Game over

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Skeptics 1, Fanatics 0. That’s the final score.

The corrected mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity, which is equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 in the air, is less than half of the official mid-range estimates that have prevailed in the past four decades. Transient sensitivity of 1.25 K and Charney sensitivity of 1.45 K are nothing like enough to worry about.

This third article answers some objections raised as a result of the first two pieces. Before I give some definitions, equations and values to provide clarity, let me make it plain that my approach is to accept – for the sake of argument only – that everything in official climatology is true except where we have discovered errors. By this acceptance solum ad argumentum, we minimize the scope for futile objections that avoid the main point, and we focus the discussion on the grave errors we have found.

Definitions

All definitions except that of temperature feedback are mainstream. I am including them in the hope of forestalling comments to the effect that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, or that temperatures (whether entire or delta) cannot induce feedbacks. If you are already well versed in climatology, as most readers here are, skip this section except for the definition of feedback, where climatology is at odds with mainstream feedback theory.

Greenhouse gases possess at least three atoms in their molecules and are thus capable of possessing or, under appropriate conditions, acquiring a dipole moment that causes them to oscillate in one of their vibrational modes and thus to emit heat.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), being symmetrical, does not possess a dipole moment, but acquires one in its bending vibrational mode on interacting with a near-infrared photon. To use Professor Essex’s excellent analogy, when a greenhouse gas meets a photon of the right wavelength it is turned on like a radiator, whereupon some warming must by definition occur.

The non-condensing greenhouse gases exclude water vapor.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas by quantity, is a condensing gas. All relevant changes in its atmospheric burden are treated as temperature feedbacks. Its atmospheric burden is thought to increase by 7% per Kelvin of warming in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (Wentz 2007).

Emission temperature would obtain at the Earth’s surface if there were no non-condensing greenhouse gases or feedbacks present. Emission temperature is a function of insolation, albedo and emissivity (assumed to be unity), and of nothing else. As non-condensing greenhouse gases and feedbacks warm the atmosphere, the altitude at which the emission temperature obtains rises.

Radiative forcing (in W m–2) is an exogenous perturbation in the net (down minus up) radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. Forcings become warmings via –

The Planck sensitivity parameter (in K W–1 m2: Roe 2009), the quantity by which a radiative forcing is multiplied to yield the reference sensitivity. To a first approximation, it is the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer with respect to the Earth’s emission temperature and emission flux density. Its value is thus dependent on insolation and albedo. The first derivative is the change in temperature per unit change in flux density, i.e., at today’s values 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. However, owing to altitudinal variation, the modeled value today is 0.31 = 3.2–1 K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.).

Temperature feedback (in W m–2 K–1), an additional forcing proportional to the temperature that induces it, in turn drives a feedback response (in K) that modifies the originating temperature. This definition of a feedback as a modification of a signal (not merely of a change in the input signal but also of the input signal itself) is standard in all applications of control theory except climatology, where it has been near-universally but falsely imagined that an input signal (emission temperature in the climate) does not induce a feedback, even where feedback processes are present and will modify even the tiniest change in that signal. It is this error that has misled official climatology into overestimating climate sensitivities.

Models do not implement feedback math explicitly. However, their outputs are routinely calibrated against past climate. Paper after paper incorrectly states that the entire 33 K difference between today’s surface temperature of 288 K and the emission temperature of 255 K that would prevail today in the absence of greenhouse gases or of feedbacks is driven by the directly-forced warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases and the feedbacks induced by that warming.

For instance, Lacis (2010) says that three-quarters of the difference between emission temperature and today’s temperature is the feedback response to the non-condensing greenhouse gases: i.e, that the feedback fraction is 0.75, which, given the CMIP5 reference sensitivity of 1.1 K (Andrews 2012) would yield Charney sensitivity of 4.4 K. Sure enough, the CMIP5 models’ feedback fraction, at 0.67, is close to Lacis’ value, implying Charney sensitivity of 3.3 K. It will be proven that there is no justification whatever for mid-range estimates anything like this high. They arise solely because the models have been tuned over the decades to yield Charney sensitivities high enough to account for the entire 33 K.

  • Reference sensitivity is the temperature change in response to a radiative forcing before taking feedbacks into account.
  • Equilibrium sensitivity, the warming expected to occur within a policy-relevant timeframe once the climate has resettled to equilibrium after perturbation by a radiative forcing (such as doubled CO2 concentration) and after all temperature feedbacks of sub-decadal duration have aced, may be somewhat larger than –
  • Transient climate sensitivity, the warming expected to occur immediately in response to a forcing. The chief reason for the difference is the delay occasioned by the vast heat-sink that is the ocean.
  • Charney sensitivity, named after Dr Jule Charney, is equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2.

Zero-dimensional-model equation relates reference and equilibrium sensitivities or temperatures via the feedback fraction, which accounts for the entire difference between them. Control theory in all applications except climatology uses both forms of (1) and of its rearrangement, (2), but climatology has not hitherto appreciated that the right-hand form of each equation is permissible. For this reason, it has failed to accord sufficient – or in most instances any – weight to the feedback response that arises from the presence of emission temperature. As a result of this grave error, official climatology has greatly overestimated the feedback fraction and hence all transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities.

clip_image002

Input variables

Input variables are from official sources. Net industrial-era anthropogenic radiative forcing to 2011 was 2.29 W m–2 (IPCC 2013, table SPM.5); the Planck sensitivity parameter is 3.2–2 K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.); the radiative energy imbalance to 2010 was 0.59 W m–2 (Smith 2015); industrial-era warming to 2011 was 0.75 K (least-squares trend on the HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011: Morice 2012); and the radiative forcing at CO2 doubling is 3.5 W m–2 (Andrews 2012); the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.6704 x 10–8 W m–2 K–4 (Rybicki 1979); albedo without non-condensing greenhouse gases or feedbacks would be 0.418 (Lacis 2010); global mean surface temperature without greenhouse gases would be 252 K (ibid.); and today’s global mean surface temperature is 288.4 K (ISCCP 2016).

