many years
      — decades actually,
      .
      wearing a nice suit,
      or better yet,
      a white lab coat
      with 35 pens and pencils
      in the pocket protestors,
      .
      thick lens eyeglasses would help too,
      with the broken frame taped,
      .
      and claim you double-checked
      the models with your trusty slide rule
      (show slide rule to camera)
      or show an abacus
      if you are of the
      Chinese persuasion
      .
      and make sure you’re a government
      bureaucrat, with a science degree,
      .
      because no one in the government
      would ever lie … or could be wrong.
      And that is how modern climate “science” works !

  30. Not going to work.
    A court of law decides issues of law. A mathematical proof may be 100% true, but that’s not an issue of law.
    The judge’s problem is that both sides can produce sound mathematical arguments to show any temperature variation you like. All they have to do is to leave out important external influences. So it’s not enough to show that a set of sums works – you have to show that the set of sums uniquely applies to the subject in question, and that there is NOTHING which over-rides it.
    It is this last – proving a negative – which will be the problem. Courts of law do not usually accept freestanding mathematical proofs – instead they require an ‘expert witness’ to make a statement. The expert may use maths, but it is the expert qualification that the court recognises – not the maths he employs.
    In this case Michael Mann and Hansen can get up and wave their ‘expert’ status – which the court is required to recognise…

    • In this case Michael Mann and Hansen can get up and wave their ‘expert’ status – which the court is required to recognise…

      Yes, but they will be cross examined under oath.

    • “Dodgy geezer” is another who would rather not do anything. But we prefer not to allow 1.2 billion people to struggle along without electricity in the name of averting catastrophic global warming when we can prove that the global warming won’t be catastrophic.
      If “Dodgy Geezer” had read the head posting, he would have seen that the judge had raised nine questions about global warming in his brief in preparation for Wednesday’s tutorial. Not one of those questions is about the law. It is about the science of global warming.
      If no one can even be bothered to reply when a senior judge with a scientific backgroud asks scientific questions about the science of global warming, we have only ourselves to blame if the oil corporations lose.
      As it is, we have taken the initiative to brief the judge on a strikingly elementary error of climate science. Without that error, there is no case for the oil companies to answer. Whether “dodgy geezer” likes it or not, the courts decide not only points of law but also points of fact. We have addressed a relevant point of fact.

    • DG, true at the federal appellate level, BUT NOT at the federal district court level. At that level, judges use the Law (e.g. rules of admissible evidence —hearsy generally is not) to best ascertain the facts. Discovery (part of this unusual ‘tutorial’ process) is used to putnthe fact submitted by both parties into two buckets: undisputed and disputed. The undisputed bucket is stipulated true by both aides. The disputed bicket is then litigated.
      The value of Monckton’s amicus bried is that it will take the ECS value out of the disputed bucket (models vs. observations (see my long post above) and move it into the undisputable bucket. That is the value of the proof. It matters not whether refinement moves ECS from the simplest 1.2to something a bit more. Its still game over for any damages. See LMs thoughtful response to mynlong comment. He has it exactly legally right.

  31. 24/255=0.09; 0.7/8=0.088
    Yes, elementary Dr. Watson. An excellent piece of work milord. However, the bulwarks of the edifice of CAGW are not the science of it. Global governance by elites and the support and employment of wranglers for useful idiots to clamor for it is the issue. The main puppeteers have already admitted the real purpose of this putsch.

    • Mr Pearse, though his sentiments are kind, is again arguing that we should not bother to do anything to demonstrate that the science behind the global warming scam is hollow.
      He and others like him have, with respect, underestimated the power of our formal demonstration that climatology has been in error on the question of the feedback fraction and hence of climate sensitivity for half a century, if not longer. Whatever the purpose of the totalitarians in peddling the global warming scam, the truth is now available, and, if it is indeed the truth, the scam can endure no longer, for the pretext for it has been proven false.

      • What science?
        Hardy any outside a laboratory experiments!
        It’s not real science just because
        it comes out of the mouth (or computer game)
        of a government bureaucrat with a science degree.
        I have a science degree — so what?
        If I claimed adding CO2 to the air
        will eventually mean the end of all life on Earth,
        what does a science degree have to do with
        a wild guess of the future climate?
        After reading about climate change for 20 years,
        I don’t trust “scientists” any more — that may be
        the worst side effect of the CO2 scaremongering.
        If scientists ever see a REAL environmental problem,
        will we believe them ?
        Modern climate “science”
        Is just one assumption and wild guess after another,
        all backed by haphazard, mainly wild guess “infilled”,
        surface temperature data, that does not correlate
        with weather satellite and radiosonde data !
        Modern climate “science” is mainly politics,
        not science — an attempt to “sell”
        big government socialism as
        “Save the Earth Socialism”,
        where the usual slow economic growth
        that accompanies socialism (bad news)
        can be redefined as good news
        (slow economic growth = less CO2 = save the Earth ! )
        Nonsense, of course, but many people
        fall for emotional leftists nonsense.

  32. Since every model predicts a Tropospheric hot spot but it’s not seen in the data, all the models are wrong. End of story. At least that’s how it’s been done in the Physics Department since the time of Galileo. There’s absolutely no need for all this sound and fury.

    • Mr Linsay has not understood the head posting, which, for the first time, explains why there is no tropical mid-troposphere hot spot. The fact of its non-existence is evident in nearly all datasets, but the reason for its non-existence had not hitherto been sufficiently explained.

      • Yes. The missing hot-spot pointed to a “fundamental error”. And what is a fundamental error? An error that is so obvious when you find it, that one is temped to immediately ask: “why it was not found earlier?”
        Indeed, this I expect will be the attack made on this analysis. That this discover is so fundamental and obvious that it cannot be real. Otherwise someone would have found it earlier.
        However, when one considers the history of science, this is very much how fundamental discoveries are made. The sit there staring everyone in the face, and are so blindingly obvious that no one sees them for what they are. In effect they hide in plain site for years, decades and centuries waiting for discovery.
        for example, Newton’s cannonball or Einsteins elevator.

  33. I would have thought that global warming caused by petroleum products has to be proven – ie that they are responsible for the present rise in sea level and future rises in sea level. If it cannot be proven that would very much be a win for BP. Because we have always been saying that the science is not settled and that there is insufficient retrospective, accurate data to prove a non cyclical trend

    • We can now go one better than Mr Hansford’s approach. We can prove that, after correction of the large error of physics we have identified, and on the assumption that climatology has made no other error, global warming will be of order 1.2 K per CO2 doubling, or 1.2 K in the 21st century, and that is not fast enough or severe enough to be dangerous, let alone catastrophic.

  34. Implicit in any damages claim is the presence of (a) damages that occurred – not that damages might occur sometime in the future, and (b) damages are caused by the actions of all the defendants in the case. It is irrelevant even if the defendants thought that their actions might cause damages, a right protected by the first amendment.
    In this case (a) no damages occurred and (b) any damages that claimants demand to be compensated for are not caused by defendants actions since all emitters of CO2, this includes the all the animal kingdom and every and each of the industry that used energy should be included as a party to the case.
    The claimants have no case to be decided by any court in the land of law.

  35. This reminds me of Brexit which was likened to a divorce, but all the ‘other’ side (the EU) wanted was alimony money, without looking at the benefits they had received during the marriage. In other words, in any situation such as this there are profit and loss accounts to consider and in this case only the supposed loss (the cost of the wall) has been considered.
    Surely it could fairly be asked what financial and practical benefits-such as heating, transport, quality of life, health etc etc have the California cities enjoyed through using fossil fuels for over a century?
    Do they outweigh the claimed costs for protection against that element of sea level rise allegedly caused by burning fossil fuels (provided by BP) Bearing in mind that sea level rise commenced around 1750 after the glaciers began to recede as the little ice age started to lose its grip?
    tonyb

    • Absolutely. The overall benefits of fossil fuels over the last 100 years must be absolutely vast. We owe much of our prosperity to fossil fuels. Even if the judge finally agreed that fossil fuels had caused some amount of climate damage – which it clearly hasn’t – then surely he should demand a proper accounting of the benefits. Almost certainly the benefits would hugely outweigh the costs.
      If I were putting the defence case for BP, I would show this evidence:
      1. Deaths from extreme weather have been falling and are at historic lows.
      2. Overall intensity of hurricanes has been falling.
      3. No increase in tornadoes or wildfires.
      4. The graph of sea level rise. Since 1850 it is an almost perfect straight line with no acceleration. The graph would show that sea level rise is about the same as it was during the Boer war!
      5. Failed predictions of AGW theory: the amount of warming (models running too hot), the tropical hot spot, and a basic but fatal flaw in the maths as per Monckton.
      6. The global data from organisations such as the UN and World Food Organisation: food per head of population higher than ever before, rising agricultural productivity, rising lifetime expectancy etc
      7. Data showing that the planet is becoming greener at a dramatic rate, almost certainly caused by increased CO2 and probably also by global warming.
      8. Oh, yes, and the poor polar bears. Their numbers are close to 30,000 (if I remember correctly) and the number has dramatically increased over recent decades.
      With such a huge weight of evidence showing the benefits of CO2, the judge would have no option but to award a huge payment to BP for all the good their oil has done!
      Chris

      • Also a list of the bad things that have never happened in the last 68 years which was the start of heavy fossil fuel burning
        !) No one has froze to death because of global warming even though some have froze to death because fighting global warming has upped the heating costs so much that some people have died
        2) No one has died of heat exhaustion caused by global warming
        3) There has not been an increase of extreme weather events
        4) The sea level has not risen because of global warming thus noone has drowned because of global warming
        5) No species has become extinct because of global warming and no species has been even harmed in any way because of global warming
        6) The Greenland and Antarctica icecaps have not melted
        7) Not one scare story about global warming has come to pass
        8) The total penguin population of Antarctica has not diminished (1.5 million more penguins have been found that we didnt know existed
        9) Global warming has not caused any plant species to wither away and indeed the extra CO2 has caused a greening of the earth by 18% in the last 30 years.
        10) Insect populations have not brought tropic diseases to nothern climates (It is because of air travellers).
        In short not one bad thing has happened because of global warming. WHY because this whole thing is a hoax of the highest caliber.

  36. “Accordingly, based on the results of our in-house test rig, we drew up a more sophisticated specification for a new rig, together with four test groups comprising 23 sets of three quantities – the input signal, the direct-gain factor and the feedback fraction. Armed with the specification, I commissioned a government laboratory to carry out the experiments.”
    I do not trust “Government Laboratories” to be unbiased in this regard and would question their ability to conduct such an experiment honestly. Perhaps there has been to much corruption of all researchers to trust their results without 3rd party verification by independent researchers.

    • “Dr Bob” does not trust government laboratories. But we wanted to see whether a government laboratory, with its sophisticated temperature-controlled chambers, would replicate or falsify the results from our own test rig. The government laboratory, in every one of the 23 instances, measured results that were within one-tenth of a Kelvin of the results that theory as well as our empirical tests on our own rig had led us to predict.
      I was impressed with the dispassionate and professional approach of the government scientist who carried out the work for us, and still more impressed when he subsequently wrote to me to say that he had not allowed, and would not allow, any political consideration to intrude.
      Our impression was the that the government laboratory had done a good and careful job of work, though the management, once they saw our draft paper and realized that their results had helped to disprove the global warming in which the government of the day passionately but misguidedly believed, were reluctant to upset their climate-obsessed paymasters by allowing their name to be used on their report. We know just how vicious the true-believers can be, so we sympathized with the government laboratory in that regard.

  37. Christopher, if the oil companies lose this, it’s because they’ve missed the obvious.
    Sea levels have risen 300 to 400 feet since the end of the last ice age, because global surface temperatures have been above the temperature at which ice sheets and glaciers melt for about 11,000 years. What part of that 300 to 400 feet are the oil companies responsible for, a couple of inches? Prorate it!
    Cheers
    Bob
    Figure Intro-17
    Image from free ebook here:
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/tisdale-on-global-warming-and-the-illusion-of-control-part-1.pdf

  38. Can someone please explain how testing a physical analog to an equation set can yield any information that could be obtained directly from the equations?

    • In response to Mr Mills, just about every climatologist to whom we have explained that the input signal in a feedback loop induces a feedback response even in the absence of any direct gain factor has simply not believed us. The reason is that the zero-dimensional model equation used by climatology makes no provision for the input signal – in this case the very large input signal of 255 K that is the emission temperature that would prevail at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any forcing or feedback.
      Therefore, although we were of course able to rewrite the equation by replacing the delta input and output signals with the entire values and then by recalculating, some very eminent climatologists had become so used to doing things wrong that we could not persuade them that our theoretical approach was correct.
      Accordingly, an engineer who had heard of our result built a test rig and I gave him some values to put into it. Then we confirmed the position with the government laboratory.

      • Equations can be mathematically right but physically wrong. That is the whole point of discovering the error. Building physical simulators to prove the error experimentally is the clincher for those blinded to the physically wrong part.

      • “in this case the very large input signal of 255 K that is the emission temperature”
        This makes no sense. A signal is a change which can be variably amplified, responding to feedback. The 255K is not a change, and cannot be amplified (think what if it were!). It’s like saying that your sound amplifier isn’t doing much because it only produces a few volts output from a signal that is a few millivolts+240V input.

      • Nick, I can’t believe you just said this. Have you ever heard of DC coupled amplifiers. You’ve obviously never worked with analog computers either.

      • jim, i think nicks response is an example of the first sentence in lord moncktons reply to anthony mills above.

      • “Have you ever heard of DC coupled amplifiers.”
        I have. I have never heard of an amplifier where you could the supply voltage as part of the signal for calculating gain.

      • With respect, Mr Stokes is not correct in stating that emission temperature is not a “signal”. That is the term of art in electronic circuitry. If, on the other hand, your dynamical system is the climate, then the input signal is not a voltage but a temperature.
        Consider a real signal light within range of an instrument for detecting light (e.g. the Mk 1 eyeball). If the signal light is off, there is no signal. If it is on, there is. If there were no Sun, there would be no signal to speak of. But the Sun is on, so there is an emission temperature, which, in the climate system, is the input signal.
        One quite understands that Mr Stokes has not heard of a feedback amplifier in which the mu gain block is set to unity and yet the feedback fraction is non-zero. But the climate in the absence of the greenhouse gases is precisely that. One can certainly build a feedback amplifier in which the mu gain block is set to unity and yet the feedback fraction is set to be non-zero. We did it at the government laboratory, and the resulting output signal was modified by the feedback block to the precise extent predicted by feedback theory.
        If the feedback fraction is positive, even in the absence of any amplification (i.e., with mu = 1) there will be a gain. We measured it.

      • It isn’t surprising when you consider that Dr. Pat Frank has never met a climatologist that knew the difference between precision and accuracy.

  39. I’m wondering if the scope of this trial is to be very narrow and turn on the just the subject addressed by the findings in Brenchley’s amicus>/i> brief, or if it will be broader where such things, as the 8,000+ adjustments NASA’s GISS made to the pre-1900 data in their Global Land Ocean Temperature Index, will be allowed

    • Steve, that was the very thought I had when reading this. I’m still unsure of the degree of accuracy with regards our historical temperature data sets.
      They have been significantly adjusted, the land data sets are wildly inconsistent, the ocean temp data sets were conveniently left out, infilling, etc. Most of this information I would never have discovered we’re it not for Mr. Watts hard work and fellow scholars such as Mr. Monckton, Mark Steyn, Judith Curry, etc…
      I’m sincerely grateful for all of your hard work and dedication.
      My question regarding the accuracy is “are we absolutely certain the Earth GMT actually risen as they claim? I could be wrong but I thought the error value was +/- .5°C?
      If that is so it could be well under 1°C, and even if it was the opposite I’m still unsure why the panic.
      My perception is that those who want to control us, by their utterances and actions, display a severe selfish misanthropy. “Carbon” is there delivery system for global unavoidable tax. Carbon is essential to life. We are carbon, so I interpret this as a direct attack on the beauty of life and humanity.
      We need more work like this. Those of us who understand the game need to organize and push back the agenda, shills we want our grandchildren to thrive. After all, isn’t that there argument? Let’s counter them with that too!

  40. Hip, Hip Horray, I say.
    This case has the potential to establish a judicial ruling against the endangerment finding (indirectly)
    His requested tutorials amount to a red team vs blue team debate that will be in the judicial record.
    My opinion, this case can become a turning point in the effort to bring sanity
    to the debate.

    • Mr Smith is right: we should take a positive approach to the news that a scientifically literate judge is curious enough to ask scientific questions. Now he has in front of him a proof that global warming is not a problem.
      Mr Smith is also right that our result makes a nonsense of the endangerment finding. Our friends in the United States are going to arrange for Administrator Pruitt at the EPA to be told of our result.

      • Actually, as I have been studying how to legally undo the endangerment finding without being tied up in court forever, this post nicely cuts through that legal gordian knot. Old way, argue the previous fact finding did not follow the Clean Air Act’s rules (over-reliance on IPCC, blah blah blah, red/blue team), and then an ad nauseum he said she said where most ‘experts’ think there is endangerment because that is where their bread is buttered. Pruitt come down on the revised no endangement side, and the greens file dozens of lawsuits and nothing useful happens for years.
        Only solution I previously saw was win enough control in congress to rewrite CCA definition of pollutant, presently a circular ‘that which pollutes’ where pollutes means harms using 8 different tests. No way even if Trump gains rather than loses seats in the midterm is that going to be easy.
        This result simply shows why and how the experts were wrong, period. And all the supposed endangements that followed from wrong warming extrapolations automatically fall away. Simple, neat, incontrovertible, with clean grounds for reopening the finding. Cannot get tied up for years in court arguing disputed facts, because none are left in dispute.

      • I’m delighted that Mr Istvan sees some merit in using our result to influence the outcome of legal processes, such as the reversal of the endangerment finding. If we’re right, expect a lot of the climate cases to be quietly withdrawn.

  41. Where is Nick Stokes? Nick, where are you?
    I think you need to come on here and either find a cast iron means of refuting Christopher Monktons paper or go away and burn in an only moderately warm place.

    • While I don’t see the merit in choosing to dip to personal attacks, although it was clever, I’m no fan of Mr. Stokes either. I only see him comment when he can obfuscate topics not as clear cut as this. I’m interested to see what he has to say, if anything to Mr. Monckton.
      Mr. Stokes, would you care to weigh in?

    • ” Nick, where are you?”
      In a place where it is currently 6.30 am. I invite your explanation of what Lord M is saying that you would like me to refute.

      • Nick, it seems clear to me and likely many others here, that when you comment, it is rarely in agreement because you believe in the man-made CO2 climate driven hypothesis and all the un-falsifiable claims surrounding it. Almost every post or comment from you is in the realm of defending the now firmly entrenched establishment theory.
        So, I would say, review his work and if you have criticisms, levy them so Mr. Monckton may reply.

      • “So, I would say, review his work”
        As usual, I seem to be almost the only one doing so. But not quite. Scottish sceptic has noted the glaring error below, and I have appended my comment there.

      • Nick, between my crap phone and delays to getting on my personal computer, I can’t always see the updates to the comment section. I’m reading your response and Mr. Monckton’s rebuttal. It quickly escalates beyond my comprehension, so I can’t say who appears to be more correct, but I notice that the responses were quite exhaustive, as to his methods. Again, I enjoy reading the comments most because, even though I disagree with you quite significantly, I’m sure there is merit to some things you say. I do notice from time to time that you get the last word, and I don’t see others concede or rebut (and that has bothered me), but I’ve also seen it go the other way. It could also be mental fatigue and we all just get tired of going back and forth. So I can only digest to the best of my cognitive abilities.
        I do get the impression that you are the unstoppable force going against immovable objects. I’m waiting to see how this all plays out.