Mid-range industrial-era Charney sensitivity

Now for the simplest proof of small Charney sensitivity. Net industrial-era manmade forcing to 2011 was 2.29 W m–2, implying industrial-era reference warming 2.29 / 3.2 = 0.72 K. The radiative imbalance to 2010 was 0.59 W m–2. Warming has thus radiated 2.29 – 0.59 = 1.70 W m–2 (74.2%) to space. Equilibrium warming to 2011 may thus prove to have been 34.7% greater than the observed 0.75 K industrial-era warming to 2011. The feedback fraction for transient sensitivity is then f = 1 – 0.716 / 0.751 = 0.047, so that transient climate sensitivity is 1.09 / (1 – 0.047) = 1.15 K. Industrial-era f for equilibrium sensitivity is 1 – 0.716 / (0.751 x 1.347) = 0.29, implying Charney sensitivity 1.09 / (1 – 0.29) = 1.55 K.

That’s it. Charney sensitivity is less than half of the 3.3 K mid-range estimate in the CMIP3 and CMIP5 general-circulation models, distorted as they are by the long-standing misallocation of all 33 K of the difference between today’s temperature and emission temperature to greenhouse-gas forcings and consequent feedbacks.

Mid-range pre-industrial Charney sensitivity

To show how official climatology’s grave error arose, we shall study how it has been apportioning that 33 K difference between today’s temperature and emission temperature.

Lacis (2010) estimated albedo without greenhouse gases as 0.418, implying emission temperature [1364.625(1 – 0.418) / (4σ)]0.25 = 243.26 K (Stefan-Boltzmann equation, with unit emissivity). However, Lacis estimated the global mean surface temperature without non-condensing greenhouse gases as 252 K, implying a small feedback response to emission temperature, arising from melting equatorial ice and about 10% of the current atmospheric burden of water vapor. That 10% value can be obtained from the 7% per Kelvin increase in water vapor found in Wentz (2007): thus, 100 / 1.0733 = 10.7.

Global temperature in 1850 was 287.6 K. The 35.6 K difference between 287.6 and 252 K was given as 25% [8.9 K] directly-forced warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases and 75% [26.7 K] feedback response to that greenhouse warming. However, if the feedback fraction f over Lacis’ 50-year study period were constant, for transient sensitivity f would be 1 – (243.26 + 8.9) / 287.6 = 0.123, and transient sensitivity itself would be 1.09 / (1 – 0.123) = 1.25 K. If an energy imbalance in 1850 might eventually increase that year’s temperature by 10%, then f = 1 – (243.26 + 8.9) / (287.6 x 1.1) = 0.203. Charney sensitivity would then be 1.09 / (1 – 0.203) = 1.4 K.

In Lacis, the 44.2 K difference between emission and 1850 temperatures comprises 8.7 K (3.6%) feedback response to the 243.3 K emission temperature and, since Lacis takes transient-sensitivity f = 0.75, directly-forced greenhouse warming of 8.9 K inducing 26.6 K (300%) feedback response. Thus, Lacis imagines the feedback responses to emission temperature and to direct greenhouse warming are 3.6% and 300% respectively of the underlying quantities, which is absurd. What is more, Lacis says that the feedback fraction 0.75 applies also to “current climate”, an explicit demonstration that climatology’s error leading to overstatements of equilibrium sensitivity in the models arose from its neglect of the large feedback response to emission temperature.

Our corrected method finds transient-sensitivity f a lot less that Lacis’ 0.75. It is just 0.123. Then the 44.2 K difference between 1850 temperature and emission temperature comprises 243.3 f / (1 – f) = 34.1 K feedback response to emission temperature; 8.9 K directly-forced greenhouse warming; and 8.9 f / (1 – f) = 1.2 K feedback response to direct greenhouse warming. Thus, feedback responses to emission temperature and direct greenhouse warming are identical at f / (1 – f) = 14% of the underlying quantities.

In practice, ice-melt would steadily reduce the ice-covered surface area, reducing the surface-albedo feedback and hence the overall feedback fraction, though that effect might be largely canceled by increased water vapor and cloud feedback. The assumption of a uniform feedback fraction throughout the transition from emission temperature to 1850 temperature is, therefore, not unreasonable. Other apportionments might be made: but it would not be reasonable to make apportionments anywhere close to those of Lacis or of the CMIP models.

Note how well the industrial and pre-industrial sensitivities cohere, and how very much smaller they are than official climatology’s 0.67-075. The corrected industrial-era values, just 1.25 K transient sensitivity and 1.55 K equilibrium sensitivity, necessarily follow from the stated official definitions and values. In my submission, it is no longer legitimate for official climatology to maintain that the mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity is anything like as high as the CMIP3/CMIP5 models’ 3.3 K.

Certainty about uncertainties

What of the uncertainties in our result? Some of the official input values on which we have relied are subject to quite wide error margins. However, because our mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity is low, occurring at the left-hand end of the rectangular-hyperbolic curve of Charney sensitivities in response to various values of the feedback fraction, the interval of plausible sensitivities is nothing like as broad as the official interval, which I shall now demonstrate to be a hilarious fiction.

clip_image004

The Charney report of 1979, echoed by several IPCC Assessment Reports, gives a Charney-sensitivity interval 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K. The 2013 Fifth Assessment Report retains the bounds but no longer dares to state the mid-range estimate, for a reason that I shall now reveal.

By now it will be apparent to all that the chief uncertainty in deriving transient or equilibrium sensitivities is the value of the feedback fraction. I found it curious, therefore, that IPCC did not derive its mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity from the mean of the bounds of the feedback fraction’s interval. The mismatch is quite striking (see below)

IPCC’s mid-range Charney sensitivity 3.0 K implies a feedback fraction 0.61, which is three times closer to the upper bound 0.74 than to the lower bound 0.23. If IPCC had derived its mid-range Charney sensitivity from a value of the feedback fraction midway between the bounds, its 3 K mid-range estimate would have fallen by an impressive 0.75 K to just 2.25 K:

clip_image006

How, then, did IPCC come to imagine that mid-range Charney sensitivity could be as high as 3 K? The Charney Report of 1979, the first official attempt to derive Charney sensitivity, provides a clue. On p. 9, Charney found that the interval was 2.4 [1.6, 4.5] K, implying a feedback fraction close enough to the mean of its bounds. However, by p. 16 he had decided that his eponymous interval was “in the range 1.5-4.5 K, with the most probable value near 3 K”. Why did he go for 3 K? And why did IPCC and CMIP5 remain in that ballpark for four decades? Perhaps it was because, owing to their error, they could not otherwise account for the 33 K difference between emission temperature and present-day temperature.

clip_image008

Be that as it may, where (a) the feedback fraction is defined as 1 minus the ratio of reference to equilibrium temperature (Eq. (2)), where (b) the mid-range value of the feedback fraction is the mean of the bounds of its interval, and where (c) the mid-range estimate of equilibrium sensitivity is twice the lower-bound estimate, the upper bound of the feedback fraction must be unity. Then the upper bound of equilibrium sensitivity will fall precisely on the singularity in the rectangular-hyperbolic response curve, and will therefore be somewhere between plus and minus infinity (see above). This is definitive evidence that the supposed Charney-sensitivity interval 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K is nonsense, and that all attempts to ascribe a statistical confidence interval to it are likewise nonsense.

Is our mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity reasonable?

Rud Istvan, in one of many interesting comments on the earlier articles, says Lewis & Curry (2014) found transient and equilibrium sensitivities to be 1.3 K and 1.65 K respectively, implying that Charney sensitivity is 1.25 times transient sensitivity, not 1.37 times as I calculated earlier. In that event, the feedback fraction is 1 – 0.716 / (0.751 x 1.25) = 0.237, implying Charney sensitivity 1.09 / (1 – 0.237) = 1.45 K, similar to the 1.5 K in Lewis 2015.

Rud offers the following interesting confirmatory method. In IPCC (2013), the mid-range estimates of the sub-decadal temperature feedback sum is 1.6 W m–2 K–1, since the feedbacks other than the water-vapor feedback sum to zero. Multiplying the feedback sum by the Planck parameter gives a mid-range feedback fraction 0.5 (Table 1). Note in passing that, as discussed earlier, the upper-bound feedback fraction works out at the absurd value 1.0.

clip_image010

Rud goes on to point out that, as several papers show, the CMIP5 models produce about half the observed rainfall, implying that the modeled water-vapor feedback is double the true value. Therefore, he says, the true feedback fraction is half the CMIP5 models’ estimate. That means 0.25, giving a Charney sensitivity of 1.09 / (1 – 0.25) = 1.45 K.

I shall let Rud Istvan have the last word:

“This is not coincidental. The ‘best’ Charney sensitivity, whether calculated using the energy budget, or observed v. modeled via Bode’s feedback fraction f, is half of the ‘best estimate’ in IPCC (2007). I agree with Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. It’s game over.”

 

Advertisements

799 thoughts on “Game over

  1. I’m.still waiting on Mosher to drop in and destoy your argument with a single incomprehensibly cryptic rebuttal…

    • Well, anyone who wants to undermine our result will have not one but two arguments to rebut.

      • The theoretical argument (pre-industrial) and the empirical (industrial-era) are the two arguments. They are distinct, though they share some common features. And they cohere in their results. Lewis & Curry (2014) and Lewis (2015) use a different and less simple method to reach the same result. Nic Lewis is a neighbor here in the English West Country.

      • I wish we could edit our typos… I presume Willis is also working on his response. Excellent work Your Lordship.

      • TCS and ECS are guesses,
        requiring many assumptions,
        and the use of very questionable surface
        temperature data — with more wild guess
        infilling than actual measurements …
        and even they are repeatedly adjusted !

        The best we can do now is to create
        a worst case estimate of warming,
        by assuming 100%
        of the measured warming
        in a given time period
        was caused by CO2.

        If you use the weather satellite era,
        since 1979, and assume all warming
        was caused by CO2, the TCS is about
        +1 degree C. per CO2 doubling = harmless.

        If you use the period since 1750,
        and blame 100% of the
        very haphazardly measured /
        (minimal Southern Hemisphere
        data before 1940)
        wild guessed warming on CO2,
        the WORST CASE TCS
        is about +1.5 degrees
        per CO2 doubling = harmless

        Any attempt to claim one “knows” TCS,
        or the more difficult concept of ECS,
        is a self-serving lie.

        Even a worst case TCS or ECS estimate
        is just a rough estimate.
        because temperature
        measurements before satellites
        are very rough data,
        and feedbacks,
        if any, are unknown.

        The claim of a positive feedback,
        with no scientific proof, is weak
        — that’s just like saying
        we had no positive feedback
        (or runaway warming)
        for 4.5 billion years
        … and then suddenly
        man made CO2
        triggered a brand new
        water vapor positive feedback
        in recent decades !

        Of course anything goes
        in modern climate “science”.

        I suppose the fairy tale of a “new”
        water vapor positive feedback
        goes well with the other fairy tale
        the global warmunists love,
        which was used in the
        TCS estimate of +1 (above):

        — 4.5 billion years
        of natural climate change
        suddenly stopped in 1940.
        — Aerosols took over
        as the “climate controller” in 1940.
        — Aerosols fell out of the sky in 1975, and then
        CO2 took over as the “climate controller”.

        No one even tries to explain
        how a water vapor positive feedback
        would suddenly appear … or how
        natural climate change would suddenly
        disappear … because in modern climate “science”,
        you can always EXCLAIM anything,
        but never have to EXPLAIN anything !

        Monckton of Brenchley seems overconfident,
        and in climate science that has always meant
        WRONG — 100% of the time in the 20 years
        I’ve been following the subject.

        In climate science,
        which I consider to be
        “no one knows science”,
        you can be wrong
        but still be much closer
        to “the truth”,
        than the IPCC.

        I still believe the person
        who says “I don’t know”
        can be the smartest person
        in the room, when the subject is
        climate science.

        My four lessons from 20 years of reading:
        (1) Don’t predict the future climate,
        or believe predictions of the future climate,

        (2) Don’t be so sure you, or anyone else,
        have “the answer”, and

        (3) Don’t think you can make precise calculations using
        the huge margin of error (my opinion, not “official” margins)
        surface temperature “measurements”, and

        (4) Remember that politicians love to use a “crisis”
        to gain power, even a fake crisis like global warming,
        … by claiming a catastrophe is ahead
        and only THEY / THE GOOBERMINT
        know how to prevent it !

        My climate change blog
        for people with common sense,
        which leaves out leftists !
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • It would be easier for followers of this thread if Mr Greene would be kind enough to avoid excessive use of the carriage return in laying out his comments.