  42. Mr Monckton: thank you and your team for clear, concise analysis. I do not consider your work skeptical science. There is no such thing: there is only science which involves detailed analysis, basic math and physics that need to be scrutinized, and verified via actual data. Its sad that its gotten to the point that doing actual science is career threatening…..

    • I agree very much with Mr Davis that doing actual science ought not to be career-threatening, though not one but two of my co-authors have had their careers threatened, and one has had it actually damaged, but their participation in this project.
      And, as al-Haytham used to say, it is the duty of the “seeker after truth” to be skeptical.

  43. This is no less intersectional than the Scopes trial… a once per century clash of science vs political ideology with the resulting decision couldn’t be more transformative. Either science prevails or we witness the birth of a State Religion.

  44. Can’t WUWT find a climate scientist to write its articles? Christopher Monckton is an engaging personality, and given that he is a classicist, I would value his opinions on genitive absolutes and second aorists — but his article exposing the “fundamental error” on which 50 years of climate science alarmism is nothing but dust in the eyes of the beholders.

    • Mr Fell’s lamentable comment is a tired instance of argumentum ad hominem – a petty attack on the man rather than on his argument. My co-authors include three Professors – one emeritus in statistics, one tenured in climatology, one adjunct in control theory – as well as a doctor of astrophysics, a brace of electronic engineers with practical knowledge of feedback theory, an expert in the electricity supply industry and an undergraduate in environmental sciences. The pre-submission reviewers included the most eminent professors currently practising in optical physics and in the application of feedback theory to climate, respectively.
      Regardless of this distinguished authorship and their undoubted qualifications, the argument in the head posting stands or falls on its own merits. Mr Fell appears unable to find any legitimate criticism of the argument itself, so he resorts to the usual technique of ad-hom attack. He has not realized how deadly the argument in the head posting is to the cause in which he passionately but misguidedly believes.

      • My distinguished co-authors were Dr Willie Soon (award-winning astrophysicist); Professor David Legates (tenured professor of climatology); Emeritus Professor William M. Briggs; Dipl.-Ing. Michael Limburg; Adjuncth Professor Dietrich Jeschke (professor of applied control theory); Mr Alex Henney (expert in electricity supply, who has testified in many jurisdictions including California); Mr John Whitfield (the electronics engineer who built our test rig); and Mr James Morrison (University of East Anglia).

  45. I am still hoping to hear a good explanation of why natural variations in temperature do not trigger the feedback mechanisms used to cause most of the warming in “global warming.”

    • Mr Graney is quite correct. Temperature feedbacks arise in response to temperatures, regardless of the cause of the temperatures (there are some exceptions, but that is the general rule). However, in our paper we have assumed for the purposes of argument that all warming before 1850 was natural and all warming after 1850 was anthropogenic. To the extent that warming after 1850 was natural, our estimate of final sensitivity should be reduced. This point is explained in the underlying paper and in the amicus brief.

      • “all warming before 1850 was natural
        and all warming after 1850 was anthropogenic.” ? ? ?
        That’s worse than the IPCC claims.
        There’s no reason to believe
        much man made CO2 influence
        before 1940 — the measured warming
        is mainly in the 1975 – 2000 period.
        I think it would have been more neutral
        to assume no effect of man made CO2
        before 1940, and all warming after 1940
        attributed to CO2.
        That’s still a worst case
        theory but the IPCC
        does not even claim
        that much warming before 1975
        can be attributed to CO2,
        so why would you?

    • Sometimes natural variations do trigger feedback mechanisms. In fact, feedback mechanisms were first discovered when scientists asked how the very small variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the high northern latitudes, owing to the natural variations in the Milankovic cycle, could trigger the coming and going of the ice ages, as is apparently the case.

    • Feedback acts on a forcing to produce an observed temperature different to what the forcing would have achieved without feedback. With natural variation you do not know the forcing. You only have the observed temperature. It may well, include feedback effects.

  46. Hello Lord Monckton and thank you for your post and your amicus brief.
    I agree that some energy companies, and BP in particular, lack credibility because they have paid lip service to global warming alarmist nonsense. This happened because they had weak leadership.
    I have included some comments below on:
    1. The (alleged) Catastrophic Global Warming Hypothesis – dangerous human-made warming was grossly overstated and is disproved; Increasing atmospheric CO2 and moderate global warming are NOT catastrophic and are net beneficial.
    2. The (alleged) Catastrophic Climate Change Hypothesis – a hypothesis so vague and ever-changing that it cannot be disproved – it is unscientific drivel.
    Questions:
    a. Is your estimate of ECS = ~+1.2C/(2xCO2) truly an average value, or is it an upper bound estimate (for example, assuming no natural variation)?
    b. If in fact a significant part of the observed warming is later proven to be natural variation, does your ECS estimate decline below 1.2?
    c. If CO2 continues to increase, and significant global cooling commences, what impact does that have on your estimate of ECS?
    Regards, Allan
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/03/time-to-cool-it-the-u-n-s-moribund-high-end-global-warming-emissions-scenario/comment-page-1/#comment-2756457
    [excerpts}
    The hypothesis of “catastrophic manmade global warming” is already disproved by actual earth-scale data since ~1940, where atmospheric CO2 has increased while global temperature has gone down, up and sideways.
    The upper-bound estimate of Transient Climate Sensitivity of ~1C/(2xCO2) by Christy and McNider (2017) is highly credible for the satellite era from ~1979 to mid-2017. This upper bound was calculated assuming (conservatively, for the sake of simplicity and clarity) that ALL the observed warming in the satellite era was due to increasing atmospheric CO2. This maximum climate sensitivity is so low that there is NO credible global warming crisis.
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
    Furthermore, this maximum sensitivity of ~1C/(2xCO2) is probably about 5x to 10x too high, because we know that natural warming pre-1940 (before the rapid acceleration of fossil fuel combustion) was the same magnitude as the so-called “man-made global warming” from ~1977 to ~1997. Therefore NOT ALL the warming in the satellite era is due to increasing atmospheric CO2, and probably most or all of the observed warming was due to natural causes, just like it was pre-1940.
    Within the bounds of accuracy, I suggest that the true sensitivity of Earth’s temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 is near-zero.
    The hypothesis of “catastrophic man-made climate change” is so vague it is unscientific – it is the hypo that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes everything – warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier, etc., etc. It falsely alleges that CO2 is the “miracle molecule” that can cause everything that frightens the chronically fearful. In summary, it is utter drivel.
    Regards, Allan

    • Lord Monckton wrote below:
      “The deliberately cautious approach we took ad argumentum in preparing our paper and our brief was that all warming after 1850 was anthropogenic.”
      OK – I thought so,
      Therefore the ANSWERS to my questions (I think) are:
      Questions:
      a. Is your estimate of ECS = ~+1.2C/(2xCO2) truly an average value, or is it an upper bound estimate (for example, assuming no natural variation)? UPPER BOUND
      b. If in fact a significant part of the observed warming is later proven to be natural variation, does your ECS estimate decline below 1.2? YES, SIGNIFICANTLY.
      c. If CO2 continues to increase, and significant global cooling commences, what impact does that have on your estimate of ECS? IT BECOMES MUCH LOWER, OR COULD EVEN BE NEGATIVE.

      • I’m with Mr Macrae on a and b, but not on c. Whatever influence natural factors have on temperature, up or down, we find Charney sensitivity (i.e. equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 in the air) to be positive. It is, of course, possible that, since we find Charney sensitivity to be only 1.2 K, and since solar activity is declining quite noticeably, after a sufficient period of lessened solar activity there might be net cooling. But, bearing in mind Leif Svalgaard’s estimates that the solar decline may not be as severe in the next cycle as in this one, I wouldn’t hold my breath. On balance, I expect around 1.2 K warming this century, on the assumption that there are no significant efforts to abate CO2 emissions.
        Of course, if our result is correct, there will be no need to abate CO2 emissions. One less line-item of massive expenditure to unbalance the books of the nations of the West.

  47. From the complaint:
    11. The People seek an order requiring Defendants to abate the global warming-induced
    sea level rise nuisance to which they have contributed by funding an abatement program to build
    sea walls and other infrastructure that are urgently needed to protect human safety and public and
    private property in Oakland. The People do not seek to impose liability on Defendants for their
    direct emissions of greenhouse gases and do not seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in their
    business operations. This case is, fundamentally, about shifting the costs of abating sea level rise
    harm — one of global warming’s gravest harms — back onto the companies. After all, it is
    Defendants who have profited and will continue to profit by knowingly contributing to global
    warming, thereby doing all they can to help create and maintain a profound public nuisance.
    ——————–
    So basically, at its core, this case is a money grab by cities to try and make oil companies pay for their infrastructure projects.

      • Mr Shearer is as excited as we are. However, it will not be at all easy to get our paper through peer review. All the major climate journals have been working along different lines for decades; they have profited mightily by the error we have unearthed; and they will not go quietly into the night. But one value of discussing our idea in a leading public forum such as this is that the error is simple enough that most people with no vested interest in refusing to understand it will understand it. The idea is out now, and it can’t be put back in the bottle. The only hope the climate totalitarians now have is to find that we were wrong. But the attempts to derail our result in this thread do not even come close.

  48. RockyRoad March 19, 2018 at 7:01 am
    “Court cases typically include the process of discovery, which has been avoided by the CAGW crowd like the plague.”
    If the lawyers for the Defence are competent, and with all that money behind them they should be, the Plaintiff’s documents “discovered” should be at least as illuminating as Lord Moncton et al’s killer paper.
    I am not familiar with Californian or US law but, having acted as an expert in six other jurisdictions, I would be very surprised if, as already noted by Craig, Michael Mann or Hansen would be prepared to subject themselves possible cross-examination.

  49. I will be following this case closely. I likewise am an engineer – MS/BSEE – started out in electronics building my own transmitters & receivers as a HAM operator much as this judge did. He will understand feedback and control systems based on his HAM experience and engr. background. I would imagine that given his education and experience he will probably wind up pro skeptic.

    • Mr Van Slooten nicely reflects the reasons why we thought it worthwhile to submit an amicus curiae brief to this particular judge. Regardless of his personal politics, he will be interested in proper scientific arguments. The judge will indeed understand the relevant principles of control theory and feedback amplification, and he will be shocked at the elementary error that has gone undetetected until now.

  50. In my day job I am styled “Her Majesty’s counsel, learned in the law” or “Q.C.” short, so let me offer this realistic comment to his Lordship.
    The common law is biased against conservatism. A hundred cases dismissing a novel claim on established principles are ignored, while the outlying case allowing it will be pronounced as an “advance in the law” and become the new standard. It is this process by which the courts have turned human foetuses into lifeless protoplasm, marriage into an open source platform, and men into women or some novel gender. The post-modernists have overrun the courts, exactly like they said they would.
    I sincerely hope that your truth seeking efforts bear fruit, but the chance that the learned Judge’s anticipated opinion will hold in the face of the onslaught is unlikely.

    • Mr Laurable should not despair. In moral questions, such as whether babies in the womb should be tortured before being dismembered, as is at present lawful, there are many possible viewpoints, though any Christiam msut oppose the torture of little babies before they are killed, by insisting that each baby earmarked for dismemberment should be given its own anesthetic first, which is not always the case at present.
      But the global warming storyline is unusual in that it is allegedly based on a scientific argument – an argument that can now, for the first time, be proven to embody a significant error without which no one would expect much more than 1.2 K global warming per doubling of CO2. The courts are actually a good place to hear and examine such arguments and counter-arguments, so, in the opinion of my co-authors and me, the effort involved in submitting an amicus brief was worthwhile. If we are right, this is one judge who will come to understand that fact quite clearly, and my assessment of his character is that, whatever his previous prejudices, he will allow the scientific truth to prevail.

  51. To confirm that we had understood feedback theory correctly, one of my distinguished co-authors, a hands-on electronics engineer, heard of our result and built a test rig in which we were able to specify the input signal (i.e., emission temperature TE) as a voltage, and also the direct-gain factor μ to allow for direct natural or anthropogenic forcings, and the feedback fraction β (we were using the more precise form of Eq. 1 that is usual in electronic network analysis). Then it was a simple matter directly to measure the output signal (i.e. equilibrium sensitivity ΔTeq).
    The most crucial of the many experiments we ran on this rig was to set μ to unity, implying no greenhouse forcing at all. We set the feedback fraction β to a non-zero value and then verified that the output signal exceeded the input signal by the expected margin. Not at all to our surprise, it did. This experiment proved that emission temperature, on its own, induced a feedback response that climatology had hitherto overlooked.

    I have used such an experiment to teach students how feedback works. However it doesn’t prove anything about the source of the feedback that you assert. When you assume that the pre-industrial scenario involves no GHG feedback it does not prove anything. There is no proof presented that emission temperature alone provides any feedback at all.

    • Phil. says “There is no proof presented that emission temperature alone provides any feedback at all.” Anticipating responses such as this, I recruited two electronic engineers and a professor of control theory to ensure that my understanding of the zero-dimensional-model equation was correct. Inherent in the correct form of that equation is the fact that, even in the absence of any direct amplification of the input signal, such as that which is driven by radiative forcings in the climate, a non-zero value of the feedback fraction will either amplify or attenuate the input signal (the emission temperature in the climate), so that the output signal is either greater or less than the input signal.
      When I was in Moscow earlier this year to discuss our result with members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I met Professor Mojib Latif, an IPCC lead author, who recommended that I should read Lacis et al. (2010), which I have cited in the head posting. Lacis’ paper actually describes the state of the climate without any greenhouse gases, and it is apparent from that description that two feedbacks – the ice-albedo feedback and the water vapor feedback, in order of importance to the pre-ghg climate – were present. However, Lacis et al. had not realized that they should explicitly account for that feedback.
      Next, we built our own test rig, set the input value to 2.554 volts, gain block to unity and the feedback fraction to various non-zero values. In each instance, the output value measured on the test rig was exactly as theory had led us to predict. It was not the same as the input value. Therefore, an input signal – such as the pre-existing emission temperature in the climate – does indeed induce a non-zero feedback response in the presence of a non-zero feedback fraction.
      We know that climatology would be unfamiliar with the relevant feedback theory. So we made assurance doubly sure by inviting a government laboratory to build a test rig to our specification. The laboratory revised our specification, built the rig and carried out the 23 tests we had requested, four of which were directed at establishing whether there was a feedback response to the input signal. The laboratory’s report, which is annexed to our paper now under peer review at a leading climate journal, makes it clear that there is indeed a feedback response even to an unamplified input signal.
      Once we had established this fact, it was a simple matter to recast the zero-dimensional-model equation as in Eq. (4) in the head posting and then to derive the pre-industrial feedback fraction directly, but this time allowing for the feedback response to emission temperature.
      Next, we used that feedback fraction in climatology’s form of the zero-dimensional-model equation, discovering that Charney sensitivity would then be 1.2 K and not the CMIP models’ 3.3 K mid-range estimate.
      Then we derived the industrial-era feedback fraction from IPCC’s mid-range estimate of the net anthropogenic radiative forcing from 1850-2011 compared with the total observed warming over the same period. The result was a feedback fraction very close to the pre-industrial value – so close, in fact, that the Charney sensitivity derivable from it was near-identical to that derived from the pre-industrial value.
      Then we checked that the centennial-equivalent warming rate since 1950, which is approximately the same as Charney sensitivity, for the reasons explained in the head posting. The result was again 1.2 K/century.
      We do not think we have left very much wriggle-room except at the margins of our argument. A serious error has been made, discovered, exposed, proven and quantified, and, upon correction of that error, there is no longer a global-warming problem. The error caused the apparent problem.

      • i am really glad phil asked that question the way he did and for the response lord monckton .i was concerned that i understood what you propose far too easily. if i can understand the basics anyone can, especially after reading your response to phil.

    • Monckton of Brenchley March 19, 2018 at 12:19 pm
      Phil. says “There is no proof presented that emission temperature alone provides any feedback at all.” Anticipating responses such as this, I recruited two electronic engineers and a professor of control theory to ensure that my understanding of the zero-dimensional-model equation was correct. Inherent in the correct form of that equation is the fact that, even in the absence of any direct amplification of the input signal, such as that which is driven by radiative forcings in the climate, a non-zero value of the feedback fraction will either amplify or attenuate the input signal (the emission temperature in the climate), so that the output signal is either greater or less than the input signal.
      When I was in Moscow earlier this year to discuss our result with members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I met Professor Mojib Latif, an IPCC lead author, who recommended that I should read Lacis et al. (2010), which I have cited in the head posting. Lacis’ paper actually describes the state of the climate without any greenhouse gases, and it is apparent from that description that two feedbacks – the ice-albedo feedback and the water vapor feedback, in order of importance to the pre-ghg climate – were present. However, Lacis et al. had not realized that they should explicitly account for that feedback.
      Next, we built our own test rig, set the input value to 2.554 volts, gain block to unity and the feedback fraction to various non-zero values. In each instance, the output value measured on the test rig was exactly as theory had led us to predict. It was not the same as the input value. Therefore, an input signal – such as the pre-existing emission temperature in the climate – does indeed induce a non-zero feedback response in the presence of a non-zero feedback fraction.

      Well water vapor feedback is a GHG feedback.
      Your ‘test rig’ sounds like the one I use in my class, basically use an Op amp with an input of 2.554V and use a resistance feedback ratio of 10 kohm/100kohm gives you a gain of 1.1 so an output voltage of 2.809V. Fine but it doesn’t tell you anything about the source of the feedback in the system being modeled. If you wanted to model albedo feedback you’d need to add a positive feedback loop as well.

      • Phil. says water vapor feedback is a greenhouse-gas feedback. However, as the head posting (worth reading before commenting) makes explicit, we are considering the forcings from the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Water vapor is a condensing greenhouse gas; changes in its atmospheric burden are consequently expressed in climatology as feedbacks.
        And of course our method tells us nothing of the sources of feedback in the system, except that the emission temperature itself induces a feedback response. We have adopted a top-down approach, taking all feedbacks as simply additive and thus working only with the feedback sum, which becomes the feedback fraction when multiplied by the Planck parameter.

      • It seems to me that if you look at this a little differently you can easily see that MoB is correct. Assume the sun only provided 200 K or 100 K or any level of emissions input. Let the system stabilize. Now, crank up the sun to 255 K. Would we expect feedback from the additional warming?
        The answer is obviously yes. It looks like Phil. is digging.

  52. Good Lord, Monckton of Brenchley! You’ve launched a legal and physics armed torpedo directly at the boiler room of the CAGW flagship People of California!
    My sincere hope is the court accepts your amicus brief submission and further asks the litigants for critical response to the physics based arguments you present there. It will be very interesting to see what ‘evasive maneuvers’ are attempted by the People of California, as your physics armed torpedo closes in. We may all be witness to a true ‘tipping point’ in CAGW science….

    • J Mac is right. Time to order popcorn, sit back and watch the fun. Our multiple empirical methods, all confirming the original theoretical result, will make it uncommonly difficult for the plaintiffs to overthrow our result. The truth is that an elementary error of physics has been made; it is a serious and material error of physics; and, after correcting the error, there was and is no basis for alarm about global warming. We do not think the plaintiffs will be able to overthrow those conclusions at all – and certainly not convincingly enough to justify any order of the court against BP and the other large oil corporations.