        Nor is his allegation that I am “over-confident” at all fair. I have set out an argument simple enough for anyone with sufficient determination to follow without too much difficulty. The argument in no way depends on my personality, confident or otherwise. It stands or falls by such intrinsic merits as it may be thought to possess. That, like it or not, is how science works.

    • Many thanks to Steve Richards. The comments here have indeed been of immense value in assisting us in refining and improving our result.

      • acquiring a dipole moment that causes them to oscillate in one of their vibrational modes and thus to emit heat.

        You may find it immensely helpful to know that IR radiation is an electromagnetic wave, not “heat”, which is vibrational kinetic energy. It is not when they acquire vibrational energy that they emit a photon but when they lose it.

      • Greg is, as usual, intellectually dishonest. Had he cited me in full, it would have been apparent to all that it was not the photons of near-infrared radiation but the CO2 molecules that, on interacting with such photons, acquire a dipole moment that causes them to oscillate in one of their vibrational modes (the bending mode being of principal relevance with the CO2 molecule), and thus to emit heat.

        At no point in my outline of the relevant optical physics, which I learned by sitting at the feet of arguably the world’s most eminent living professor in that subject, had I in any way suggested that infrared radiation itself constituted heat.

      • Lord MoB,

        You are being somewhat unfair to Greg here. I don’t know Greg but his statement regarding IR being radiation not heat is correct. Your attempt to discredit his statement is unwarranted.

        It may be that your use of the words ’emit heat’ are misleading. Heat is energy in transit from hot to cold. Once vibrationally excited through higher energy absorption, a CO2 molecule will emit radiation. Radiation is not heat (noun), as you correctly pointed out later, but whether that radiation can be considered ‘to heat’ (verb) will depend on the temperature of the receiving molecule. If the receiving molecule is colder than the CO2 emitter, then the receiver will ‘heat up’ as it will have absorbed the radiation for internal (thermal) energy gain. So your vibrating CO2 molecule may or may not emit heat but it will certainly emit radiation. An ice cube in a warm room emits radiation but it does not emit heat. The radiation emitted by a CO2 molecule after it has absorbed LW radiation will have no effect on the temperature of the Earth. In this sense, so-called Radiative Forcing is zero in terms of temperature as the radiation emitted by atmospheric CO2 is thermally irrelevant to the planet’s surface (unless that surface locally is cooler than the emitter).

        [“To use Professor Essex’s excellent analogy, when a greenhouse gas meets a photon of the right wavelength it is turned on like a radiator, whereupon some warming must by definition occur.“]

        Not if the room is warmer than the radiator. To what definition do you refer?

        Maybe you could ask ‘arguably the world’s most eminent professor’ to clarify?

      • Arfurbryant seems to be quibbling somewhat. If the CO2 molecules, on being induced to oscillate, do not warm their surroundings, then there is no greenhouse effect. Since they do, Professor Essex’s analogy is apt.

      • Lord MoB,

        You are perfectly entitled to accuse me of quibbling, although it is ironic that this accusation comes from someone who prides himself on being objective and specific when it comes to the use of language.

        Nevertheless, my quibbling does not obscure the fact that your use of the words ’emit heat’ is incorrect.

        I am perfectly happy to accept that the oscillating CO2 molecules may conduct heat to neighbouring molecules but that transfer of heat is not by radiation but by conduction. As each CO2 molecule is surrounded by roughly 2500 non-absorptive molecules, the chance of such radiation being absorbed by a molecule capable of such absorption is minuscule.

        In this sense, I repeat, the Radiative Forcing figure is pretty much meaningless. No radiation emitted by atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect for the planet surface. What little conductive heating there is will be virtually unmeasurable.

        I am sure Professor Essex did not intend his radiator description to apply to the CO2-induced warming effect as surmised by the IPCC…

        Kind regards,

        Arfur

    • Neomarxists and post modern have their own logic and facts don’t matter if it does not support their “cause”.

      • The intolerance of the totalitarian faction in the West has now become extreme and vicious. Those of us who dared to question the Party Line on climate were the first victims of that spite. However, they have made a strategic mistake in peddling the climate nonsense. Their mistake is to state, falsely, that their Party Line is science-based when it is really hatred-based. Science has now proven their Party Line wrong.

    • Lord MoB,

      You are perfectly entitled to accuse me of quibbling, although it is ironic that this accusation comes from someone who prides himself on being objective and specific when it comes to the use of language.

      Nevertheless, my quibbling does not obscure the fact that your use of the words ’emit heat’ is incorrect.

      I am perfectly happy to accept that the oscillating CO2 molecules may conduct heat to neighbouring molecules but that transfer of heat is not by radiation but by conduction. As each CO2 molecule is surrounded by roughly 2500 non-absorptive molecules, the chance of such radiation being absorbed by a molecule capable of such absorption is minuscule.

      In this sense, I repeat, the Radiative Forcing figure is pretty much meaningless. No radiation emitted by atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect for the planet surface. What little conductive heating there is will be virtually unmeasurable.

      I am sure Professor Essex did not intend his radiator description to apply to the CO2-induced warming effect as surmised by the IPCC…

      Kind regards,

      Arfur

      • arfur

        essentially I agree with your comment. The re-radiation of CO2 at 14-15 can only be met with same of water which makes about 0.4 or 0.5 % of the atmosphere. To the rest of the gases it is mostly permeable.
        This is not that to say I am denying that there is some kind of a GH effect. But it comes mostly just from pure clouds. I noticed here that in winter Tmin rises quite significant when clouds move in overnight.

      • henrys

        Yes. The big question is exactly how much ‘warming effect’ can a trace non-condensing gas have? When people like Lacis start insisting that CO2 is 26% of the GHE without any empirical evidence to support such comments, one has to ask why a 40% increase in CO2 and an even large increase in CH4 have had so little impact – even if you assume that all the ‘measured’ warming is due to to the increase in so-called Greenhouse gasses – an assumption which is logically unsound.

      • Arfur and HenryP: CO2 molecules usually don’t “re-emit” photons they have absorbed. Molecules at atmospheric pressure are colliding about 10^9 times per second. The average CO2 molecule in an excited state takes about 1 second to emit a photon. After a CO2 absorbs a photon, it is collisionally relaxed (or thermalized) long before it emits a photon. Collisions also excite CO2 molecules. The warmer the temperature, the large the fraction of CO2 molecules that are in an excited state. The net result is that emission depends only on the local temperature, not on absorption of a photon.