      • please don’t argue that a temperature creates its own feedback. The proper way of saying it is that there had to be an initial feedback to get the temp up to the temp of 1850. That could not have been caused by the little amount of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately preceeding 1850. However the proper way of explaining it to the judge is this. In the beginning there was no water vapour in the atmosphere because the only physical way that it could get there in appreciable quantities is by evaporation. Evaporation can only happen if the air temperature is significantly higher than the ocean temperature. So to start the process of evaporation there were massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere 4.6 billion years ago . If the atmosphere did not have CO2 in it there would have been no way to increase the temperature. So CO2 enabled a temperature increase. Gradually as plants evolved on earth they absorbed the CO2 from the atmosphere and the CO2 levels went down to dangerous levels over time. so at the time of 1850 most of the K above the emission temperature was because of the H2O and not the CO2. The CO2 initially caused H2O forcing 4.6 billion years ago but since then it is the H2O feedbacks that keep the temperature moderate. Since 1950 mankind has caused slight increases of CO2 and we are getting a slight feedback from increased CO2 but it is so tiny that it is laughable. We need all the CO2 that we can get. The very slight temperature changes from the CO2 proves that the alarmist position is untenable. For their alarmist theory to work they need a massive feedback ( ie increase) of H2O vapour but H2O vapour has been constant in the atmosphere since 4.6 billion years ago. Tell the judge that James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute shut down the water vapour measuring section after 20 years when he couldn’t show any increase of water vapour in the atmosphere. Without an increase of water vapour the tiny amount of CO2 cant force very much.

      • Mr Tomalty says I should not argue that a temperature creates its own feedback. But that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that if feedbacks are present (denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin), then if a temperature is also present there will be a feedback response.

  53. Robin of White Rock – The approach of hoisting the AGW enthusiasts on their own petard is classic. Well done, best of luck!

  54. A further thought to offer on this post, reconciling observational ECS (energy budget models and the like, see long comment upthread) to this new simpler more rigorous approach. The inherent problem in all the observational ECS approaches is they do not and cannot account for attribution—what part of the observed delta t is natural rather than AGW induced. See guest post Why Models Run Hot for a simple explanation not explicitly in an ECS setting. We know there is significant natural variation (MWP, LIA, comparing 1920-1945 to 1946-1975 to 1975-2000), but not why or how much. Removing natural variation was the essence of Manns infamous hockey stick. So ECS must be lower than ‘observed’ but that is all that could be said. This new approach ismindependent of natural variation and solves only for pure AGW induced ECS.
    AND that suggests that if feedback free CO2 doubling ECS is 1.1 as given in this post, and with feedbacks it is 1.2, and observationally (energy budget method) with best current aerosol estimate it is 1.5, then (1.2-1.1=) 0.1 divided by (1.5-1.1=) 0.4 means 25% of the last century’s observed warming is AGW and 75% is natural variation. WOW!
    IPCC AR5 WG1 has wrming since 1950 explicitly mostly AGW “with high confidence”. So this corrollary conclusion is a separate fatal body blow to the warmunist belief system.

    • Mr Istvan is, as always, most interesting. I shall think further about his suggestion that our result provides a method of deriving the fraction of post-1950 warming that is anthropogenic. The deliberately cautious approach we took ad argumentum in preparing our paper and our brief was that all warming after 1850 was anthropogenic.

      • Why guess,
        and likely be wrong ?
        Just use a range.
        BEST CASE:
        All post-1950 warming is natural, to
        WORST CASE
        All post-1950 warming is from man made CO2.
        Wouldn’t the “correct answer”,
        for CO2 effects alone,
        likely be somewhere in that range ?
        FEEDBACKS:
        Unknown — not even whether negative or positive
        so there’s no logical reason for any single guess,
        or any range of guesses.
        And please use weather satellite data when available
        since 1979 —
        — surface data are not even close to being global,
        with all the wild guess infilling, and multiple “adjustments”.

    • “IPCC AR5 WG1 has wrming since 1950 explicitly mostly AGW “with high confidence”.”
      Common sense ruled that out all along, imo,(1910 to 1940) but why were the authors of that statement so off base? MBs work provides a clear reason for how the models got it wrong. Great work.

      • SB, the explicit IPCC brief from the beginning was AGW. AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4 used the contrast between warming 1920-1945, explainable ‘naturally’ (not enough delta CO2 forcing in the period) and the warming 1975-2000 ‘explainable’ in models only with AGW forcings and not natural forcings to argue the later warming was all AGW. The fatal logical flaw in that figure is the two periodsare essentially indistinguishable. Natural variation did not magically stop in 1975. The attribution problem has been an IPCC Achilles heel. As suggested by my comment, on the surface from this post the new paper puts an arrow through it.

  55. I’m very curious as to the crickets I’m hearing from the normal BEST commentator we get on this blog whenever the Lord posts.

  56. The CMIP5 mid-range prediction of Charney sensitivity, at 3.3 K, is about equal to the original mid-range prediction of 21st-century global warming derivable from IPCC (1990, p. xiv), where 1.8 K warming compared with the pre-industrial era [equivalent to 1.35 K warming compared with 1990] is predicted for the 40-year period 1991-2030, giving a centennial warming rate of 1.35 / (40 / 100) = 3.3 K.

    The claim that the First IPCC report predicted 1.35C warming from 1990 – 2030 was made in the previous posting from Monckton of Brenchley, and I disagreed with it then. Page xxii and graph make it clear that they their model assumes temperatures in 1990 were 1C above pre-industrial levels. This means that the stated rise of 1.8C from pre-industrial levels made on page xxiv is predicting 0.8C warming from 1990 to 2030, a rate of warming of 2C / century, not the 3.3C / century claimed here.

    • In response to Bellman, we did not need to accept IPCC’s assumption of 1 K warming from the pre-industrial era to 1990, since we know from the HadCRUT4 dataset, which IPCC said it was using, that only 0.45 K of warming had occurred since 1850.
      Besides, the prediction on p. xiv of IPCC (1990) is not the only prediction made by IPCC. It also predicted 1 K warming from 1991-2025, a centennial-equivalent rate of 3 K.

      • You do need to know what the IPCC considered the rise since pre-industrial times to be if you want to know what they meant by 1.8C warming. They said (page 199) that there had been 0.45 ± 0.15C since the late 19th century, not “pre-industrial”. But this is irrelevant to how they expressed the projections.
        As you say on page xxii the projection is 1C to 2025, “about 2C above that of the pre-industrial period.”. Similarly they say 3C warming to the end of the century, (about 4C from pre-industrial). And the companion graph clearly shows about 1C warming by 1990. Why would they be using a completely different base line two pages later?
        I don’t know why there is a difference between the projected warming on the two pages, but you were the one who insisted on using the slower rate from page xxiv. But neither shows this claimed 3.3C / century.

    • Scottish “Sceptic” should know me better than to imagine that I would use an entire temperature as the input and then not use an entire temperature as the output. The head posting makes it quite clear how we did the calculation. The method was recommended by a professor of control theory, and we tested it at a government laboratory as well. The simple point is that there is a feedback response of about 23.4 K to the 255.4 K emission temperature; that there is a feedback response of about 0.7 K to the 8 K directly-forced warming caused by the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases; and that, therefore, the pre-industrial feedback fraction is of order 0.08, and not the currently-estimated values an order of magnitude above that value.

      • I can’t say this is your strongest paper. As such I would recommend drawing the judges attention to the following:
        1. The ~1C predicted effect of CO2 alone. I would also highlight the way this critical figure is all but missing from the IPCC report (It seems the IPCC denies the science in the biblical sense as it just doesn’t want to admit this figure exists – I have only found it as a footnote in one report – something that is truly bizarre as that ~1C is supposedly the “settled science”).
        2. That the IPCC estimates are based on feedbacks – which are unproven and in no sense “settled science”.
        3. That as a result of 1& 2 that the bulk of estimates for warming is not based on “settled science” but wishful/doomsday thinking of academics
        4. That the satellites show a pause.
        5. That the satellites are corroborated by radio sonde data.
        6. That surface data has been heavily corrupted.
        7. That there have been ~52 excuses for the pause and almost without except an potential cause for the, pause is also a potential explanation for the post cooling scare to pause warming. Therefore the common claim that “nothing but CO2 could have done it” is total non-science.

    • “it’s not reasonable to use an absolute temperature for a differential feedback”
      Absolutely (no pun)!. I’m glad to see there is one at least sceptic in Scotland. Lord M’s error is in a para appropriately headed “The error”. It says
      “Then we derived f simply by replacing the delta values ΔT_ref, ΔT_eq in (2) with the underlying entire quantities T_ref, T_eq, setting T_ref = T_E + ΔT_B, and T_eq = T_N (Eq. 4)”
      I’m dubious about the claim that
      f = 1 –T_ref / T_eq
      if for no other reason that the claim that 8K of the 32K is due to non-condensing GHGs is very hard to establish. The effects aren’t just linearly additive. You can’t just take out one component of the gases and say the effect would reduce proportionately. It’s like trying to estimate what fraction of the effect of a traffic jam is due to the red cars.
      But anyway, the effect could be rewritten
      f = (T_eq –T_ref) / T_eq
      Now you see what happens when you replace temperatures by absolutes (for which no justification is given). The numerator remains a difference, unchanged. But the denominator has 273K added to it. So of course f goes way down. And there is no role for absolute zero here. It’s just changing to a different scale. You could add anything, and make f anything you want.

      • f = 1 –T_ref / T_eq
        But anyway, the effect could be rewritten
        f = (T_eq –T_ref) / T_eq
        Now you see what happens when you replace temperatures by absolutes
        ============================
        Your rearrangement of the equation makes absolutely no difference to the result.
        An absolute minus and absolute is still an absolute.
        if one looks at Monckton’s posted work:
        f = 1 –Tref / Teq = 1 – (TE + ΔTB) / TN
        = 1 – (255.4 + 8) / 287.6 = 0.08. (4)
        using Nic’s rearranged equation we get:
        f = (T_eq –T_ref) / T_eq
        = (287.6 – (255.4 + 8))/287.6
        = (287.6 – 263.4)/287.6
        = 24.2/287.6
        = 0.08 !!!!
        Perhaps we should rename this the “Stokes Effect” – absolutely no affect.

      • “Your rearrangement of the equation makes absolutely no difference to the result.”
        Exactly. But it shows the difference that the unjustified switch to “entire” values makes. The first calc was a ratio between two differences, which could be C or K
        f=24.2/32.2 = .75
        The second just adds 255.4 to the numerator but not the denominator
        f=24.2/(32.2+255.4) = .08
        It is the ratio of a difference to an absolute.

      • It isn’t clear how Monckton went from 2 to 4 (below), which I understand is what Scottish Sceptic is saying. Hopefully this is addressed in the full paper. However this isn’t what I read Nic’s algebra to be saying.
        Question: how were the delta’s removed between (2) and (4)?
        f = 1 – ΔTref / ΔTeq. (2)
        f = 1 –Tref / Teq = 1 – (TE + ΔTB) / TN
        = 1 – (255.4 + 8) / 287.6 = 0.08. (4)

      • In answer to Mr Stokes and Mr Berple, I begin with the observation that a temperature feedback is a response to temperature and not, as Mr Stokes imagines, a response to forcing. Accordingly, if the conditions precedent to the occurrence of a feedback response obtain in the climate system, then a temperature subsisting in that system will induce a temperature-feedback response.
        Consider, first, a climate system which possesses something like today’s albedo but no non-condensing greenhouse gases. From the SB equation, the insolation and the albedo, we know that the temperature in the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks will be 255 K or thereby. However, as Lacis et al. (2010) point out, even in the absence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases there would be open water at the equator, implying an ice-albedo feedback, and there would be some water vapor in the atmosphere, implying a water vapor feedback and a cloud feedback.
        Let us, then, derive the feedback response to emission temperature, using the method that is standard in control theory. The input signal is 255.4 K; the direct-gain factor in the gain block is unity (for there are no greenhouse gases to amplify surface temperature yet); and the feedback faction is – illustratively – 0.084. Then the output signal is 255.4 / (1 – 0.084), which is 278.8 K. The difference between the input and output signals is the feedback response, i.e. 23.4 K.
        Now add some greenhouse gases. Lacis et al. (2010) imagine that some 24 K, or three-quarters of the 32 K difference between emission temperature and the natural temperature that obtained in 1850 is the feedback response to 8 K of directly-forced warming attributable to the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases.
        In fact, that 8 K of direct warming is the direct gain in the feedback loop. From this we may determine the direct-gain factor, labeled mu in Bode (1945). It is simply 1 + 8 / 255.4, or 1.0313. Now, assuming illustratively that the feedback fraction (beta in Bode) is constant throughout the pre-industrial era, one calculates thus: Equilibrium temperature after feedback (i.e., the output signal) is equal to the emission temperature before feedback (the input signal 255.4 K) multiplied by the ratio of mu to (1 – mu * beta). In this example, then, the equilibrium pre-industrial temperature after allowing feedback is 255.4 x 1.0313 / (1 – 1.0313 * 0.082), or 287.7 K, which is about right. Note that 0.082 is very slightly smaller than 0.084 because we have set mu to a value above unity to allow for the 8 K direct warming in response to the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases.
        Or one could use the assumption implicit in official climatology that mu is equal to unity (this isn’t too bad an assumption, because mu is quite close to unity). Then equilibrium pre-industrial temperaturein 1850 is (255.4+8) / (1 – 0.084), or 287.6 K, which is about right.
        It comes as a great surprise to the climatological community that a feedback arises even in the absence of a direct gain factor mu. You will see later in this thread that it was at this point that I lost Roy Spencer. Many other climatologists have expressed similar surprise. That is why I recruited not only two engineers with practical experience of feedback but also an adjunct professor of applied control theory (he gets tenure later this year) to assist in ensuring that the control theory was correctly represented in our paper.
        It matters not that the models do not explicitly incorporate the zero-dimensional model. We calibrated the ZDM by taking the official CMIP5 inputs in Vial (2013), used by IPCC (2013), and plugging them in. We obtained the interval 3.3 [2.0, 4.5] K that is the CMIP5 models’ climate-sensitivity interval.
        Likewise, it matters not that the difference between emission and surface temperature woulkd be 72 K rather than 32 K in the absence of convective processes. The ZDM takes the system as it finds it.
        The key point in all this is a very simple one. If conditions precedent to a feedback response are present in a dynamical system, then any input to that system, whether or not it is amplified, will induce a feedback response. In this sense, there is no distinction (except at the margins) between the emission temperature that is the input signal and the directly-forced 8 K of additional temperature caused by the presence of the greenhouse gases. If one assumes that the 8 K induces a feedback response, it is inconsistent to assume that the 255.4 K induces no feedback response at all.

      • “how were the delta’s removed between (2) and (4)?”
        By hand-waving. No justification is offered. And none is possible.
        ==============
        Nic (and Monckton), I’ve gone through the arguments and after a long walk with the dog to think things through I believe Monckton is correct, with a small quibble. Here is the reason:
        The 255K temperature is both an absolute and a delta!! This is obscured somewhat by the use of the words temperature and forcing to represent similar ideas by different people on this site, depending on background.
        What the 255K temperature represents is effective temperature of the earth due to the sun. In the absence of the sun the earth’s effective temperature would be 0K. Thus the delta would also be 255K. So when people talk about temperature and forcing, they are really talking about the delta attributable to the sun.
        So there is no problem in going from (2) to (4). For example: 255K – 0K = 255K
        My small quibble is that the earth would not be 0K without the sun. It would be 3K due to CBR. Thus, the equation should probably have been written something like:
        f = 1 – ΔTref / ΔTeq = 1 – (TE – CBR + ΔTB) / (TN – CBR)
        = 1 – (255.4 – 3 + 8) / (287.6 – 3)
        = 1 – 260.4/284.6 = 0.085. (4)
        However, I don’t believe this alters the result significantly. I could well be that 3K was not considered previously in calculating 255K, and can be ignored. However, in the interest of completeness, Monckton may wish to review this small point.

      • ferd,
        “In the absence of the sun the earth’s effective temperature would be 0K.”
        If you want to include the effect of absenting the sun in the input, you have to include it in the response. But the response remains 24.2K. That obviously does not include the response to absence of sun.
        The other thing about all this is that gain and feedback are responses to small changes. They represent derivatives of the state variables. Taking the notion of a single feedback coefficient to a 32K variation is a stretch. Taking it to a 255 K variation is ridiculous.

      • Lord M,
        “The input signal is 255.4 K”
        Again, just wrong. A signal is a change. If you want to think about a change from 0 to 255K, you need to divide it into the response to that change. And a feedback determines a proportional response. If the Earth had half as much GHG, it is reasonable to expect a 16K differential, of which 4K is due to GHG. Your arithmetic is going to give a feedback factor then of 12/(255+4)= 0.046, not 0.08. In fact, , if the GHG component was a small fraction g of what we do have , the feedback factor would be about 0.08*g. But the gain andfeedback factor should not depend on the size of signal, especially when small. It is a property of the control system.

      • Mr Stokes is, with respect, simply wrong about whether the emission temperature is a “signal”. It is. It is the “input signal” in the dynamical system that is the climate. And, even in the absence of greenhouse gases, it induces a feedback, whose magnitude we derived theoretically and then verified using not one but two test rigs. Bode (1945, ch. 3) applies the term “signal” to the input voltage and the output voltage in a feedback-amplifier loop. A temperature feedback is a feedback that arises owing to the presence of a temperature. The magnitude of the temperature feedback response is dependent upon the magnitude of the temperature.
        Mr Stokes is also confused about the relative magnitudes of the constituents in the 32 K difference between natural temperature in 1850 and emission temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases or feedbacks. We know that the difference is 32 K. he question, therefore, is how to apportion it. Lacis et al. (2010) say 75% of it is feedback response, wherefore 25%, or 8 K, is the directly forced greenhouse warming. Suppose one thought that 8 K should really be 11 K. Then the feedback fraction would work out at 1 – (255.4 + 11) / 287.6, or 0.074. Suppose there were no greenhouse forcings at all. Then the feedback fraction would be 1 – 255.4 / 287.6, or 0.11, which is the impossible maximum pre-industrial feedback fraction. The truth is that we do not know exactly how large the directly-forced warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases is, so we have simply taken Lacis’ estimate as an illustrative example. Other estimates might be made, but they do not much alter the value of the feedback fraction.

      • ” It is the “input signal” in the dynamical system that is the climate. And, even in the absence of greenhouse gases, it induces a feedback”
        So what is the response to the 255K “input signal” alone? That is then modified by feedback? I asked that before, and got no answer.
        As I noted elsewhere, the arithmetic promoted here would say that the feedback factor is proportional to the amount of GHG added to the air, and would be zero if there were none (since the 255K provides zero response). But the feedback factor is a property of the system and should not be proportional to the signal.