        It is colder higher in the atmosphere than near the surface. Since emission (but not absorption) depends on temperature, there is more LWR traveling upward through the atmosphere than downward. This is just the 2LoT – heat (the net flux of energy) travels from hot to cold. So rising CO2 interferes more with the outward flux of energy.

      • Frank,

        You are correct. I have made this exact point on other sites. But it seems most people would rather not let the truth stand in the way of a good story…

      • Frank,
        Just to clarify, you are correct in the thrust of your comment although I think the relaxation time is more like 6-10 microseconds, rather than one second. Either way, there will be time for hundreds or even thousands of collisions before the CO2 molecules can re-emit.

      • Arfur wrote: Just to clarify, you are correct in the thrust of your comment although I think the relaxation time is more like 6-10 microseconds, rather than one second. Either way, there will be time for hundreds or even thousands of collisions before the CO2 molecules can re-emit.

        Correct. Collisions occur about 10^9 times a second, but only a small fraction of collisions relax an excited CO2, about 1 in 10^4. Excited CO2 emits about 1 photon per second.

  2. This definition of a feedback as a modification of a signal (not merely of a change in the input signal but also of the input signal itself) is standard in all applications of control theory except climatology, where it has been near-universally but falsely imagined that an input signal (emission temperature in the climate) does not induce a feedback, even where feedback processes are present and will modify even the tiniest change in that signal.

    In Bode’s paper there is an implicit assumption. It is the reference which is usually taken as a zero volt ground. All the other voltages are measured relative to that. ie. the negative lead of your volt meter is connected to ground and you measure everything else with respect to that.

    If we are talking about the climate and feedbacks, what is the reference? If you are allowed to take the reference as the temperature right now, then the feedback will indeed act on “even the tiniest change” in temperature. If we take absolute zero as the reference then we have an entirely different kettle of fish.

    When Hansen applied Bode’s analysis to the climate he just threw it in and started using it. He didn’t state, let alone justify, the implicit assumptions that he apparently didn’t know he was using.

      • Reference in surface climatology is the temp of space.

        I once learned, the hard way, that a certain circuit had a 500 volt reference level. Wrong assumptions can literally get you killed or, in that case, deeply shocked.

        If we’re trying to apply feedback analysis, the reference will depend on the mechanism involved.

        If I understand correctly, the reason Hansen invokes feedback is as follows: Increased CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause extra water vapor to enter the atmosphere. That will cause additional warming. ie. The CO2 induced warming will be accompanied by a water vapor induced positive feedback. In that light, we could speculate that the reference might be related to the properties of water, maybe the dew point (mentioned in your link) or the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

        I haven’t seen a rigorous physics based development of feedback theory related to climate sensitivity. The most honest, and probably best, I have seen is CM’s comment on the subject.

      • It is the vapor pressure of the water vapor at the surface, regulates low temp and high temp, and at least some of the changes to the moist lapse rate difference between day and night is from the extraction, and restoring of the the energy used in regulating surface temps.
        But that’s the regulated, ie output side of the regulator, space is ground, and if you look at how well temps are regulated in K, it’s pretty fricking good at it.
        It’s really an emergent switching regulator, where both the surface and water vapor replace the capacitors.

      • At the university, circa 1958, the temperature of space was given as 4 K. Is it a constant? Is it universal in all directions? Or does it vary with solar activity or changes in the ionosphere?

    • In response to CommieBob, one should not expect the climate to behave like an op-amp, but one may design an op-amp to demonstrate certain specific aspects of how the climate may be expected to behave.

      If one is considering the 44.2 K of temperature difference between the Earth’s emission temperature of 243.25 K without any greenhouse forcings or feedbacks (assuming Lacis’ albedo 0.418) and the temperature of 287.6 K in 1850, the sum of the emission temperature and the 8.9 K directly-forced warming from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases may serve as the reference temperature, if one assumes that the feedback fraction was invariant across the period. Then the 1850 temperature is the equilibrium temperature. Other assumptions are of course possible: but, as explained in the head posting, Lacis’ apportionment of the 44.2 K seems altogether unjustifiable.

      I agree that Hansen (1984), followed closely by Schlesinger (1985), did not quite know what they were doing. But they set climatology off on the long and profitable wild-goose chase that – if we are in substance correct – is now at an end.

      • … if we are in substance correct …

        There’s no justification for assuming that the feedback analysis applies only to the ΔT. Given time constants, etc., one might be able to make that argument for the Transient Climate Sensitivity but you are explicitly talking about the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.

        I think you have hoisted Hansen with his own petard.

      • The political based UNFCCC has been falsified by reality for many years. I don’t think they easily will accept facts after so much has been invested in this idea? They will take on their postmodern hats and simply state that nothing is truth?

      • What Hansen did not include in his ‘water vapor feedback’ was that as the humidity increases so does the enthalpy of the atmosphere. This means that the _temperature_ of the atmosphere will not increase in direct ratio with the energy content (in kilojoules per kilogram) as its specific heat (the enthalpy) is a variable.
        If the intent is to measure the energy content of the atmosphere then the correct metric should be used. Temperature is not proportional to the energy content of the atmosphere, it is an intensive variable and should not ever be ‘averaged’. Energy content which is what concerns everyone should be measured in kilojoules per kilogram. A daily average atmospheric kilojoules per kilogram could also be calculated.
        The entire house of cards seems to be balanced on incorrect assumptions. Its proponents then proceed to take maximum and minimum temperature observations and ‘average’ them as if that gives some 24 hour average ‘temperature’ but is in fact completely meaningless. Both in terms of an average quantity and of what that quantity represents.
        To give these base assumptions the courtesy of carrying out complex mathematics with them raises doubt as to whether anyone is aware of the incorrect assumptions on which they are based.

        Where are the metrologists to keep these meteorologists in line?

      • In response to Ian W, for the sake of argument I have accepted the official position that, in the climate, temperature feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induced them. I have modified that official position only to the extent of demonstrating and verifying that it is not only a change in temperature that induces a feedback but also a pre-existing temperature. In the climate, that is emission temperature.