      • here is the problem between Christopher and Nick
        The real graph should be 31.4K due to clouds and H2O and 0.8K due to CO2,methane…etc
        how do I get that For the longest time CO2 levels before 1850 were at dangerous levels for plant growth( they would die at 150ppm) Therefore the initial feedback 4.6 billion years ago was what caused the water vapour to be the level it is in the atmosphere. So Co2 is a minor player. However as long as Monckton stops saying that a temperature causes a temperature…….. he is completely correct. See below for complete explanation
        Please don’t argue that a temperature creates its own feedback. A temperature isnt a real entity. It is only a measurement. The proper way of saying it is that there had to be an initial feedback to get the temp up to the temp of 1850. That could not have been caused by the little amount of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately preceeding 1850. However the proper way of explaining it to the judge is this. In the beginning there was no water vapour in the atmosphere because the only physical way that it could get there in appreciable quantities is by evaporation. Evaporation can only happen if the air temperature is significantly higher than the ocean temperature. So to start the process of evaporation there were massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere 4.6 billion years ago . If the atmosphere did not have CO2 in it there would have been no way to increase the temperature. So CO2 enabled a temperature increase. Gradually as plants evolved on earth they absorbed the CO2 from the atmosphere and the CO2 levels went down to dangerous levels over time. so at the time of 1850 most of the K above the emission temperature was because of the H2O and not the CO2. The CO2 initially caused H2O forcing 4.6 billion years ago but since then it is the H2O feedbacks that keep the temperature moderate. Since 1950 mankind has caused slight increases of CO2 and we are getting a slight feedback from increased CO2 but it is so tiny that it is laughable. We need all the CO2 that we can get. The very slight temperature changes from the CO2 proves that the alarmist position is untenable. For their alarmist theory to work they need a massive feedback ( ie increase) of H2O vapour but H2O vapour has been constant in the atmosphere since 4.6 billion years ago. Tell the judge that James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute shut down the water vapour measuring section after 20 years when he couldn’t show any increase of water vapour in the atmosphere. Without an increase of water vapour the tiny amount of CO2 cant force very much.

      • “The real graph should be 31.4K due to clouds and H2O and 0.8K due to CO2,methane…etc”
        That gives feedback f=39. Lord M says 0.08. I think Lacis is better, with something around 3.

      • In reply to Mr Tomalty, a temperature feedback is indeed a feedback to temperature. Temperature feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature (or temperature change) that induced them. If Mr Tomalty wishes to take issue with official climatology in this respect, he should address his concerns not to me but to the IPCC. My policy has been to adopt ad argumentum all aspects of official climatology except those that now require correction as a result of the error of physics we have found.

      • “If Mr Tomalty wishes to take issue with official climatology “
        No, “official climatology” doesn’t talk much about feedback at all. But when it does, it is feedback to a forcing.

      • Mr Stokes, who believes that official climatology hardly talks about feedback at all, may care to read the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where the word “feedback” occurs >1100 times. After all, official climatology imagines that feedbacks increase reference sensitivity by a factor 2 to 10, mid-range estimate 3.
        He is, of course, correct that official climatology defines a feedback as a response not to an entire temperature but to a temperature change. But that, of course, is precisely the error that official climatology is making. It can attempt to define a temperature feedback that way till it is blue in the face, but that does not in any way alter the fact that, as the zero-dimensional-model equation makes quite clear, and as our two feedback-amplifier circuits confirm, the Earth’s emission temperature will itself induce a feedback response, since temperature feedback processes will necessarily respond in the presence of a temperature.

  57. Thanks, Christopher, for an impressive effort. I hope it has the desired result.
    My observations:
    A. I appreciate the general thrust and logic, but in places there appears to be an implicit assumption that the feedback fraction (or ratio) is constant. That seems very unlikely to me. That part of the argument does still appear to be valid – it’s just that it can’t be given exact numbers.
    B. Your “Conclusion: The anthropogenic global warming we can now expect will be small, slow, harmless, and even net-beneficial.” is misleading by omission. There is no reason to suppose that the higher rate of warming predicted by the IPCC would not also be net-beneficial. [Note: I deliberately use the word “predicted”, as per the duck look walk quack maxim.].
    Typos? Or my misunderstanding?
    1. “Abstract: In a dynamical system, even an unamplified input signal induces a response to any feedback.”. Should this be “… induces a feedback response”?
    2. Just after equation (3), this doesn’t look right to me: “The Planck parameter λ0 is currently estimated at about 0.3125, or 3.2–1 K W–1 m2”. Should this be “-3.2 K W–1 m2”?
    3. In the paragraph before “The new headline Charney sensitivity”, should “There is little change that some feedbacks had not fully acted.” be “There is little chance that some feedbacks had not fully acted.”?
    Apologies if these comments have already been made. I haven’t yet read the comments.

    • I am most grateful to Mr Jonas for the trouble he has taken.
      As to the assumed constancy of the feedback fraction, of course that is an jillustrative assumption. Lacis et al. (2010) explicitly assume it in holding that the feedback fraction induced by “the entire greenhouse effect” is 0.75 and that the feedback fraction “for today’s climate” is likewise 0.75,.
      We derived the pre-industrial feedback fraction theoretically and found it to be of order 0.08. We separately derived the industrial-era feedback fraction empirically and found it to be of order 0.05. What these results, obtained by distinct methods, appear to indicate is that the feedback fraction is so small that any nonlinearities are de minimis.
      As to the conclusion, I agree with you that even 3 K warming per doubling of CO2 would probably not be harmful, a point that the formidable Dick Lindzen has often made.
      As to the wording of the abstract, it is as it is because there cannot be a feedback response except in the presence of some feedback.
      As to the Planck parameter, 0.3125 is, as shown in the head posting, the reciprocal of 3.2, i.e. 3.2 to the power of minus 1.
      As to “change” where “chance” is intended, I apologize for the misprint.

  58. Naturally, Lord Monckton, this is a wonderful reading; however I wonder . . “If the following two propositions were demonstrated, His Honor might decide – and all but a few irredentists would be compelled to agree – that global warming was not a problem and that the scare was over.”
    ” . .that global warming . .'”
    Why not always be more specific – saying, ” . . that man-made global warming, AGW, is not a problem.
    I propose that we should always distinguish between what we believe to be naturally occurring GW and/or CC, and that, which they believe to be some serious issue, AGW and ACC, or CACC.
    My response when someone asks me, if I believe in GW, or CC, always begins with – ‘can you be more specific, pls?”

      • Thanks very much. Actually, Judith Curry wrote about this topic once a couple of years back.
        PS – ‘one should,’ not ‘one could.’ That was the whole point. If folks are pressed into understanding the difference between naturally occurring climate change – constantly dramatic as it is – and the view that some additional bit of GW (potentially caused by AGHG emissions) is predicted – by some – to have an effect on that, then I propose that they might be more willing to engage themselves in an intelligent internal debate on the issue.
        (;~> gary

  59. I made it all the way through the comments and did not see any coherent objection. That means I am going to accept the argument as it stands. As always I am thrilled by Monckton’s erudition and rhetorical skills. This is what draws me back to WUWT. Well done and good luck!! A very commendable effort. Semelweiss, Wegener and Margulis will be watching.

    • I’d like to hear RG Brown weigh in on this. His endorsement would be gratifying, and his style would be a pleasure to read, like M’lud’s.

  60. What is the actual experiment that illustrates that Co2 causes warming . If it is the co2 in the test tube experiment , how many ppm of co2 are used?

    • I’ll try to answer because you have
      a wonderful first name, Richard:
      After 20 years of reading about climate change
      the lack of real science is stunning.
      Simple lab experiments —
      —using infrared absorption
      spectroscopy (IRS)
      — determined the infrared
      absorption spectrum of CO2.
      The lab experiments only prove
      CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
      A greenhouse gas should cause warming,
      mainly at night.
      No one knows how much warming,
      and it is impossible to know.
      We also don’t have accurate
      surface temperature measurements
      to make am accurate guess.
      But the satellite measurements
      are near global and better
      — they start in 1979 —
      but most of the warming attributed to CO2
      by the IPCC is after 1975 ,
      and 1975 is close to 1979.
      We can guess a
      WORST CASE warming,
      from CO2 alone,
      net of feedbacks,
      which are a mystery
      so there’s no need
      to wild guess feedbacks
      If you start by assuming
      ALL all warming
      in the satellite era,
      since 1979,
      was caused by CO2,
      which is a worst case warming
      from CO2 assumption,
      then you could speculate
      that a doubling of CO2,
      in 125 years
      (at +3 ppm per year)
      to 200 years
      (at +2 ppm per year),
      would increase
      the average temperature
      by about + 1 degree C.
      long after you are dead !
      Mainly warming at night
      in colder, dryer latitudes
      = ho, hum, harmless !
      I wrote an article titled:
      “Climate Science is Missing the Science”
      in simple, plain English,
      because I believe I know enough
      about the subject to keep it simple,
      at the following URL
      http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2018/03/climate-science-is-missing-science.html

  61. There is another issue that has never been acceptably addressed: What is the optimum temperature of the earth to support life?
    Life has generally thrived at higher average temperature and suffered at lower average temperature. but what is the optimum? That has never been determined and would vary considerably depending on what criteria are used. Which lifeform or forms are the benchmark? Which area of the earth is also of concern. If warming opens up vast areas of unused land, isn’t that to the benefit of mankind. Canada would welcome a few degrees increase in average temperature.

    • I am dumbfounded by my fellow Canadian’s refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a net benefit to Canada from warming. The thoroughness of the brainwashing is frightening to witness.

      • the possibility of a net benefit to Canada from warming
        ===================
        When you import a vehicle into Canada from the US, they charge you an extra $500 at the border if it has an air-conditioner installed. It is classified a “Luxury” item. There is no extra charge if there is a heater installed.
        The argument goes you don’t need an air-conditioner in Canada, just open a window.

  62. I’m afraid you lost me with, “However, climatologists had made the grave error of not realizing that emission temperature TE (= 255 K) itself induces a substantial feedback.”
    The effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere (~255 K) is not a “forcing” and so cannot have a “feedback”. Maybe you mean it “involves” a feedback? If that is the case, then it has been known since at least 1964 (Manabe & Strickler) that any estimate of the greenhouse effect around 33 deg C. is NOT actually an estimate of the greenhouse effect, since it includes the surface cooling effect of convection. Any claims to the contrary in recent decades are just sloppy. Manabe & Strickler showed that the greenhouse effect is at least double that…is that what you are getting at? If so, Dick Lindzen pointed that out back in 1990 in his widely-read (and controversial) BAMS article “Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming”.
    In any event, none of the forcing/feedback equations that approximate the climate system’s response to forcing are included in climate models. The models don’t even assume they are true…the forcing/feedback paradigm is not imposed upon the models in any way. (But the modelers assume it is true.) In fact, if the models had enough of the correct physics (probably in the ocean) to cause multi-century chaotic variations in the climate system, maybe the modelers would realize that the forcing/feedback paradigm is only a crude approximation, and they would abandon it.
    Unfortunately, that would screw up politicians’ justification for stopping (or at least taxing) our “forcing” of the climate system with more CO2.

    • The effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere (~255 K) is not a “forcing”
      ==========
      without the sun 255K would not be the effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere. It would be closer for 3K. thus it is a solar forcing.

      • perhaps the paper needs to make it clear that it is the solar forcing that is being referred to, and the 255K temperature is the result of this forcing.

      • since we are dealing with a solar fording, we must ask where is the accounting for the water feedback due to solar forcing? As I understand the 255K, this is fully accounted for by albedo and SB. No water feedback is included in the 255K number. This points to a fundamental error.
        Thus it would appear that the water feedback for solar forcing is not included in the 255K, so it must be included in the 32K remainder. And once the significant feedback due to solar forcing is subtracted from 32K, you are left with much less CO2 warming.
        Which would explain such things as the missing hotspot and why the models are running hot.

      • Ferd Berple is quite right: the 255 K emission temperature is determined via the fundamental equation of radiative transfer solely by reference to insolation and albedo, assuming emissivity is unity. Therefore, by defnition emission temperature does not include any element of feedback response to the water vapor in the atmosphere. Accordingly, one must first derive that feedback response to emission temperature, and one must not, as now, simply assume that the entire difference between equilibrium temperature and the surface temperature in 1850 is accounted for by the 8 K direct warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases and the imagined (and almost entirely imaginary) 24 K feedback response to that small direct warming,

    • I’m afraid you lost me with, “However, climatologists had made the grave error of not realizing that emission temperature TE (= 255 K) itself induces a substantial feedback.”
      The effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere (~255 K) is not a “forcing” and so cannot have a “feedback”.

      Sorry you lost me there. How so? Why is that? Has the meaning of the word ‘feedback’ somehow been redefined? I do not care what they consider a forcing or not.
      Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are routed back as inputs to that system, producing even more output. The system ‘feeds’ back into itself. The original output was produced by some base input.
      That feedback does not distinguish between base input and some additional extra input from other sources (say just as a result of extra CO2), after the extra input there will not just be feedback from that extra input, but also from that base input.

      • >>
        Nick Stokes
        March 19, 2018 at 3:13 pm
        The objection is that 255K is not an input. In the electrical analogy, it is the DC, or bias voltage. It isn’t a signal.
        <<
        255K is an average. The 255K value is obtained by averaging TSI over the entire globe. i.e. dividing by 4 (the ratio of circular area to spherical area is 1:4); removing about 30% due to albedo effects; and then using the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the average temperature.
        In actuality, a specific location will experience from 0 to about 1368 W/m^2 (depending on local conditions) during the daylight hours and nothing during nighttime hours. There’s a signal–a rather robust one.
        Jim

      • Look up DC coupled amplifiers. Your assumption is that the input is an AC signal superimposed on a DC signal and that the DC portion is blocked by using a “capacitor”. That isn’t necessary. Besides, what would function as a capacitor in the atmosphere?

      • I should add that your assumption is exactly the error Moncton is pointing out. Learn more about electronics and you’ll understand.

      • Jim M
        “There’s a signal–a rather robust one”
        Yes. But the “response” used in the calculation is 32.2K above snowball – ie a very long term average. If you are going to use diurnal variation to calculate a gain, or feedback factor, you need to relate it to the diurnal response.
        Jim G
        “Your assumption is that the input is an AC signal superimposed on a DC signal and that the DC portion is blocked by using a “capacitor”.”
        No, not at all. I’m simply saying that if you want to calculate gain, you have to measure the output generated by a corresponding input. The power supply is not a corresponding input. The 32.2° excess over snowball is a response to an input which you can maybe (dubious) quantify as an 8° input. It isn’t a response to a 255° input. That 255° was always there, as ATTP says, it is just determined by TSI and Stefan-Boltzmann.

      • Mr Stokes continues to have difficulty in imagining that the Earth’s emission temperature cannot itself induce a temperature feedback response. Well, it can, just as a voltage input to a feedback loop can cause a voltage feedback response provided that there is a non-zero feedback fraction in the feedback block. We’ve tested that by building not one but two feedback-amplifier circuits to verify that this is the case. It happens.
        Mr Titulaer is absolutely right to say that “feedback occurs when outputs of a system are routed back as inputs to that system, producing even more output. The system feeds back into itself. The original output was produced by some base input. That feedback does not distinguish between base input and some additional extra input from other sources, say, just as a result of extra CO2. After the extra input there will not just be feedback from that extra input, but also from that base input.” Admirably correct and clear.
        Of course the 255 K emission temperature that would obtain at the surface in the absence of greenhouse gases or of feedbacks is dependent solely upon insolation and albedo. However, the feedback response it induces will be dependent upon the presence of feedbacks in the system. Either there are feedbacks in the climate system (notably the water-vapor/lapse-rate, ice albedo and cloud feedbacks), in which event the emission temperature will induce a feedback response, or there are not, in which case it won’t. As it happens, there are feedbacks, but they are small.

      • >>
        That 255° was always there, as ATTP says, it is just determined by TSI and Stefan-Boltzmann.
        <<
        And minus the albedo. The 255K assumes the Earth is a perfect black body. It’s not a perfect black body. It’s not even a good grey body. However, an emissivity of 0.95 would result in a temperature of 258K and an emissivity of 0.9 would result in a temperature of 261K. The Sun, which on average never seems to affect surface temperatures, actually does warm the surface deferentially as its apparent motion moves between the tropics. In fact, it’s crossing the Equator now (Spring or Vernal Equinox) and will continue to cause massive global warming in the Northern Hemisphere–at least for another three months or so.
        Jim

    • Roy W. Spencer
      Unfortunately, that would screw up politicians’ justification for stopping (or at least taxing) our “forcing” of the climate system with more CO2.

      😎
      In some computer programs you can “force” a value into the calculations.
      One might honestly do that if they knew the original value was in error so as to reach accurate conclusion.
      In Climate Seance, Man’s CO2 has been “forced” to reach the desired conclusion.

    • In answer to Roy Spencer, I have addressed his points further up this thread. Briefly, a temperature feedback is not a feedback in response to a forcing but a feedback in response to a temperature. If the conditions precedent to a feedback response subsist in a dynamical system, any temperature in that system will induce a feedback response. Thus, the 255.4 K emission temperature induces a feedback response.
      I agree that the models do not specifically incorporate the forcing/feedback paradigm, but we did take more than a little care to calibrate the ZDM by informing it with official inputs from Vial (2013), whereupon we obtained precisely the 3.3 [2.0, 4.5] K interval of Charney sensitivites to be found in numerous CMIP5 authorities, including Andrews (2012).
      It came to me as a shock that emission temperature could induce a feedback response: but a reading of CH. 3 of Bode (1945), taken with p. vii, and also of Black (1934), left no option. Then we tested the matter on our own rig and then got a government lab to do the tests as well. The result confirmed our understanding, which did not cause the lab any surprise at all, though it is a shock to climatologists.

      • “Briefly, a temperature feedback is not a feedback in response to a forcing but a feedback in response to a temperature. If the conditions precedent to a feedback response subsist in a dynamical system, any temperature in that system will induce a feedback response.”
        I don’t think that’s accurate. Temperature is a state variable, and equilibrium temperature is just a temperature that a system settles on in response to a new change in input. I’ve heard climate scientists argue that secondary feedback effects (albedo, water vapor, methane) are caused by temperature CHANGES resulting from CO2 emissions, but I’ve never heard anybody argue that a temperature per se induces a feedback. In the electrical analogy, an input voltage signal (and the “signal” means a change in voltage) can have feedback applied to it to amplify or attenuate the signal, but there is no feedback applied to a mere “voltage” of say the 12V bias voltage of an amplifier about which the output signal oscillates to avoid clipping.

      • It seems to me you are trying to redefine feedback, Christopher. Feedbacks in the climate system are by definition in response to a *change* in surface temperature from its time-averaged value while in a state of energy equilibrium. If an energy imbalance is imposed upon a system originally in energy equilibrium, the average temperature will change. This is true of the human body, a car engine, the temperature in your house — everything.
        So, adding CO2 to the atmosphere (at least theoretically) reduces the rate of energy loss to outer space, thus upsetting energy equilibrium, leading to warming, which then tries to restore energy equilibrium. I think we agree that in the absence of any other changes in the climate system except temperature, the warming from 2XCO2 would be around 1 deg. C for energy equilibrium to be restored.
        But presumably there will be other changes, and all of the other changes that occur (clouds, etc) are the “feedbacks” that then cause the warming to be either more (or less) than that 1 deg. C base line value.
        Setting aside the argument of whether climate change should even be phrased in terms of the forcing-feedback paradigm, are we in agreement regarding what I just said? I guess I’m trying to get you to phrase your argument as simply as possible starting from where the above is either right or wrong, in your opinion.

      • In response to Roy Spencer, feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of any temperature that is present. Climatology has erroneously assumed that feedbacks only occur in response to a change in temperature, but the zero-dinemsional model equation and the two test rigs we constructed agree that if there is a temperature in the presence of feedback processes there will a feedback response, whether or not that temperature has been amplified.
        Dr Spencer assumes that the Earth in the absence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases would be in energy equilibrium. So it would be, iff there were no feedback processes in the system. But there are. The water vapor feedback is the biggest of them. Because that feedback, and others besides, are present, the Earth at an emission temperature of 255 K without feedback would become warmer because the presence of feedbacks ensures that, until the temperature has risen to accommodate their effect, there is an energy imbalance in the system that the math behind the feedbacks will resolve by determining a rise in the 255 K emission temperature even before any non-condensing greenhouse gases have been added.

    • I think I know where he’s going wrong. Let’s say I have a black”feedback box” that I can insert into a system that applies feedback to an input in an unknown way, which I can’t directly observe. But I can compare the output of that system with the feedback box (255K) and without the feedback box (288K). From that comparison, I logically (but perhaps not correctly) conclude that the difference (33K) is due to the feedback from my magic box, and then move on to the much tougher issue of trying to figure out what might be in that box that would produce the empirical result I got.
      But Monckton is trying to use the equation representing feedback, which is just an equation to calculate the sum of a geometric series, to try to take the first output measurement (255) – which was the system with no feedback in the system at all – and say that a part of the 33K difference resulting from adding feedback was due to some “inherent” feedback that resulted from the first 255K reading. which I think he is specifically arguing is the first term in the geometric series being summed. In other words, he is trying to bifurcate the 33K difference into a first feedback portion from the initial radiation that gets bounced back to the surface just from adding the feedback, and a second portion that sums up the rest of the feedback terms as the geometric series slowly vanishes toward zero.
      But I can see what led him down this rabbit hole. Climate scientists invite the conflation of the GHG feedback system that causes the greenhouse effect in the first place, with the conceptually different feedback systems of say methane and ice-melt driven changes in albedo, let alone this hidden-heat-in-the-ocean nonsense. Conceptually, changes in CO2 concentrations are not a forcing, or input going into the climate system like changes in solar irradiance, but are instead a change in the climate system itself. I think climate modelers simplify things by pretending GHG emissions are an input, but they aren’t.

      • What he is saying is that the “feedback box” is in the circuit from the very beginning. Your analogy is what climate scientists have been claiming. Ask yourself if there was CO2 in the atmosphere pre-industry. Would this have caused a feedback just like CO2 added post-industry? Sure it would. So you have to account for that feedback before accounting for the feedback from manmade CO2.

      • “Climate scientists invite the conflation of the GHG feedback system that causes the greenhouse effect in the first place, with the conceptually different feedback systems of say methane and ice-melt driven changes in albedo, let alone this hidden-heat-in-the-ocean nonsense. Conceptually, changes in CO2 concentrations are not a forcing, or input going into the climate system like changes in solar irradiance, but are instead a change in the climate system itself.”
        Climate scientists don’t “invite” that. People make up a whole lot of nonsense about what climate scientists say, but never actually quote them.
        CHanges in CO2 are a forcing. An analogy is a FET, where the gate voltage controls the conductivity of the active channel. In climate the solar heat flux which comes and leaves corresponds to the channel current, and is modulated by GHG concentrations which vary the impedance, or conductivity, of the atmosphere. Since space is a high impedance sink, the flux doesn’t change, but the fluctuating impedance forces temperature variations.

      • CHanges in CO2 are a forcing
        =========================
        the problem lies in the use of the word “forcing”. It is a nonsense word invented for climate science to try and hide the fact that mathematics is not their strong suit.

      • Jim: If that’s what he’s saying, he’s wrong. Everyone understands that there is CO2, water vapor, and many other GHGs in the atmosphere irrespective of what fossil fuel consumption accounts for. The 33C estimate for the total effect of GHGs pre-industry was calculated as the measured pre-industry temperatures (and I make no statement here about the accuracy of those temperatures) and the theoretical black body temperature of the Earth, assuming no radiative feedback to the surface, In other words, the 33C figure is simply an estimate of what the air surface temperature would be if the Earth’s atmosphere could not radiate at all. There is nothing in that 33C figure to partition into “natural feedback” and “man-made feedback.”
        Nick: You’re trying to criticize my opinion, but I think your own response proves my point. By your own analogy, a change in GHG concentration does not change the flux into or out of the system’s boundaries; it changes the temperature needed to balance the output with the input due to the feedback loop, It’s like turning a knob on a potentiometer in a circuit and trying to conceptualize it as the same thing as turning a knob on a voltage waveform that is input into the circuit, simply because both things affect current.
        GHGs operate as a true feedback system. It takes a portion of the output and feeds it back internally before it leaves, and both the output and input are expressed in the same units (W/m2). The “feedback” generates its own “feedback” and on down the line, hence the equation A/(1-r) to get the total response to a change in an input. A change in the feedback factor changes the value of r in the equation above, and is not the same thing as changing the input.
        Climate scientists refer to a “forcing” as this overarching, contrived term to represent some amorphous “initial drivers of climate.” (You just have to admire the scientific precision of that definition.) They lump changes in GHG concentrations together with natural effects like aerosols from volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance. And the description of the GHG forcing states that the “greenhouse gases absorb and then re-radiate heat in Earth’s atmosphere, which causes increased warming.” That sounds just like feedback to me, but if climate scientists want to call it a “forcing” instead of feedback, then hey – whatever trips their trigger.
        Climate scientists conversely define “feedback” as “processes that can either amplify or diminish the effects of climate forcings. A feedback that increases an initial warming is called a ‘positive feedback,’ A feedback that reduces an initial warming is a ‘negative feedback.'” That’s not feedback. “An initial warming” is not what is input to the climate system” and whatever happens to “increase” that initial warming might not do so by feeding an output back into the system. There also is no reason to expect that any or all of these “feedback” types will follow the textbook feedback formula of A/(1-r). It’s this muddled mess that makes it so easy to confuse what climate scientists call “feedback” and pretend that it mathematically behaves as real feedback would.
        Incidentally, my quotes here are from “https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/. Is NASA an acceptable source?

      • Kurt,
        “Climate scientists refer to a “forcing” as this overarching, contrived term to represent some amorphous”
        It is not amorphous. The clear distinction is between exogenous and endogenous. Think of a two-port network. Forcings are what is applied to the input. Feedbacks happen within the box. Typically the input is a flux W/m2, output is a temperature. You have some reference conversion, usually the Planck version. Circuitry that varies that is called feedback.
        Volcanoes, solar fluctuations, CO2 emissions etc are autogenous. They happened outside the box. wv feedback is an inside box thing. It happens whenever some warming or cooling effect is applied at the input.
        A GHG increase does not change the flux exiting Earth. That is because that is constrained to balance (at steady state) solar input. The Earth is outputting to high impedance. Flux is converted to temperature change.

      • In response to Kurt and to Mr Stokes, my point is a very simple one. It is that, where feedbacks exist in the climate, any temperature present in the system will induce a feedback. You can’t plausibly state that the 255 K emission temperature induces no feedback response at all and then that the next 8 K of temperature, driven by the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, suddenly induces a feedback response of 24 K.
        Look at it another way. How do the water-vapor feedback, the lapse-rate feedback, the ice-albedo feedback and the cloud feedback distinguish between the 255 K of temperature that is already there, driven by the sun and moderated by the albedo, and the further 8 K of directly-forced pre-industrial greenhouse-gas warming? The answer is that they don’t. They simply respond to the temperature they find – and that, like it or not, includes the emission temperature.

      • Nick, you are arguing that the full SB value of 255 K is a forcing. This means you are arguing that there would be NO FEEDBACK if that forcing was only 200 K (or any value less than 255 K).
        So please, tell us what is magical about 255 K that eliminates any possibility of a feedback at lower values and why feedback starts precisely at this value?

      • “Nick, you are arguing that the full SB value of 255 K is a forcing. “
        No, that is Lord M’s argument, which I dispute. There is very muddled talk of signals and forcings. In the snowball earth thought experiment, the earth sits with no GHGs in the air, at a temperature of 255 K. GHGs are introduced – their hindrance of IR is the forcing, or signal. The response, if nothing else happened, is said to be a temperature rise of 8 K. Along with everything else, the response is then 32 K. Those are responses to the introduction of GHgs, and the resulting f ratio is 0.75. The 255 K is not a forcing; it is, if anything, a response to sunlight. It is not a response to GHGs.

      • In response to Mr Stokes, I do not regard emission temperature as a forcing. I regard it as a temperature. Since feedback mechanisms subsist on Earth, in the presence of emission temperature those feedback mechanisms will deliver a feedback response to emission temperature.

  63. Rupert Darwall The Green Tyranny Christopher Booker The Real Global Warming Disaster accurately record the origins of the hoax predicated upon the tenuous link between Co2 and temperature which has been exploited to promote the belief in man made global warming. Patrick Moore is on record saying that 540 million years ago atmospheric Co2 was 15 times more than today at 15,000 billion tons. If Co2 does influence temperature why after 39 years of satellite monitoring of the lower troposphere failed to detect that influence? Did the pause not happen and is the rate of warming not slowing down as Christopher as stated previously? Whether there was an elementary error in the basic physics or not surely is immaterial if observations continue to deny the hypothesis. Is there any indication that the IPCC or anyone else involved in hyping the belief that Co2 was about to cause a disaster even considered whether their equations were right or wrong because their only consideration was how to support the belief for purely political ideological purposes made evident by Rupert Darwall and Christopher Booker. Does it matter if its X or Y when observations continue to contradict the rhetoric SLR static, no statistically significant warming for 23 years with the IPCC confirmed no evidence that Co2 has caused more extreme weather. Prof Feynman “if observations contradict hypothesis then question hypothesis not observations”. If Co2 has theoretically warmed the planet but not so much then that helps to substantiate the myth not disprove it and for most people that is enough to believe the rhetoric. Patrick Moore would argue strongly that there is no historical relationship between Co2 high or low and temperature. 8,000 years ago 2C higher than today with Co2 at 200ppm today 2C lower with Co2 at 404ppm. 1910 – 1940 same as rise between 1970 and 2000. 100,000 billion tons nearly one third of all Co2 ever emitted was emitted between 2000 and 2010 yet that decade was within the 19 year pause. If Co2 influences temperature then where are the observations that support that belief? Acid rain hoax, Ozone hole hoax, Co2 and CAGW hoax don’t need equations observations are good enough.

    • …and the observations over the last 100 years suggest a climate sensitivity about 50% of what the IPCC claims (maybe even less), even using the “official” estimates of (1) forcing, (2) surface warming, and (3) ocean heat content increase (e.g. Otto et al; Lewis & Curry; Spencer & Braswell; Choi & Lindzen). This has even been published by IPCC authors (Otto et al.).
      But you still have to use equations. If you can’t quantify it, you don’t really understand it.

      • Given the haphazard non-global, over 50%
        wild guess infilled surface temperature data,
        and the smarmy government bureaucrats
        that compile the global surface average
        temperature …
        How much can we trust
        measurements of ocean heat content ?
        I believe data start in the 1950s,
        and the expendable
        bathythermographs (XBT)
        were used from 1967-2002,
        and we have the Argo floats
        since 2003.
        So we have a short-term record,
        with multiple changes of the
        measurement instruments / methodology,
        with the data are being compiled
        by smarmy government bureaucrats,
        who want to see lots of global warming,
        because that’s what they predicted …
        … and that does not make me confident
        in the data accuracy.
        These government bureaucrats
        continually claim nonsense
        +/- 0.1 C. margins of error,
        for their mainly infilled
        surface temperatures,
        and then announce to the public
        that one year was
        a few hundredths of a degree C.
        warmer than the prior year,
        COMPLETELY IGNORING
        their own +/- 0.1 degree C.
        hard to believe margins of error!
        They people who have demonstrated
        bad character, for the reasons above,
        and their ClimateGate eMails too,
        so do not deserve to be trusted,
        IMHO.
        Your opinion of the data accuracy?

  64. This coincidence of values allowed us to compare the 1.2 K Charney sensitivity derived from f on [0.05, 0.12] in Eq. (4) with the least-squares linear-regression trend on the HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies over the 68 years 1950-2017. Sure enough, the centennial-equivalent warming was 1.2 K/century

    I’m confused about this. As I understand it the Charney sensitivity is a response to a doubling of CO2. Between 1950 and 2017 CO2 has increased by about 30%, or 0.39 log2. But here you are saying that the rate of warming over a 68 year period gives a rate per century equal to the expected response to a doubling of CO2.
    Ignoring the fact the warming since 1950 has not been linear, a warming rate of 1.2C / century over 68 years means a rise of around 0.82C, which would naively mean the sensitivity would be 0.82 / 0.39 = 2.1C.
    Could someone more knowledgeable than me explain where I’m going wrong?

  65. I have often posed the question to warmest scientists “if Co2 causes warming then how did enough Co2 leak out from under ice half a mile thick to warm the atmosphere sufficiently to melt ice half a mile thick” they all run away. We don’t even know with any degree of conviction exactly what causes ice ages but we can supposedly theoretically calculation to the umpteenth decimal place how sensitive or not the atmosphere is to Co2. The point has been made that 96% of Co2 emissions are natural so in effect the argument relates to just 4% which is the result of our total use of fossil fuels but electricity generation relates to just 0.0052% of that 4% so we could shut the whole planet down and make no difference whatsoever. In 2016 the UK generated 14% of its electricity from renewables so I asked BEIS how much CAGW has been averted at a cost of £400 billion to mitigate 0.0000037586% of global Co2 emissions. After 5 requests BEIS said “we will not communicate with you further on this subject”. Truth is no one knows whether Co2 at its current or more level will have any effect on our temperature climate or planet. Life on earth functions at minus 94.7C Antarctica and 51C India and the polar bears are really happy despite what the BBC says.

  66. My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,
    And thus now you see we have via previously established evidence shown the MINIMUM size of an angel to be > the maximum size of a pin-head and THEREFORE no dancing!
    QED
    Job Done

  67. It is only going to be about 1.2 K this century, or 1.2 K per CO2 doubling.

    This is still a lot more warming than Christopher Monckton was projecting 3 years ago
    “No warming has yet arisen this century. Warming may be 0.6 K by 2100, could be as low as 0.4° K and will not exceed 1° K. Allowing for negative aerosol forcings in SAR to AR5, or for net-negative temperature feedbacks (Lindzen & Choi, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2011; Monckton of Brenchley, 2015), warming may well not reach these values, but is most unlikely to exceed them”
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/using-ipcc-numbers-we-can-expect-only-half-a-degree-of-warming-this-century-time-to-panic/
    At this rate there could be a convergence between IPCC and Monckton projections within the next decade.

  68. I don’t think I’ve ever been as thrilled by an article I didn’t fully understand. It’s the first time I’ve made it to the bottom of the comments! And, I believe I’ve got the gist of it to boot!
    Two questions: First, I am not up on my scientific history as many others are here at WUWT… What are some of the other comparable, however-science-thought-things-worked-this-isn’t-how-things-truly-work moments? Like a Galileo going against geocentric, or heliocentric universe? An Einstein moment? Pasteur? I’m looking for some perspective of the enormity of potential change here.
    Second, regardless of the rendered judgement, what if the Gore/Mann/Hansen power block simply says, “We don’t care what you think you may or may not have proven. We have an agenda, and we will ignore you”?
    Again, hat tip to Mr. Monckton and his team. Good subject matter for a book or film of How They Did It.

    • “We don’t care what you think you may or may not have proven. We have an agenda, and we will ignore you”? Oh, that has been their attitude for decades now.
      I might not agree with Lord Monckton’s argument, but there are certainly cases of the scientific establishment being wrong, even in modern times and in matters which we should have known WAY more than we do about the climate system, e.g. the bacterial basis for peptic ulcers. They had MILLIONS of patients to study. With global warming, we have only one. There are dozens of possible reasons for them being wrong.
      But, as you say, they “have an agenda”.

      • this post is a good example of why so many people respect your opinions whether they agree with them all or not dr. spencer. you are a true scientist and we are all the better for it.

      • Absolutely.
        The history of science is basically the story of how one scientific consensus after another turned out to be hopelessly wrong e.g. Galileo, phlogiston, the ether, continental drift. The young Einstein was the sceptic, while perhaps the majority of scientists – perhaps 97% – attacked him and tried to rubbish his new ideas. But we know who won in the end.
        Fortunately, despite often getting things wrong, science is self correcting as, at the end of the day, it depends on evidence and proof rather than concensus. Though I’m not so sure about much of climate science.
        I’m confident that even climate science will eventually regain its integrity, and people will look back in horror at what happened. But I’m not holding my breath.
        Chris

    • The history of science
      is filled with many a scientific
      “consensus”
      that turned out to be wrong,
      whether slightly wrong,
      or completely wrong.
      The battle of one brilliant scientist,
      or a small team of scientists,
      versus the majority consensus
      has been repeated again and again.
      It is safe to claim that every scientific consensus
      is wrong — do so, and you are likely to be right most
      of the time.
      A meteorologist named Dr, Roy Spencer has provided
      many good comments for this article.
      You might think to yourself,
      how is it possible that Dr. Spencer
      is right, and all those government bureaucrats
      with science degrees,
      and Al “The Blimp” Gore,
      bellowing “the science is settled”
      are all wrong?
      But the history of science suggests most progress
      is made from individuals like Dr. Roy Spencer,
      who take a lot of flak, simply because
      they have different views !
      In time, we find out who the brilliant scientists are,
      and eventually their views become a NEW consensus.
      Then the people who were part of the OLD,
      wrong consensus,
      claim they agreed with the brilliant scientists all along,
      and some will claim
      they were just about to publish a paper
      saying the same thing the brilliant scientists said,
      but they spent too much time proofreading it,
      and then it was too late !
      If Dr. Spencer’s satellite temperature data
      showed more global warming
      than the infilled surface “measurements”,
      the the leftists would be using “his” satellite
      data, and ignoring surface measurements !
      Whatever data best fit
      their pre-determined conclusion
      are the data used by leftists
      — that’s how they “think” !

  69. I’m all for Christopher Monckton going ahead with this effort, which I view as trying to undermine a flawed argument using some of the flawed pillars of said flawed argument. In this way, it could be demonstrated that the flaw exposed in the application of these pillars was itself arrived at using flawed understanding of even these flaws. Poetic justice could not get any better than that.
    But what I am alluding to as an even deeper flaw is highlighted by this quote from Monckton’s article:

    How should the 32 K difference between emission temperature and natural temperature be apportioned?

    … to which my answer would be: The whole concept of apportioning that difference at all should be rejected as a nonsensical difference to begin with.
    But baby steps, I guess.

    • Mr Kernodle says one should not attempt to apportion the 32 K difference between emission and natural temperatures. But that difference, and its apportionment, lies at the heart of the debate on pre-industrial sensitivities, so we cannot overlook it.

    • ” The whole concept of apportioning that difference at all should be rejected as a nonsensical difference to begin with.”
      So who actually does it? Could we have an actual quote?

      • Politicians & science politics “does it” Nick, no quote required when observation provides the proof.

      • In response to Mr Stokes’ apportionment question, Lacis et al. (2010) imagine that “the entire greenhouse effect” is 32 K and that feedback accounts for three-quarters of it, and they also imagine that, “for today’s climate”, the feedback fraction is 0.75. Such apportionments are incorrect, but they are perhaps the main reason why climatologists imagine the feedback fraction is an order of magnitude greater than it is.