      • Another way is to calculate the total energy in the atmosphere and calculate extra energy absorbed by adding CO2.

        95% of this analysis is from the http://www.calqlata.com website
        while the 5% at the end is mine.
        The mass of each gas in the earth’s atmosphere was established from their pressures and by multiplying the specific heat capacity by its mass we can determine the heat energy stored in each gas.

        Whilst the calculation is valid for a particular temperature (273K), and the specific heat capacity of most gases rises with temperature, the relative contribution from each gas in the earth’s atmosphere will remain largely unchanged.

        The following table lists the results from these calculations:
        Gas cp Mass Stored Energy %age of Air
        J/kg/K kg J/K
        N? 983 4.13091006E+18 4.060684588E+21 79.5209485%
        O? 919 1.10774396E+18 1.018016698E+21 19.9359619%
        Ar 531 4.91366416E+16 2.609155669E+19 0.5109546%
        CO? 844 1.58453127E+15 1.337344390E+18 0.0261894%
        Ne 1030 9.50566787E+13 9.790837905E+16 0.0019174%
        He 5240 2.74608183E+13 1.438946878E+17 0.0028179%
        CH? 2200 1.05618532E+13 2.323607701E+16 0.0004550%
        H 14300 2.53484477E+12 3.624828014E+16 0.0007099%
        N?O 880 2.63837434E+12 2.321769416E+15 0.0000455%
        (H?O) (1859) (1.05618532E+17)(1.963448508E+20)
        Totals 5.28951345E+18 + H?O 5.106433796E+21 + H?O 100% + H?O
        The stored energy values in the above table assume that all the atmospheric gases are at 273K, which is not correct. Temperature drops and rises with altitude (see Fig 2) and the specific heat capacity of all gases rise and fall with temperature, not necessarily at the same rate but very similarly, except where certain gases fade out at various altitudes, the total percentage contribution of stored heat is virtually identical no matter how you perform this calculation.
        The temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is directly proportional to the heat energy retained in its gases. Therefore, a change in the mass of any gas in the earth’s atmosphere will have a consequential effect on the earth’s surface temperature.

        The sum of all the ‘Stored Energy’ values in the above table (5.106E+21J/K) represents the energy in the atmosphere that would be required to raise the temperature of all the gas molecules to 273.15K.

        Therefore, every single degree (1K) of this temperature must be generated by 1.8695E+19J of heat energy. In other words, to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1K (to 274.15K) you would need to increase the total Stored Energy by 1.8695E+19J. ##########################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################
        The above value is the most important point in this whole thesis. It will be referred to inl argument at the end.

        To conclude;
        because nitrogen is responsible for 79.52% of the atmosphere’s stored energy, a 1% change in its mass will significantly affect surface temperature
        On the other hand;
        a significant increase (e.g. >1000%) in the mass of gases such as neon, carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen that together constitute less than 0.039% of the atmosphere’s stored energy will have very little effect on the earth’s surface temperature.

        However, if we apply the laws of thermodynamics to the above argument these effects are not quite so straight forward, for example; …

        CO?
        Along with other carbon gases, CO? is today charged with being the principal cause of Global Warming (see Global Warming below) because it is a “Greenhouse” gas. This claim is made because of its low specific heat capacity; i.e. it requires less energy input to raise its temperature by 1K than the more abundant atmospheric gases (except argon). However, its contribution to the earth’s atmospheric temperature can only be considered in conjunction with its relative mass.
        Dont forget that even though all the above calculations were for a starting temperature at 273K, the linear proportionality of heated gases dictates that the calculations are good for any temperatures that you would encounter in the troposhere.
        If you double the CO2 and assume that every CO2 molecule is then maxed out with its maximum IR that it can absorb an additional
        1.337344390E+18 of heat that is now trapped in the atmosphere by the additional CO2. However as in the above where it is ###########

        To raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1K no matter what temperature you are at you would need an additional 1.8695E+19 Joules/kg
        The above analysis assumed that the atmosphere was warmed from 273K to 288K( average earth temperature) because of greenhouse gases. The generally accepted view is that without greenhouse gases susch as H2O and CO2, the earth would be 255K or -18K below freezing. Therefore the above analysis of the amount of energy needed to maintain the earth equilibrium temperature at 288K has to be multiplied by a factor of 2.2 ((18+15)/15 ).

        Taking the ratio of the above 2 numbers (1.337344390E+18J / 1.8695E+19J and deleting the extra significant digits in the numerator so as to match the 4 significant digits in the denominator you end up with an initial specific heat ratio for CO2 doubling of ~ 0.07. However you have to apply the 2.2 factor above so that you end up with 0.154 as the final specific heat ratio for CO2 doubling. This means that a doubling of CO2 only raises the temperature 0.154K which is .07 * 2 Therefore 1 /0.154 = ~ 6.5
        You would need 6.5 times as much CO2 to raise the temperature 1K. And that assumes that each increase has a linear effect when most climate scientists say that the effect is diminished logarithmically. So the increases in temperature are actually much less as the CO2 rises. Now the CAGW scientists will argue that the water vapour forcing by the increase in CO2 starts at any increase in temperature no matter how small. Indeed according to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (Wentz 2007) they show a 7% increase in H20 vapour for an increase in temperature of 1K. Therefore the increased energy from this increase in H2O vapour is = .07 * 1.963448508E+20 = 1.37441E19 J If it takes 1.8695E+19 J (as in the above *******) extra to heat the atmosphere 1K higher then you get an increase of 1.37441E19/1.8695E+19 = .735 K and applying the 2.2 doubling factor you get 1.47K increase because of the feedback increase in H2O . So a complete doubling of CO2 which hasn’t happened yet and is only based on the present level anyway plus the extra H2O forcing would give you 0.154K + 1.47K = 1.62K increase. Of course this doubling of the CO2 doesnt happen all at once and actually will take 126 years at the present rate of increase in the earth’s atmosphere based on a .0055 rate of increase of the past 50 years and a potential CO2 doubling of 408ppm to 816ppm by volume. Indeed
        this 1.62K projected increase for the next 126 years is approximately double the O.85K that the IPCC has said has occurred in the last 132 years from 1880 to 2012. Dont forget that in 1880 the CO2 level was about 280ppm and the level in 2012 was 393ppm which was an increase of only 113ppm which was only a 40% increase from the level in 1880. So we have never had a doubling yet and that doubling of todays figures wont happen for another 126 years as per the above. So even though the resultant water vapour forcing might initiate an instantaneous feedback from even a 0.000001K change in the CO2 level increase; the total feedback temperature change caused by the H2O vapour alone can’t be more than 1.47K . This total increase of temperature of 1.62K (1.47K + 0.15K) assumes that there are no mitigating factors of water vapour forcing. Most skeptics are arguing that there is no net water vapour forcing because 1) net (evaporation – precipitation) is not positive and 2) the increase clouds will cause an increased albedo effect to cancel out the forcing. In any case this analysis dictates that the 1.62K increase over the next 126 years is the worse case scenario. It is also the best case scenario of the IPCC. So this analysis proves that almost all the models are wrong and the only models that have their projection correct is the ones that are projecting ~ 1.5K increase for next 100 years. Surely even the IPCC will agree that that temperature change over that long a period of time is only but a good thing.