      • Nick,
        Per your request:
        “The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS – TE = 33 K).” Lacis (2010)
        And later, same paper:
        “In round numbers, water vapor accounts for about 50% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, CO2 20%, and the minor GHGs and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%. Because CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do not condense and precipitate, noncondensing GHGs constitute the key 25% of the radiative forcing that supports and sustains the entire terrestrial greenhouse effect, the remaining 75% coming as fast feedback contributions from water vapor and clouds.”
        Do these suffice?
        rip

      • What they also say is
        “Because of overlapping absorption, the fractional attribution of the greenhouse effect is to some extent qualitative (as shown by the dashed and dotted extremum lines in Fig. 1), even though the spectral integral is a full and accurate determination of the atmospheric greenhouse strength for the specified global temperature structure.”
        And in Fig 1 they spell out that what they are talking about
        “Horizontal dotted and dashed lines depict the fractional response for single-addition and single-subtraction of individual gases to an empty or full-component reference atmosphere, respectively.”
        You can partition it if you are careful to spell out what addition or subtraction event you are talking about. It makes a difference. That is why it is worth while quoting what they say.

      • Nick Stokes: You can partition it if you are careful to spell out what addition or subtraction event you are talking about. It makes a difference. That is why it is worth while quoting what they say.
        Yes, but “apportion” they did. Don’t you agree? Do you require yet more quotes?

      • “Do you require yet more quotes?”
        As I said, it is important to quote exactly what people say, and I think that should be done up front. In this case, the OP said, bolded
        “The whole concept of apportioning that difference at all should be rejected as a nonsensical difference to begin with”
        So let’s see what they actually did. And what they did was to actually model directly the effect of removing GHGs, and described the subtraction effect. There is nothing nonsensical about that.
        But yes, if you have more quotes of what people actually said, by all means.

      • Nick Stokes: There is nothing nonsensical about that.
        Nick Stokes: Who “apportions the difference”? It seems no-one that can be quoted.
        Nick Stokes: You can partition it if you are careful to spell out what addition or subtraction event you are talking about. It makes a difference. That is why it is worth while quoting what they say.
        You asked who apportioned, and you were told who. You asked for a direct quote, and you got a direct quote. What “[seemed]” to you was not in fact the case.
        Couldn’t you at least say “Thank you for the exact quote”? Then discuss whether you think it is “nonsensical”?

      • Nick,
        What is nonsensical is thinking that the 32K difference is a valid difference to talk about at all. The emission temperature is apples. The near-surface air temperature is oranges. Subtracting oranges from apples is … “nonsensical”. The emission temperature is, in effect, a different average than the near-surface average temperature. Why this is still not openly acknowledged and the resultant popular difference rejected is still beyond me.

      • Robert,
        “the resultant popular difference”
        Well, it is popular. But in effect Lacis’ paper is improving on this. They did a model run where they measured the same surface average before and after removing GHGs. They got a difference of 36°C.

  70. Now let’s see the history of the Third World money appeal and North-South Divide money appeal. When did those earlier appeal strategies at the UN go silent in relation to the uptick in global warming-based appeal for wealth redistribution?

  71. I have contacted my contacts at KPIX, Channel 4, and CBS News with this information by email. I have CC: Lord Monckton. If other readers have contacts at other major San Francisco TV stations, etc., I suggest that you pass this information on to them and ask that they cover the court case. We need mainstream media presence.

  72. With these results from a national laboratory (we cannot even mention which country it was in)

    That could be easily overcome if said country like Scotland and England) are subject to FOI laws.
    Might be fun.

    • M Courtney
      “That could be easily overcome if said country like Scotland and England) are subject to FOI laws.”
      Ahem…….I think you’ll find that the UK (Scotland, England, N. Ireland and Wales) were significant contributors to FOI legislation in most civilised countries.

  73. Lord Monckton, I finished reading your head post carefully, and I found it very clear, very easy to follow, and compelling. Well done!
    I have to assume that Judge Alsup will have no trouble absorbing your results.
    While I appreciate others’ concerns about his biases — trust me, having resided in San Francisco, I do — I completely agree with you that there is little downside but much potential upside in filing the amicus brief. I feel your (always) indefatigable positive spirit is apropos.
    “255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.”
    The mind boggles.
    Hopefully you will help bring doomsday to this latest doomsday cult.
    As I have said many times in the past, thank you for your tremendous efforts. I sincerely appreciate your work, and you.

  74. Reply to ristvan 3/19/2018 : In general yes, but not in this case where the “physical simulator” does not simulate the climate physics–it simulates the mathematical equations!

    • True. But important, since the climate rock stars didnt believe the Monckton math was right because did read Bode and dont do circuit design. Lindsen has been banging on for decades anout how Bode feedback math can be used to get at climate ECS. The math applies exactly to both cases. I wrote it up extensively in my last two ebooks, even though explicitly critical of Lindzen and Choi 2011.

  75. I posted a variant of this on cliscep, but will post a modified version here too.

    255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.

    This is very confused. 255K is the effective radiative temperature of the planet. Given an albedo of about 0.3 and given the current solar insolation, energy equilibrium would require us emitting – into space – as much energy per square metre per second as a 255 K blackbody. If there is no atmosphere (or no radiatively active gases on the atmosphere) then all this energy would be radiated from the surface. If there is an atmosphere with radiatively active gases, then some will be radiated from within the atmosphere. Given that the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with altitude, this means that the surface will be warmer than it would be in the absence of this atmosphere. This is what we call the greenhouse effect and, in pre-industrial times, it warmed the surface by about 33K (or, alternatively, increased the surface temperature so that it emitted as much as a 288K blackbody, rather than as much as a 255K blackbody). We have now added enough GHGs to have warmed the surface by about an extra 1K.
    However, we are still emitting – into space – the same amount of energy per square metre per second as a 255K blackbody. This doesn’t depend on the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. What does depend on the GHGs in the atmosphere is where this emissions comes from, and their presence acts to increase the surface temperature without – when in equilibrium – changing the effective radiative temperature (255 K).

    • “Given that the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with altitude, this means that the surface will be warmer than it would be in the absence of this atmosphere. This is what we call the greenhouse effect and, in pre-industrial times, it warmed the surface by about 33K”
      .. sounds like the Gravity Thermal effect..

      • ” where conditions precedent to the operation of feedback”
        If the 255K is part of the signal, then the conditions precedent to the operation of the feedback would be 0K. ie the introduction of the Sun is said to be part of the signal.

      • In answer to Mr Stokes, the conditions precedent to the operation of temperature feedbacks are (1) the presence of a temperature, and (2) the presence of feedback mechanisms, such as the water vapor feedback, the lapse-rate feedback, the surface albedo feedback and the cloud feedbacks. Note that the presence of a radiative forcing (other than the feedbacks, which are of course forcings) is not a condition precedent to the operation of feedbacks.
        It follows that, given the presence of the feedbacks I have mentioned, the emission temperature of 255.4 K will induce a feedback response, and that, since the emission temperature is 32 times the 8 K directly-forced greenhouse warming, the feedback response to emission temperature will dominate, greatly reducing the feedback response previously attributed to the direct greenhouse warming.

    • In response to …and then there’s physics, see upthread, where I have explained how it is that, where conditions precedent to the operation of feedback are present in a dynamical system, even the unamplified input signal in that system (here, the 255.4 K emission temperature) will induce a feedback response. I am of course familiar with the fact that, as the planet warms in consequence of the feedback response to emission temperature, the mean apparent altitude from which that emission temperature is radiated to space will rise. That does not, however, affect the fact that a temperature feedback to emission temperature has operated.
      Look at it thus. In the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks, the surface temperature (which is the metric in which feedbacks are denominated) will be 255.4 K. However, the 255.4 K emission temperature induces a feedback of 23.4 K at the surface, making the surface temperature about 278.8 K. Now add the greenhouse gases, giving a direct warming of, say, 8 K. There will be an additional feedback of 0.7 K in response to the extra 8 K, nudging the surface temperature up and also nudging up the mean emission altitude at which the 255.4 K temperature prevails (here I’m assuming, for convenience, that the albedo and Planck parameter remain constant). Thus, there are some assumptions in our calculations, but we submit that they are not such as to affect our result significantly.

      • “the unamplified input signal in that system (here, the 255.4 K emission temperature) will induce a feedback response. . . . Look at it thus. In the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks, the surface temperature (which is the metric in which feedbacks are denominated) will be 255.4 K. However, the 255.4 K emission temperature induces a feedback of 23.4 K at the surface, making the surface temperature about 278.8 K.”
        I’m trying to make sense out of this argument of yours, but I’m not quite getting there. Again, a temperature is not a signal, any more than a voltage, or a mass, or a velocity is a signal. Signals have to change in order to be something that can be amplified. Your 255.4K emission temperature is the theoretical equilibrium state the Earth would be at with no GHGs; “equilibrium” means it’s not changing, and if it’s not changing it’s not going to rise to your 278.8K.
        The internal “temperature” feedback that I think you are using in your analysis has already been baked into that 255.4 equilibrium temperature. In other words, given the Earth’s albedo in pre-industrial times, the Earth should in theory be at that temperature. Hence the difference between that and the measured temperature is assumed to be attributed to GHGs in the atmosphere, and then you can try to break that down into how much is attributed to water vapor, how much to CO2, etc.

      • “Your 255.4K emission temperature is the theoretical equilibrium state the Earth would be at with no GHGs; “equilibrium” means it’s not changing, and if it’s not changing it’s not going to rise to your 278.8K.”
        Indeed.

      • Signals have to change in order to be something that can be amplified.
        ======================
        that is not true. One can apply a constant current to a transistor and the transistor will amplify this. The amount of amplification depends on the transistor.
        As I recall, 20 was a typical gain for power transistors. So for example, if you run a constant 1 amp current through the base, you will get 20 amps at the emitter.
        The problem is the word “forcing”. Climate science uses this to mean the AC portion of the signal. But feedback circuits don’t just amplify the AC. They amplify the DC along with the AC, unless the DC is specifically eliminated with a capacitor.

      • and if it’s not changing it’s not going to rise to your 278.8K.
        ================
        nope. for example: a circuit we used to make all the time was to amplify the output of a photo-diode to drive a light. The photo-diode only switched every 12 hours, as the sun rose and set. During the 12 hours in between there was no change in signal, but we were able to amplify this tiny signal using a darlington with a gain of 1000 to turn a relay on and off.
        What we were amplifying for 12 hours was a constant signal, then after 12 hours the signal was gone, and we amplified nothing. To try and suggest that amplifiers only work on AC/forcing is nonsense. Had the earth stopped rotating, we would have had absolutely no problem amplifying the small DC signal present for any number of centuries. the light would have stayed on/off depending on the time of day the earth stopped rotating.
        There would have been no loss of amplification if the signal was oscillating with 12 hour period, or not oscillating at all. If the “forcing” was constant, we would have had no problem amplifying this. there is no need for a signal to change to amplify the signal.
        DC can be amplified just as easily as AC. It is a question of requirements. If you are driving speakers you probably don’t want to amplify the DC. However, if you are driving a non-latching relay you sure as heck better be sure to amplify the DC.

      • “So for example, if you run a constant 1 amp current through the base, you will get 20 amps at the emitter.”
        So what is the amplified “output” that corresponds to the 255K input?

      • ferdberple: I should probably have been more precise in my language. The concept of “feedback” only applies to a change in an input. Sure, an amplifier takes an input voltage and applies gain to it regardless of whether it’s changing, but a feedback loop will apply the feedback gain of A/(1-r) only in response to a change in the input state. So if you model the banking system with a money multiplier effect of 10x on the assumption that banks will keep a reserve of 10% on deposits and loan out the remaining 90%, and all loans get deposited into another bank, a change the input of say a $1 billion cash infusion by the Fed will theoretically result in a $10 billion increase in the money supply as the cash gets loaned out over and over again. But if there is no extra money thrown into or removed from the system, there’s no feedback. That’s what I was referring to.

      • >> The concept of “feedback” only applies to a change in an input.
        Que? No feedback is feeding back (a part of the) output into the input. It certainly does not ‘only’ apply to any change in the input.

      • I also have an electronics engineering background and whilst I’m leaning with Dr Roy, I do think you might be correct or perhaps your explanation is confusing.
        Comparing the earth @ 255K In a hypothetical DC amp cct, the output would be sitting at Vo with no modulation (ie: flat DC output). However, the earth is not a DC amplifier and if we apply a 255 K input signal it will cause a corresponding FB due to water vapour, meaning the reference temperature for considering the effect of the non-condensing GHGs is 255 + this inherent water vapour feedback.
        Is this what you’re trying to communicate ?

      • Serge Wright is correct. There are various temperature feedbacks in the climate (i.e., forcings denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the original temperature that induced them). These feedbacks include the water vapor/lapse rate feedback, the surface albedo feedback and the cloud feedback. The feedbacks don’t care where the temperature that induces them: they care only about the magnitude of that temperature. For a temperature of 255 K, before any feedback and without any greenhouse gases, there will be a feedback response. For a temperature of 255 + 8 K, the 8 K being the directly-forced warming owing to the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, there will be a slightly larger feedback response.
        Otherwise, please explain how the temperature feedbacks I have mentioned are somehow capable of distinguishing between the 255 K emission temperature and the 8 K temperature driven directly by the presence of the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases? What is the magical mechanism that allows the feedbacks to draw this distinction. We could find no such mechanism in either of our test rigs.

      • For a temperature of 255 K, before any feedback and without any greenhouse gases, there will be a feedback response.

        Feedbacks can only occur if there is some physical process that can provide a feedback response. Examples being (as you’ve already indicated) changes in water vapur, clouds, lapse rate. The 255K temperature is the effective radiative temperature of the planet, given current insolation and albedo values (i.e., it is the temperature of a blackbody that radiates the same average amount of energy per square metre per second as we emit into space if in energy equilibrium). If there is no atmosphere, then this is would be the effective temperature of the surface. Also, if there is no atmosphere, there are no feedbacks. Hence, there will be no feedback response. If we then add an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, then feedbacks start to operate and the surface temperature gets enhanced. However, in equilibrium, the amount of energy we radiate into space is unchanged – it is still the same as a 255K blackbody.

      • In response to “….and then there’s physics”, I spent some time reading papers on the snowball Earth (Pierrehumbert 2011, assuming a snowball Earth with albedo 0.6, and Lacis (2010), assuming a waterbelt Earth with albedo 0.418. There was, of course, a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere even in the absence of greenhouse gases. As soon as a waterbelt formed at the Equator, water vapor began to accumulate in the [atmosphere] and the melting of equatorial ice continued. Both of these are temperature feedbacks. Neither was driven by the non-condensing greenhouse gases.
        The driving force was, of course, the pre-existing emission temperature of the Earth. Read Lacis (2010), which actually describes events that are plainly the consequences of feedback (such as the recession of equatorial ice and the accumulation of water vapor in the atmosphere) and cannot have been caused by feedbacks to the non-condensing greenhouse gases, because in that model there weren’t any yet.
        If you still don’t accept that emission temperature induces a temperature feedback response, then please explain how it is that 255 K of temperature induces no feedback response, while adding just another 8 K from the directly-forced warming caused by the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases suddenly causes a feedback of 24 K. What is the magical process by which the feedback mechanisms know they must not respond to 255 K of temperature (or of warming compared with [absolute] zero), and yet that they must respond to just 8 K of additional temperature?

      • If you still don’t accept that emission temperature induces a temperature feedback response, then please explain how it is that 255 K of temperature induces no feedback response, while adding just another 8 K from the directly-forced warming caused by the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases suddenly causes a feedback of 24 K.

        But this isn’t what is happening. The source of the energy is still the Sun and – for a fixed albedo – the outgoing, and incoming, energy fluxes are unchanged (they’re the same as a 255 K blackbody). What the greenhouse gases do is change how the energy flows within the system so that in order for the outgoing energy flux to match the incoming energy flux, the surface is warmer than it would otherwise be. The greenhouse gases don’t add 8K to an underlying 255K. What they do is essentially return some energy to the surface so that it warms relative to what it would be in the absence of these greenhouse gases (there are other ways to describe it, but this one consequence).
        In the standard greenhouse effect, one could regard everything as a feedback (CO2 included). The reason that we differentiate between CO2 and the other responses (water vapour, clouds, lapse rate) is mainly because the CO2 does not precipitate and so plays a key role in setting the overall greenhouse effect.

      • Monckton of Brenchley March 19, 2018 at 4:00 pm
        Look at it thus. In the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks, the surface temperature (which is the metric in which feedbacks are denominated) will be 255.4 K. However, the 255.4 K emission temperature induces a feedback of 23.4 K at the surface, making the surface temperature about 278.8 K.

        What is the feedback mechanism? The radiation from the surface passes through a transparent atmosphere, how does it feedback?

      • Serge Wright,
        “if we apply a 255 K input signal it will cause a corresponding FB due to water vapour”
        No 255K signal is applied. What is “applied” is sunlight, but in fact that has always been there, and hasn’t changed. Someone calculated that a temperature of 255 K would emit an IR flux that would balance the sunlight. That isn’t an “input”, it is a calculation. If you think there is enough wv to make a difference between the emission location (which still has to average 255K) and the surface, then OK, the surface average will be calculated as something different than 255 K. It still doesn’t change, and there is nothing to amplify. It terms of an electronic active device, it just has a different operating point.

      • i now agree with LM. The real issue here relates to the assumption that the earth has a static 255K temperature in the absence of GHGs. This is a flawed assumption and we need to add an arbitrary value (eg:23.4K) before determining the forcings of the non-condensing GHGs. If we could remove all GHGs and set the Earth to 255K, it obviously would not remain at this temperature due to water vapour

      • I am delighted that Serge Wright sees what “Phil,” and Mr Stokes do not: namely, that in the absence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases feedbacks will still be present, in the shape of the water vapor feedback, the surface albedo feedback and the cloud feedbacks, for instance. Therefore, since temperature feedbacks respond to temperature, they will respond to the emission temperature, even in the absence of any non-condensing greenhouse gases. As you rightly then point out, one must try to derive some sort of estimate of the magnitude of the feedback response to emission temperature, and deduct that estimate from what was previously thought to be the feedback response to the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Illustratively, I have assumed that the feedback fraction would be the same for the response to the emission temperature as it is to the 8 K of additional temperature from the non-condensing greenhouse gases.That feedback fraction is simply 1 – (255 + 8) / 287.5, or 0.08. Then 23.4 K is the feedback response to emission temperature, and 0.7 K is the feedback response to the small direct greenhouse warming.
        Other apportionments can be made, and all manner of arguments can be entered into about nonlinearities in the system, but the central point remains: the emission temperature is 32 times the direct greenhouse warming and, therefore, the feedback response to it is going to dominate.

    • …and Then There’s Physics
      “This is very confused. ”
      ” 255K is the effective radiative temperature of the planet. Given an albedo of about 0.3 and given the current solar insolation, energy equilibrium would require us emitting – into space – as much energy per square metre per second as a 255 K blackbody.”
      Except that as CO2 has gone up some people believe that energy from the sun is being squirreled away into the sea [and delaying ECS estimation. Your comment, as a believer of this, should really state that we are emitting slightly less than a 255K blackbody until such time [never?] as we reach ECS.

      “Given that the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with altitude, this means that the surface will be warmer than it would be in the absence of this ** atmosphere.”
      Overall, not everywhere.
      The atmosphere actually shields the earth from the full effect of the sun’s rays.
      Albedo Earth 0.306, moon 0.11, so roughly 20% of the suns SW is reflected back into space, The IR does not reach the surface.
      Hence The earths surface [basically the same distance from the sun], does not receive as much energy as the moon’s surface does during insolation.
      The surface of the moon and of the earth if it had no atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface of the earth when the sun is shining on the earth in either situation for a very large area of the lit half of the globe.

      The earth’s surface does receive extra energy from the GHG effect. Mainly from water vapour I believe. See Monckton ” the greenhouse effect. There is. It can be measured in the laboratory, and is evident regardless of the pressure of the atmospheric mixture. The quantum mechanism is well understood, and is even touched upon in the head posting.”
      ** You do realise that some radiatively active gases might have an albedo effect higher than there radiative effect? In which case a radiatively active gas could actually cool the atmosphere. Perhaps Xenon or ozone in the air around a planet close to a white dwarf.

  76. “… the global warming scare was indeed based on a strikingly elementary error of physics.”
    If only the opposing attorney’s name were Watson, you’d havea setup for “a perfect squelch”!

  77. Question 5 from the Judge…
    “5. Apart from CO2, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels?”
    I am stunned that neither skeptics or alarmists ever address this issue in much detail, or dismissed by both sides as a fart in the wind, especially the alarmists, since obviously it is all AGW. Or the Urban Heat Island (UHI) generated by massive cities and everything on the planet, including massive Land Use change in forestry and agriculture, or massive irrigation of the planet or human induced Albedo and thermal sinks which would fit several of the multiple human categories. Why do we continue to ignore the obvious, that we are generating huge amounts of thermal heat as well into the lower atmosphere, which takes some time to also circulate poleward where the heat is lost to space on the way. This must have some major effect on the temps in northern pole regions and ice at sea level, especially given that the majority of land mass and human concentration is in the northern hemisphere. And this where we see the greatest effect, in temp increase or melt of Sea Ice.
    Obviously, if we accept that there is some warming from thermal effects of humans’ existence over large parts of the planet by 7.6 Billion people now, then we must reduce the effect of CO2 warming accordingly. Blaming the small amount of warming we have had in 150 years since the worst of the LIA, all on AGW CO2, is a fools errand, especially thinking it is all bad. If anything, any warming that humans have introduced to Earth the last 150 years is an insurance policy on our survival as a civilization, to natural forces that are always trending to cooling, as we see throughout all of of history. And that is always Cooling, either from natural variation, or Solar effects we are just starting to understand, or sudden vulcanism that is chaotic in nature. We see that at in the depths of our Ice Ages’ the last 2.5 million years, that CO2 is approaching a low 180 ppmv, which is the possibility of extinction of C3 and C4 plant life, essential to all land based life. If anything, the planet is approaching CO2 starvation levels for the majority of time now, given that full blown ice house conditions are now the normal for the majority of time on the good Earth.
    The question really should be now, is not how much additional warming is attributed to our collective CO2 AGW Footprint, but how much warming is attributed to our general Human Footprint. We may just find that reducing CO2 does little to reduce any temperatures, especially if we consider our thermal heat contribution to the planet at all scales is more than just additional CO2. Notwithstanding that 7.6 Billion humans just breathing is approximately 8% of all current CO2 emissions from all human sources, or that each human alive generates approximately 100 Watts of thermal energy heat, or 760 million KW. This is all collectively a lot of thermal heat to the atmosphere, most of which is ignored.
    The Judge IMHO is certainly asking the right questions. And no matter what judgement he makes on this,(assuming one is made or it goes to trial) it can be appealed by either side to higher courts, and presumably all the way to SCOTUS. If all the facts, including Question 5 are under scrutiny, I have no doubt that sooner or later, well reasoned Justices’ would have to conclude that the sensitivity of CO2 itself on the climate is smallish-warmish, but net beneficial and there are are many other sources of warming from humankind other than CO2 that will be forever with us as long as we have a large population.

  78. This discussion ignores the fact that this case will ultimately be decided on both science and political considerations. Politicians and bureaucrats have interpreted Principle 15 (Precautionary Principle) from the UN 1992 Rio Declaration to mean that, if one can hypothesize a one percent possibility of runaway global warming, measures to respond to that perceived threat are justified. Compelling scientific evidence of a threat of serious consequences becomes a moot point. I call this the one-percent solution.
    The fallacy with this application of the Principle is that the probability of environmental issues associated with runaway global warming would be no greater those associated with runaway global cooling. However, policies to address the warming case would be diametrically opposite to those appropriate for the cooling case. The damage that would be done by implementing policies based on the wrong premise, a warming or a cooling planet, nullifies arguments to take any actions until the science is right. Given a probability curve showing the likelihood of future global temperatures, lawmakers now focus only on the high temperature tail of a two-tailed probability curve of future global temperatures to develop environmental policies.
    Realistically, the forecast probabilities of long-term temperatures today can only be described by a rectangular probability distribution, all temperatures between the maximum high and low probabilities, are equally likely. Until the forecast range of possible temperatures can be reduced such that environmental policies make sense for all likely temperatures, no actions can be warranted.
    A second issue is the limit of this discussion to linear analyses of temperature trends. The planet could be nearing the end of the present inter-glacial period. I assume solar forcing adds a sinusoidal component to the temperature trend. Although I have little knowledge of what is under the hood of the GCMs, I would think solar forcing should be mentioned somewhere in the analysis. The premise here seems to be that the temperature will continue to increase. The only unknown is the rate of increase.
    My simple analysis (figure below) shows that the rate of increase (first derivative) of the global mean temperature trend-line has been constant or steadily decreasing since October 2000. The HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly has decreased by nearly 50 percent from March 2016, the El Nino peak, to January 2018. The rate of change of the trend-line will likely become negative within the next 20 years, reaching the lowest global mean trend-line temperature in almost 40 years. (draft ref: An-Analysis-of-the-Mean-Global-Temperature-in-2031 at http://www.uh.edu/nsm/earth-atmospheric/people/faculty/tom-bjorklund/). Lower temperatures could persist for decades. If this argument can be shown to have merit, the California case simply goes away. There is no man-made cause of rising sea levels. There will be no damages. The State can pay court costs and a penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit
    https://i.imgur.com/nvAq9cH.jpg

  79. Just a very small query: why is the ‘degrees Celcius’ symbol given as C° and not the universally accepted °C in the first two figures? I’ve noted this before in Lord Monckton’s posts and I know it shouldn’t bother me… but I’m a copy editor for scientific publications and it does.

  80. You have got to be kidding.
    A first year student of control theory would fail her/his first midterm exam if she/he didn’t know that any key variable that changes in a feedback loop, changes things. One identifies things that change and at least estimates their effects before didmissing them as irrelevant. DeltaT/Delta(t) might look insignificant at first glance for ~2 degree K/~300 degree K… but did no one run the 2 minute calculation?
    Some of the earth’s heat escapes…and the hotter it gets, the more escapes. That’s not in the models?
    Never mind all the other (absent) negative feedbacks that were omitted by the Warmunists.
    Is this really true? I gave “them” the benefit of the doubt that they were competent scientists…at least procedurally (else peer-reviewers toss you work back in your face with thinly disguised insulting remarks – makes them feel powerful, I guess).

  81. And if the plaintiffs win there is always the fall-back position…
    ALL oil companies cease & desist supply of all oil-based products into California until the judgment has been successfully appealed;
    a few weeks with no oil products will concentrate the ( Precautionary Principle ) mind
    When you are saving the planet theres no gain without pain !!
    Nobody need die, they just emigrate & become victims of ‘Mann made change’, maybe Al Gore will take them in ???

    • i have maintained that should happen all along. either the sensible people will beat some sense into the alarmists after a few days without food or everyone would understand the reality of life without fossil fuels and associated products and become “d*niers” before the companies ever pulled out. only one way to find out though.

      • Just out of curiosity, is your “name” an adjective or an adverb? I’ve been meaning to ask for a while. I can read it either way, and the meaning really changes depending on the grammar. Or are you trying to play on that ambiguity?

      • @ Kurt,
        “is your “name” an adjective or an adverb?” …Yes.
        “Or are you trying to play on that ambiguity?” … Maybe.
        Having lived a comfortable long life (entirely due to society’s use of energy), been brought up in a ‘waste not – want not’ family & worked in applied physics all my life; I’m a proponent of the conservation of energy.
        I hope you approve of my pellucidity (:-))

  82. From the OP:
    “The parties will not be able to dismiss our result lightly. To refute it, they would have to show that our pre-industrial feedback fraction f = 0.08, obtained by theoretical means rooted in mainstream control theory, is incorrect; that our industrial-era value f = 0.05, obtained empirically from IPCC’s estimate of the net anthropogenic forcing to date and from the HadCRUT4 temperature record, is also incorrect; that our campaign of ten empirical calculations giving a mean feedback fraction f = 0.12, is incorrect; that the rate of observed warming over the past 68 years is either incorrect or irrelevant; that the rate of observed warming this century to date is also either incorrect or irrelevant; that the results from our test rig are inapplicable; that the results from a government laboratory are likewise inapplicable; and, above all, that it is justifiable to assume that control theory is wrong and that, per impossibile. 255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.”
    Unfortunately the first sentence contains an unfounded assumption.
    In the Church of AGW and the MSM they do not have to refute anything – they simply attack and cast aspersions.
    It’s a mistake made by Curry & Co against Mann in the Senate hearings – they expected the Science would convince and that their moderate assertions, qualified by caution, would have meaning.
    Instead, amidst lies and rank propaganda, Mann came across as far more authoritative – the actual scientists never got the chance to address his lies.
    One can only trust the Judge has a finer appreciation of how things should be, but it would be naive to expect the plaintiffs to actually use science or even logic to attempt to defeat this paper.
    they can’t and they will not try and propaganda almost always wins over Science.

    • In response to Mark McD, even if one expects one’s opponents not to be amenable to reason, one should never despair of attempting to use reason. For otherwise the Forces of Darkness need only say they refuse to listen to any argument and, if we respond by not offering one, they win. It is the faculty of reason, the central charism or property of the soul in Christian theology, that marks us out most clearly from the beasts and brings us closest to the Divine. We should not be faint-hearted, then: we should use the gift we have been given. As the old apocryphal text put it, “Great is truth, and might above all things” – provided that someone has the courage to try to speak it.

  83. What’s the point?
    Our foes don’t care about truth and science. They arrive at their ‘science’ via adjustments and make believe computer models. They have sucked in the politicians, media, corporations, do-gooders and blood suckers.
    There is money to be made with their absolutely fantastic worldwide guilt laden scary program.
    THE SOLUTION: Take away their sources of money and they shrivel up and die.

  84. Christopher,
    The mathematics behind the sensitivity equations rely upon a doubling of CO2 to allow another physical parameter to be slipped out of the the discussion. That other parameter is mass.
    This is an example of correct mathematics, but incorrect physics being assumed as a consequence of the maths.
    In terms of doubling, intuitively, one is pressed to attribute any physical change to a CO2 doubling of 1 molecule to 2 molecules in the atmosphere. Even a doubling from 1 million to 2 million molecules. There is a limit on the ability of the CO2 molecule to cope with the energetics, It must be possible to estimate the minimum concentration of CO2 in the air before its doubling can be quantified, but one never seems to see this calculation. I have no idea of the answer.
    Above, you note “The zero-dimensional model is not explicitly used in general-circulation models.” Maybe in arriving at a zero-dimension state, there has been a drop out of a similar, other physical parameter that is not linear over the range studied and beyond it.
    I like what I am reading in your essay. Keep well, Geoff.

    • In reply to Mr Sherrington, the zero-dimensional model equation reproduces exactly the Charney-sensitivity interval predicted by the CMIP3 and CMIP5 generations of general-circulation models if it is informed with the official inputs. The equation is, of course, a linear equation, but it still works, not least because its output is nonlinear. We have also made generous allowance for nonlinearities in the feedback fraction. because it is in reality so small, nonlinearities don’t make much difference.

  85. The IPCC has never been able to determine what the feedbacks actually are or they would have able to narrow there guestamate as the the climate sensivity of CO2 After more than two decades of effort they have learned nothing that would allow them to narrow their range of guessed one iota.. I believe there are a lot more serious problems with the AGW conjecture then just the feedback problem.
    The environmental lapse rate should correlate with the insulation effects of the atmosphere. The higher the lapse rate the more insulating is the atmosphere. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. In terms of the measured effect of CO2 on the lapse rate over the past 30 years, the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The climate sensivity of CO2 being a small number is a good reason why no one has been able to actually measure it. Theoretically, a doubling of CO2 should slightly lower the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. Based on how CO2 should effect the dry lapse rate. the climate sensitivity of CO2 should be slightly negative.
    For those that believe in a radiative greenhouse effect, the initial radiametric calculations performed decades ago came up with a value for the climate sensivity of CO2 neglecting feedbacks of 1.2 degrees C. One researcher has pointed out that these initial calculations failed to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 in the tropshere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. That decrease in the lapse rate will cause a reduction of the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. So now we have a value for the climate sensivity of CO2 excluding feedbacks of less than .06 degrees C.
    An important part of the AGW conjecture is that H2O provides a positive feedback to any CO2 based warming. The idea is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is also a so called greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. The IPCC really is not sure how strong this positive feedback effect is but they seem to like to use numbers like 3. H2O is actually a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 and according to greenhouse gas theory is by far the primary greenhouse gas so much so that the addition of CO2 is trivial. However; the AGW conjecture ignore’s the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transfering heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which for the most part involves some sort of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both oonvection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The net cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. Hence rather than amplify the climate sensivity of CO2 by a factor of 3 a more realistic effect would be to reduce the climate senisvity of CO2 by a factor of three yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a trivial amount.
    The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of LWIR absorbing heat trapping gases. A real greenhouse stays warm becaue the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm and not a radiative greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. Gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere act to provide a convective greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is the amount that has been observed. No additional warming has been observed that could be attributed to a radiant greenhouse effect. The radiant greenouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. Without a radiant greenhouse effect the climate sensivity of CO2 cannot be greater than zero.
    It is tempting at first to believe that CO2 causes waming because it has LWIR absorption bands but the reality is that all good absorpers are also good radiators and heat transfer by convection and couduction dominates in the troposphere. CO2 does not trap heat any more than any other gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. If CO2 were a great insulator then there would most probably be some engineering applacations there CO2 was uses as an insulator but no such applications exist.
    There is evidence in the paleoclimate record that warmer temperature cause more CO2 to enter the atmopshere which is because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water, but there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to any warming. Climate models, really computer simulations of climate, that have hard coded in that more CO2 causes warming. beg the question and hence are useless in terms of acertaining whether CO2 affects climate. These climate models have failed to adequately predict today’s global temperatures and hence have been wrong. If anything these simulations show that icreasing CO2 is not the cause of the climate change we are experiencing today.
    Considering all what I have presented above, a good value for the climate sensivity of CO2 would be zero. Hence adding CO2 to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels has no effect on climate. Based on the paleoclimate record and and the work done with models one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans. So Mother Nature is really the party they sould be litigating against. Lots of luck trying to connect on a judgement against Mother Nature.

    • willhaas March 19, 2018 at 7:20 pm
      Interesting points on lapse rate because according to climate science, which seems to acknowledge that a real greenhouse doesn’t warm by trapping IR (this fact is my “what did you just say?” moment,) what CO2 is doing is raising the emission height but not changing the lapse rate; they count back from the TOA using the lapse rate to get the surface temp. This alleged new emission height has never been measured. Neither has the alleged distortion of the lapse rate, as described by infrared cooling models, been measured. But wait– the lapse rate is distorted yet remains the same?

      • You seem to understand the problem. I would add that it is a convective troposphere, and convection is what recovers the lapse rate and dominates radiative effects near the surface. This is why there is no “hot spot” and an undetectable effect from CO2.

      • The effective radiating altitude is at the middle of mass of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gases. The top of the troposphere is also a matter of pressure only. They keep changing the AGW conjecture but it is still based on only partial science. If they really knew tha if and how CO2 affected the effective radiating altitude then they would be able to provide a precise value for the climate sensivity of CO2. The biggest effect they have claimed is that CO2 warming increases the amount of H2O in the atmosphere which enhances warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. But in reality, the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate so the addition of H2O to the atmosphere acts to cool and not warm the Earth’s surface. Read carefyully and critically descriptions of the so called “greenhoues effect” and you will realize that it is all science fiction.

      • willhaas March 20, 2018 at 10:54 am
        Willhaas, that makes sense. In fact, it makes too much sense. Suggest you fold this into a theory such that we get lost in the theory and then can’t make sense of anything except what’s consistent within our own favored paradigm. Don’t bother to ground the theory in experiment– apparently we don’t do that anymore. Nowadays it’s only sufficient that we confuse and dazzle everyone for the theory to be successful. Above all, ridicule everyone who attacks your pet theory: you’re not to be interested in the truth, but only in defending your paradigm.
        That should clear things up.

    • willhaas

      It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm and not a radiative greenhouse effect

      Thank you for your superb précis of the Convective Greenhouse Effect (CGE).
      Roy Spencer (above) states “it has been known since at least 1964 (Manabe & Strickler) that any estimate of the greenhouse effect around 33 deg C. is NOT actually an estimate of the greenhouse effect, since it includes the surface cooling effect of convection”.
      Are there any other papers you can reference that describe the CGE in detail?

  86. Lord Monckton
    I agree with Dr. Spencer. Your equation is not the same as the feedback equation used in atmospheric physics. Equation 2 (feedback equation) and your Equation 4 are not equivalent. The forcing is change in temperature (dT) while you use absolute temperature Tref and Teq. Whatever your conclusions may be, they are not comparable because your using a different equation. To avoid doubt, consult Prof. Lindzen. I think he will agree with me that your equation is not comparable to the feedback equation.

    • dTref and dTeq are temperature response to a 1 W/m^2 TOA forcing or radiative imbalance
      Tref and Teq are not temperature response to a forcing. Tref = 255 + 8 = 263 K is absolute temperature without greenhouse gases. Teq = 287 K is absolute temperature with greenhouse gases.
      Totally different concepts. Comparing apples and oranges

    • Dr Strangelove is of course correct to say that the modified equation shown as (4) in the head posting is not the same as the feedback equation used in atmospheric physics. That is because the latter equation makes no allowance for feedback induced by the emission temperature, which simply does not appear in that equation anywhere.
      The matter would perhaps be more simply understood if climatology were to use the correct feedback equation, which states that the output signal is the ratio of the product of the input signal and the direct-gain factor to (1 minus the product of the direct-gain factor and the feedback fraction). The correct equation makes a clear separation between the input signal, the direct amplification of it in the gain block, and the feedback block.

      • If you want to use the feedback equation for amplifier circuit, you should not use temperature because it is not equivalent to voltage. The latter is potential energy of electrons while temperature is not energy but a response to heat energy and they are non-linearly related. So you cannot substitute temperature for heat energy. Instead use the energy flux (W/m^2) in the feedback equation.
        The input signal is the solar irradiance hitting Earth’s surface. The output signal is total emission from the surface. The gain is equal to the greenhouse effect since surface emission is LW infrared that is absorbed by greenhouse gases.