        Well we know that temperatures are local and the variability is dwarfed by the evaporation and precipitation and accompagnied temperature decreases and increases. However even if we accept the assumption that water vapour forcing commences at any small temperature increase and that there are no mitigating factors from increased albedo from the increased clouds and that net (evaporation – precipitation) is positive; and that the increase is 7% per 1K, then the CAGW scientists have to prove that there has been an increase in the average water vapour(H2O) content of the atmosphere in the past 60 years or so. The Goddard Space Institute a division of NASA had a project team that was measuring the H2O content of the atmosphere from 1989 to 2009. They could not show or prove that the H2O content was any different in the 20 years of measuring so the then director of the Goddard Space Institute Dr. James Hansen shut the project down. Until NASA or anyone else proves that there is more H2O in the atmosphere today than there was in 1950 ( or if there is a definite upward trend in any given time period of not less than 10 years) we have to assume that the Global warming theory of AGW caused by CO2 is simply one big hoax.

      • “Therefore the above analysis of the amount of energy needed to maintain the earth equilibrium temperature at 288K has to be multiplied by a factor of 2.2 ((18+15)/15 ).”

        i should have said that you need the factor of 2.2 because the amount of energy that is in the atmosphere that has caused each 1K increase in the atmosphere has to be divided by 33 instead of 15 as in the original calculations in the http://www.calqlata.co website.

      • “What is the difference between “apply[ing] Bode’s analysis” and “applying the terminology and procedures of Bode “?”
        Hansen set out some linear algebra leading to a conclusion. He said it was the way Bode did it. But the algebra stands on its own. A quote I was responding to was
        ” I’m just pointing out the requirements involved in trying to apply Bode’s analysis to the climate|
        and there are no external requirements in his analysis. He just has to get the maths right. And he did.

    • Anomalies of temperature are a great way to obfuscate what is actually going on since you get to choose the reference number.
      Absolute zero is a tightly fixed reference for all the thermodynamics. It’s the best reference to use for climate, since all the atmospheric effects involce thermodynamics in one way or another

      • Philohippous is in essence right. Temperature feedback processes, denominated as they are in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the originating temperature (or of any amplification thereof), do not care how it comes to be that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255.4 K. The feedback response they induce is a response to that temperature. How could they possibly tell which part of that temperature to respond to and which to ignore?

    • “When Hansen applied Bode’s analysis to the climate he just threw it in and started using it. He didn’t state, let alone justify, the implicit assumptions that he apparently didn’t know he was using.”
      EEs here make a big mystery about feedback analysis to which only they, with Bode, have the key. In fact it is just linear algebra, of which their understanding can be patchy. There are no implicit assumptions from Bode in what Hansen did. He said
      “We use procedures and terminology of feedback studies in electronics (Bode, 1945) to help analyze the contributions of different feedback processes.”
      That is just putting the algebra in a familiar context. But it doesn’t alter what is done, which is just linear algebra which could be done entirely independent of BOde.

      • The first big assumption is that the climate is sufficiently linear that such analysis provides a close enough approximation of reality.

        The other big problem, which is what CM points out, is that there is an offset or reference level to reckon with. Some folks seem to think the system gain is applied only to the change in temperature. CM points out that it applies to the whole signal; ie. there’s a ‘DC’ component to deal with.

        As you point out, the actual math is trivial. The correct application of that very simple math is something else.

      • “CM points out that it applies to the whole signal; ie. there’s a ‘DC’ component to deal with.”
        He’s wrong. But what he never explains is what “dealing” with it means. I have asked over and over, with no answer, this simple question. Snowball Earth, no GHGs, at 255 K. The emission temperature is 255K. What is the feedback to that “DC” temperature? Where does it appear?

        As to non-linearity, in Bode’s time they had thermionic valves, not op amps. And they are plenty non-linear. As with climate, you do a linearised analysis for small changes.

      • This is not about hour by hour progress at a single site. It is about climate. Specifically, at least annual time averages of a global space average. And that will be non-linear too. As with any device of Bode’s time, it looks at small changes of a non linear system.

      • Nick Stokes March 30, 2018 at 4:13 pm

        “CM points out that it applies to the whole signal; ie. there’s a ‘DC’ component to deal with.”
        He’s wrong. But what he never explains is what “dealing” with it means. I have asked over and over, with no answer, this simple question. Snowball Earth, no GHGs, at 255 K. The emission temperature is 255K.

        If we rigorously apply Bode’s analysis, the forward and feedback transfer functions together create a system transfer function. The output will be the input times the transfer function. link OK, what is the input?

        The input is compared with the system reference. The output is the system transfer function times the difference between the input and the system reference. If we want to use Bode, or control system, analysis we are stuck with defining a reference.

        Climate scientists want to say that the feedback applies only to changes in temperature. No problem. We can write a transfer function that accomplishes that. Well, actually there is a problem if we do that. What it means is that the feedback will have no effect on the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The Transient Climate Sensitivity will be greater. Remember that Hansen hypothesizes positive feedback.

        If we insist on using Bode’s analysis, we are faced with a choice.
        1 – Define a reference and justify the choice.
        2 – Hypothesize a transfer function that passes only changes and get a rather low Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.
        IMHO, Hansen should have consulted a control systems engineer before he decided to invoke Bode. I would also humbly suggest that CM find the best expert that he can.