      • In response to Dr Strangelove, temperature feedbacks are denominated not in Watts per square meter per Watt per square meter of the forcing that drove the temperature that induced them, but in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induced them. One can go through various contortions to do the calculation differently, but climatology does it the way we do it, so Dr Strangelove’s concern should really be addressed to climatology generally and not to us.
        We have adopted the straightforward Classical approach of accepting ad argumentum all equations, values and methods used by official climatology, except where we say climatology has erred. That does not mean that we believe that on all these matters official climatology is correct: merely that we can show that, even if it is correct, there will be too little global warming to matter.

  87. When Monckton of Brenchley presents something here he ALWAYS answers questions, comments, etc.
    He does it in a way to inform.
    Thank you again.

    • I’m most grateful to RD50 for his kind words. I do my best to answer as many on-topic points as possible. What is remarkable about this thread is that, with a few exceptions, people have mostly stayed on topic and have avoided ad-hominem attacks. This is how such threads ought to work, and it is a great tribute to Anthony and his indefatigable moderators that this is proving to be such a useful forum for discussing the ideas outlined in the head posting.

    • DSM
      I agree with you that saving lives is good and air pollution should be curtailed, but carbon dioxide is not a polluting gas, it is the gas of life for all plants.
      By adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere satellite data shows that the land surface has greened by at least 15%. That greening is primary productivity for all land animals in the food web. Put simply the land based carrying capacity of our planet has increased by 15%. The current estimate of human population on earth is 7.6 Billion. Now X + 0.15X = 7.6 Billion so X = 6.609 Billion This means that 991 Million people are alive today and now have food who would otherwise be starving but for the effect of the industrial emissions of carbon dioxide gas supporting the biosphere.

  88. Very interesting, but I fear that the feedback is not meant to be a constant over the entire possible temperature range. Specifically, might it be expected to be 0 below freezing (273 degrees Kelvin)?

    • Mr Slay is perhaps confusing the feedback fraction and the feedback response. The feedback fraction, determined by a theoretical method for the pre-industrial era and by an empirical method for the industrial era, appears to be quite close to constant. At any rate, it is very small. However, the feedback response will of course vary with the temperature that induced it. And we don’t need to consider what would happen at 0 K, because the present combination of insolation and albedo give us a starting temperature, before any feedback has acted and before there are any greenhouse gases, of 255 K.

  89. California Judge ? Case closed .
    When did the producers of pork and beans know their product
    produced methane causing the earth to have a fever ?
    If the government of California believed fossil fuels were of such great concern
    why are they still legal ? Why is added Co2 being pumped into greenhouses ?
    Oh yeah it helps plants grow .
    What’s next burger joints being sued for not telling shareholders
    they sell a product that leads to portly people ?
    How about those candy makers not telling shareholders that their products
    cause tooth decay ?
    Climate models have a long history of grossly over estimating and inaccurately forecasting
    temperature trends . That should really be no surprise because they are incomplete .
    Natural variables , the dominant climate drivers ,are not even understood as a base line .
    Climate models carving out CO2 fed an alarmist agenda which used the forecasts before they could be proven against actual data . This in itself is a breach of the basic scientific model .

    • One should never abandon the attempt to speak the truth merely because one assumes that one’s interlocutor – in the present instance a judge who clerked for a totalitarian supreme-court justice, was appointed by Clinton, sits in the Sunstroke State and is known for his radical opinions – will not be open to a rational argument. Let us at least give him the chance to hear a rational argument. He may perhaps do what is right.

      • I have little confidence
        in a California judge,
        since some members of
        my family moved to California,
        and gradually got pretty strange
        ideas in their heads …
        … but the best thing
        about presenting a case,
        even if you lose,
        is that you find out where
        the weak points were,
        and do a better job
        of communicating
        the next time.

  90. Good luck to you sir and many thanks for all you and your colleagues have done. Good to have you back on this site. I shall follow events from down under.

  91. Sadly, the issue is not about science. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Judge Alsup is an political appointee, expressly chosen for his political philosophy. He will rule according to that philosophy. The underlying motives of the climate change movement are entirely economic. Political ideology is not a principle, except to people like judge Alsup, but a tool, wielded by the powers-that-be for their economic gain. Tools do not think, they do what they are required to do when they are required to do so.
    Even if judge Alsup were to look at the scientific merits of the arguments, in them, he would only see what he wanted to see. The climate change cause is important to those who share his ideology, and he will support that cause.

    • Mr Guthrie is yet another who counsels despair. Well, I choose to speak the truth. If it be the truth, and if I have the courage to speak it, however unfashionable it may be, the truth will be heard.

    • The liars, cheaters and scoundrels
      at NASA and NOAA
      only claim +1 degree C.
      of warming since 1880
      — I bet the judge doesn’t know that.
      And would the just have any idea
      of how much wild guess infilling is in the
      global average temperature,
      or that at least one-third,
      and perhaps one-half,
      of the warming since 1880
      was from “adjustments”
      to the raw data
      made just in the past
      two decades ?

  92. “global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K. We say we can prove it.” Christopher Monckton is a warmer. Who knew. /sarc

  93. Do the defendant companies have foundations that finance the green lobby? If they do, then all the science in the world won’t matter, THEY WANT TO LOSE. They will make more money from carbon credit trading and energy prices jumped up by taxpayer subsidized alternative energy scams than if they win. The cap n’ trade fraud needs court victories to gain the pretense of legitimacy when everybody knows it’s a lie. Don’t be surprised if the court says it fully agrees with the contents of the amicas filing while it makes the complete opposite ruling. Later on the same judge will issue warrants for the arrest of climate skeptics who helped prepare this very same amicus brief they will use to make climate skepticism a crime.

    • This is a set up.
      Everyone is aligned with the carbon cartel (narco Mexico has nothing on this mob) . . .
      The Judge (a Democrat)
      The plaintiff (Democrats).
      The plaintiff’s lawyers (Democrats).
      The plaintiff’s handlers (Black Rock etc; Democrats.).
      The defendant (all senior oil execs are pro carbon-trading/carbon tax).
      The defendant’s lawyers (full of Democrats).
      The Judge has already written his summation and submitted it to Larry Fink for his authorisation.
      Anyone who thinks Will Alsup is about to save the sceptics is mad.
      Trump alone can keep the lid on the dark forces of the carbon cartel.
      But not forever unfortunately . . .

      • It is astonishing how many commenters here, such as Mr Blair, have effectively given up the fight on the ground that the truth simply cannot win. I was given a moral education. Therefore, I was taught that the truth prevails more quickly if someone has the courage to speak it. In the end, those who speak the truth sincerely are heard, whether the forces of darkness like it or not. I am not temperamentally inclined simply to give up and give in.

      • I’ve actually listened to a law professor describe how he wrote a report on family law reform at the Australian governments request. The government declared they would reform family law based upon the recommendations of his report. They then proceeded to enact every radical feminist position he had spoken out against in his report. When he complained he was hounded out of his position but found a new one at a different school. The progressive ideologues have turned the courts, the mainstream media and education system into a monster straight out of 1984. People don’t realize it unless they run afoul of it. They will quite literally use this amicus brief as citation to do the exact opposite of what it states. They’ve been doing this with Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault law for years.
        Look at what happened to Tim Hunt over a mild joke he made about how he met is wife.

      • I am going to ask the moderators to remove Mr Bradley’s comment about HIV, which on any view has nothing to do with climate science and is an unwarrantable personal attack. The research on our invention continues, but we are not allowed to make the medication generally available until decades of testing have been completed.
        (It has been snipped) MOD

  94. Oh Lord Moncton, you have proven that the models are based on a wrong physical assumption. The trial is not about whether the models are right, but about whether the oil companies knew about the “climate catastrophe”, when that was and what they did not tell. Therefore, the outcome of this process is uncertain. In court and on the high seas, you are in God’s hands!

  95. A little difficult to interpret this article.
    Always wary at a simple answer that has been a puzzle for many years.
    Like finding a 50 dollar note on a hedge.
    So input temp 255 degrees
    GHG 33 degrees Current 288 degrees of which 33 [32] roughly is the current augmentation through mainly water vapour and a tiny effect from CO2
    Now 8 degrees account for by?
    and 24 degrees by ?
    How does the CO2 outweigh the H2O effect so much?
    I know water vapour has an immense negative albedo effect along with its stronger positive GHG effect.
    All the GHG’S cause energy IR back radiation so is this the source of the extra energy that needs to be considered when talking about the ECS?
    Where Nick Stokes is wrong in saying that a flat temp cannot be an input source??
    If so I can see that most of the current temperature is due to prior feedbacks independent of CO2.

    Arrhenius predicted a rise in CO2 effects with doublings of CO2, some mistake surely as if we go back 12 doublings at 3 C we would be freezing below solar input and still have buckets of CO2 in the air counting by molecules.

    • 12 doublings at 3 C ??? The earth with no CO2 and just water vapor would be almost the same as now, just no life.
      A flat temperature (Avg insolation) is what all the models use don’t they? Nick is wrong.

  96. One scenario that would Trump the cartel revolves around the future of Phyllis Hamilton and beyond not impossibly to Sidney Thomas; think about it . . .

  97. [Snip. Personal attacks are unmerited and prohibited by site policy. If you have something to say regarding the technicalities of CM’s science, please feel free to do so. -mod]

    • Vali,
      Easy to make an accusation without backing it up. So, come on – what falsifications are you talking about? I can easily say that, considering Vali has been convicted on 10 counts of fraud and grand larceny, his opinion is not worth listening to, but unless I present some form of backing for it, then I – like you, now – would be nothing more than a troll and a charlatan.

    • I am going to ask the moderators to remove the posting from “Vali” on the ground that it falls foul of this site’s policy of not attacking ad-hominem if one chooses to be furtively anonymous.
      [I concur. The post has been snipped and an accompanying explanation left behind. -mod]

      • Chris
        please stop using the term “furtively anonymous” which you use both aggressively and defensively. Whilst you enjoy the limelight, many contributors here don’t. That’s not wrong and is condoned by this sites policies.
        You have directed the comment at me in the past, despite being a supporter of yours. I’m Happy to meet in person when my identity will be revealed to you alone, but not to the world at large, which, I believe, demonstrates trust in your integrity. It wouldn’t be worth your while as I’m a layman and contribute little here, but I do expect someone as educated and articulate as you to rise above the temptation of issuing barbed comments, even to people who are rude about you.
        Maintaining one’s anonymity does not make one furtive.
        Thanks,
        HotScot.

      • In response to “HotScot”, I generally reserve the term “furtively anonymous” for those who hide behind that anonymity and then make often deeply offensive personal, ad-hominem attacks on those few of us who have the courage to reveal who we are.
        Whether “HotScot” likes it or not, the policy of this site is not to allow such ad-hom sniping from people who do not declare exactly who they are. It was I who had that policy introduced. As you will see, the site’s controllers snipped the comment from the furtively pseudonymous “Vali” because it contributed absolutely nothing to the scientific discussion and was gratuitously offensive.
        Those who wish to be furtively anonymous and to make hate-speech attacks on those of us who are not afraid to declare who we are will just have to go elsewhere. They are no longer welcome here.
        I am glad to say that only one or two such creatures have attempted to infest this website with their venom. I have given them short shrift, and will continue to do so. If they don’t like the heat, they can get out of the kitchen.

      • CMoB: “As you will see, the site’s controllers snipped the comment from the furtively pseudonymous “Vali” because it contributed absolutely nothing to the scientific discussion and was gratuitously offensive.
        Those who wish to be furtively anonymous and to make hate-speech attacks on those of us who are not afraid to declare who we are will just have to go elsewhere. They are no longer welcome here.”
        I doubt you mean to be offensive but I find the use of ‘newspeak’ from the ghastly lexicon of the extreme left to be pretty offensive. “Hate-speech” is an invention of those totalitarians devoted to shutting down free speech and anyone of integrity utterly rejects the vile concept. It does nothing for our cause to use their hideous Orc language even in defense of ourselves.

      • In response to Cephus, I am not coy about deploying hate-speakers’ language against them. And I am most grateful that “Vali’s” comment was deleted. It is one of only a handful of comments that have had to be deleted in this long thread, which has been managed beautifully by our kind host and his excellent staff, to all of whom my heartfelt thanks.

  98. May we expect NASA GISS to just shut up shop and all go home now that there’s nothing left to fiddle for?

    • In reply to Ava Plaint, there will of course be enormous resistance to the idea that the entire global-warming panic arose from nothing more than an elementary error of physics. NASA and suchlike bodies have made very large sums from terrified governments, and they don’t want the gravy-train to hit the buffers. So they will at first wriggle as some of the commenters here have done. However, if we are right the word will slowly spread, the penny will gradually drop and eventually governments will stop throwing taxpayers’ money at this non-problem.

  99. How feasible would it be to create a physical model of the Earth, without GHG, in a vacuum, with a heat lamp as the sun, and measure the temp at the surface to see if a feedback pertains?

    • In response to “Me”, the simplest way to model a feedback amplifier system is to build an electronic simulacrum. That is what we did, not once but twice. The feedback response to emission temperature is shown by both test rigs to be a real response, and – what is more – a response of precisely the value that theory suggests.

      • I see, but the objection on here, from the like of Nick Stokes, seems to be that this feedback mechanism does not apply to the Earth’s base temperature, would a physical model be possible to confirm the mechanism?

      • Our physical model, in the shape of an electronic circuit, shows quite clearly that the emission temperature must induce a feedback response in a system – such as the climate – where feedbacks exist. What is more, it induces precisely the predicted feedback response. However much climatologists may at first wriggle when confronted with this news, in the end they will be faced with one strikingly simple question: How can the temperature feedbacks in the climate tell the difference between that part of the prevailing temperature that is accounted for by the emission temperature, on the one hand, and that part that is accounted for by the directly-forced warming from greenhouse gases?

      • Monckton of Brenchley March 20, 2018 at 6:50 am
        In response to “Me”, the simplest way to model a feedback amplifier system is to build an electronic simulacrum. That is what we did, not once but twice. The feedback response to emission temperature is shown by both test rigs to be a real response, and – what is more – a response of precisely the value that theory suggests.

        In your electronic circuit you would need both a power supply input and a signal input, in which case what parameter does your power supply represent?
        In the case of an Op-amp circuit logically the power supply is the average temperature of the surface and the signal would be the fluctuation of the temperature. This addresses Nick’s issue with your use of absolute temperature in the equation.

      • In response to Phil., in the climate, the output signal is the ratio of the product of the input signal and the direct-gain factor divided by (1 – the product of the direct-gain factor and the feedback fraction). In the climate, the input signal is emission temperature. But climatology does not use this precise form of the zero-dimensional-model. Therefore, climatologists had not realized that the emission temperature itself induces a large feedback response. One cannot assume that the 255 K emission temperature induces no feedback at all and yet that a mere 8 K of greenhouse warming induces a 24 K feedback response. We modeled this in the most straightforward possible way, by specifying the input signal, the direct-gain factor to allow for the greenhouse-gas warming, and the feedback fraction. Then we simply measured the output signal. We did this 23 times with different sets of inputs and outputs. Then the government laboratory did it all again and came up with the same numbers as we did.

      • Monckton of Brenchley March 20, 2018 at 4:45 pm
        In response to Phil., in the climate, the output signal is the ratio of the product of the input signal and the direct-gain factor divided by (1 – the product of the direct-gain factor and the feedback fraction). In the climate, the input signal is emission temperature.

        That does not address my question which was: ” what parameter does your power supply represent?”
        So have another try.

      • In answer to “Phil.”, the elements in the test circuits, including the power supply, were arranged to as to work together to allow specified inputs at three points: the input signal at the input node; the direct-gain factor in the gain block between the input and output nodes, and the feedback fraction in the feedback block on the return loop from the output to the input node. Then, once the three inputs had been set, it was possible simply to measure the output signal.

      • The circuits were designed so that the power supply voltage did not vary. By means of variable resistances, the input signal, direct-gain factor and feedback fraction could be individually set to values independent of the supply voltage. Our engineer had no difficulty in designing a suitable circuit, and the government scientist we then engaged constructed a circuit that was very similar.

  100. What if the Judge, despite all of MoB’s best efforts remains bamboozled by all the calculations and just goes with the alleged consensus? One hopes the defendants are also suitably equipped to expose that charade for what it is.

    • The judge will at least have been given the truth. He will have to be careful not to reject it out of hand. He has so far insisted that amici curiae from the skeptical side of the case should disclose their sources of funding to him. Once he realizes that we are not being paid to put forward our arguments, and that the arguments are comprehensible without expert knowledge, he will become intrigued and will challenge the parties in the case to respond.

  101. It may be the case that a first feedback response to the input signal of 255 K only appears after the temperature allows the presence of some atmospheric water vapour ?

    • Mr Gronemeyer raises a most interesting question, which we considered very carefully,. We modeled three pre-industrial scenarios: a snowball Earth with albedo 0.6 (Pierrehumbert, 2011, a beautifully written paper), a waterbelt Earth with albedo 0.418 (Lacis et al., 2010), and today’s albedo 0.293 (Loeb et al., 2006). We concluded that a control variable or triggering event (e.g. a big enough asteroid strike, or a series of volcanic eruptions) would be necessary to cause a transition from a snowball Earth to a waterbelt Earth (which used to be called a “slushball Earth”), but that, once there was open water at the Equator, the ice-albedo effect (very important at that stage) and the water vapor feedback, and even the cloud feedback, would begin to operate, maintaining the temperature at around 277 K. The feedback response would thus exercise a hysteretic influence, which could only be derailed by another control variable, this time causing sudden and substantial cooling. Our research appears, therefore, to make some contribution to solving the snowball-Earth deglaciation problem and also the early-faint-Sun paradox.

      • Following thought experiment:
        Suppose a first feedback response appears after reaching Tfb = 200K.
        The model starts with a reduced solar energy, which leads to a equilibrium temperature Tfb = 200 K and includes no feedback. We increase the solar energy until we get TN (= 287.6 K).
        After (4) follows from the additional solar contribution:
        f = 1 – ΔTref / ΔTeq = 1 – (TE – Tfb + ΔTB) / (TN – Tfb)
        = 1 – (255.4 – 200 + 8) / (287.6 – 200) = 0.28.

      • Mr Gronemeyer’s point is one that we thought about quite carefully. However, the Gedankenexperiment that is usually followed in the climate is to make a comparison between emission temperature without and with non-condensing greenhouse gases assuming today’s insolation and albedo. One starts off, therefore, with emission temperature of 255 K, and the feedbacks that respond to that temperature are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of that temperature, and not of some lesser temperature.

  102. Everyone is looking at the problem without being able to consider all the other variables in play at once, in a real time lab setting. If you do this the value is .39 K between what it would be at 576 ppm and what it was at 288 ppm. This is my findings and I will have them out very soon. So if the IPCC largest value of 5 K that will occur with a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 1880 values and the findings of this post which are only 1.2 K, there is still a factor of 13 too high for IPCC and 3 to high for this post.

    • …………..that real time lab setting being the recorded weather data, from minute to minute, on any surface based weather station, as the weather readings are changing. Its a bit tricky, but you have to look at it from a physical chemistry point of view.

      • There are all manner of competing favorite theories. However, we have provided a theoretical demonstration, empirically verified, that the feedback fraction has been exaggerated by an order of magnitude and equilibrium sensitivities by twofold to tenfold, mid-range estimate threefold. And that is quite enough to end the global warming scare.