        What is the feedback to that “DC” temperature? Where does it appear?

        That’s not my problem. I’m just pointing out the requirements involved in trying to apply Bode’s analysis to the climate. That was Hansen’s idea. Ask him.

      • “I’m just pointing out the requirements involved in trying to apply Bode’s analysis to the climate. That was Hansen’s idea.”
        No, it wasn’t. What he said was that he was applying the terminology and procedures of Bode. That is just to help make it recognisable. But as you noted, what he is doing is just linear algebra. He doesn’t need any authority from Bode to do that.

        “The input is compared with the system reference. The output is the system transfer function times the difference between the input and the system reference.”
        Yes. The system refernce is present state. Or 1850 state, if you prefer – it just creates an offset. What MoB claims is that the system reference itself generates a feedback that needs to be taken into account. And as your formulation emphasises, that makes no sense.

      • Dear God in Heaven.

        What do you think was novel about Bode’s work that made it worth publishing? How did it differ from Maxwell’s formulation?

        The system reference isn’t arbitrary, which is what you are implying. It will be determined by the physics of the process.

        Nick Stokes March 30, 2018 at 7:50 pm

        … He doesn’t need any authority from Bode to do that. …

        He was postulating an actual physical feedback process. Even if we accept, for purposes of reasoning, that the application of Bode’s analysis was valid, he made a fundamental error in doing so. That’s CM’s point.

        I’m sorry if you don’t understand my formulation. I feel like such a failure.

      • “What do you think was novel about Bode’s work that made it worth publishing? How did it differ from Maxwell’s formulation?”
        You tell me. I think it simply explained the relevant linear algebra to EEs.

        “he made a fundamental error in doing so”
        And, wearily, what was that fundamental error. One notable thing about this discussion of CM is that it all comes back to normalcy. There is no feedback in his calculation of CS. It is just the most primitive version of dividing temperature change by forcing. With now, an allowance for ocean heat flux, which makes it equivalent to Lewis and Curry. There is no room for any “fundamental error” here.

      • In response to Ian W, for the sake of argument I have accepted the official position that, in the climate, temperature feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induced them. I have modified that official position only to the extent of demonstrating and verifying that it is not only a change in temperature that induces a feedback but also a pre-existing temperature. In the climate, that is emission temperature.

      • Mr Stokes is right to point out that the feedback loops considered in Bode’s influential textbook (cited as an authority by numerous climatological authors) may be expressed algebraically. Bode himself does this. In a future head posting, I shall present Bode’s version of the zero-dimensional-model equation, demonstrating yet again that, even in the absence of any amplification of the input signal, that signal itself will induce a feedback response in a dynamical system in which feedback processes are present.

        Mr Stokes says that my argument does not depend upon feedback at all. That is, of course, trivially true as far as the empirical verification of our result by reference to actual temperature change in the industrial era is concerned.

        However, our argument based on the pre-industrial situation is that, since there is a large feedback response to emission temperature, the feedback response to any additional temperature directly forced by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases will be correspondingly diminished.

        Using the simplified form of the Bode equation, assume ad argumentum that the entire difference of 32 K between the 287 K temperature as it stood in 1850 and the 255 K emission temperature was attributable solely to the feedback response to emission temperature. Then the math is not in the least difficult. The feedback fraction is simply 1 – 255 / 287 = 0.11. However, suppose 9 K of that 32 K is attributable to directly-forced warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Then, on the simplifying assumption that the feedback fraction is constant, it would be 1 – (255 + 9) / 287 = 0.08.

        If the feedback fraction is not constant, how large is the maximum realistic difference between the feedback fraction that induces the response to emission temperature and the feedback fraction that induces the response to the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases?

        One could assume, as Lacis (2010) do, that there is a tiny feedback response of just 9 K to the 243 K emission temperature they consider would obtain in the absence of greenhouse gases, owing to a higher surface albedo. Then they assume that 75% of the 35 K difference between the 1850 temperature of 287 K and their 252 K estimate of surface temperature after the action of the feedback response to emission temperature will be attributable to feedback – in other words, that the feedback fraction is 0.75/ The CMIP5 models adopt a position not dissimilar to this, with their mid-range feedback fraction 0.67. IPCC’s mid-range feedback fraction is around 0.61.

        But is that position at all reasonable? Is it really likely that the the emission temperature will induce a feedback response only 3.6% of itself, while the greenhouse-gas warming will induce a feedback response 300% of itself?

        If the temperature 50 years after removal of the non-condensing greenhouse gases would be 9 K higher than the emission temperature, what would be the cause of the 9 K difference, if it were not the feedback response to emission temperature?

      • “Mr Stokes says that my argument does not depend upon feedback at all. That is, of course, trivially true as far as the empirical verification of our result by reference to actual temperature change in the industrial era is concerned.

        However, our argument based on the pre-industrial situation is that, since there is a large feedback response to emission temperature, the feedback response to any additional temperature directly forced by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases will be correspondingly diminished.”

        Trivially true means true. The result does not depend on feedback. The calculation process of Lord M just introduces it and then cancels it out. The simple calculation as ratio of temperature change over forcing change isn’t verifying the result. It is the result, just derived it properly and cutting out the rigmarole. The rigmarole includes nutty stuff about feedback to the “emission temperature”, but it all disappears anyway in the result.

        AS further demonstration of this, I present the same spreadsheet that sets out the calculation of Charney Sensitivity using Lord M’s method. But I change the value input for the Planck factor from 0.3125 to -1. It could be anything. The intermediate numbers become strange, but the final answer, Charney sensitivity, is the same to ten decimal places. It doesn’t matter what you do to the feedback calc. I have added in column E the spreadsheet formulae used in column D:

      • Mr Stokes continues to be surprised and excited that our method of verifying in the industrial era our pre-industrially-derived theoretical result does not depend upon the feedback fraction. Of course it doesn’t. It’s an empirical method of verification. As ought to be entirely clear from the head posting, we derive the feedback fraction from the ratio of estimated directly-forced anthropogenic warming to 2011, based on IPCC’s estimate of the net anthropogenic forcing to that year to the observed warming to 2011. The feedback fraction is thus a consequence of that comparison. Once we have obtained that feedback fraction, we can of course compare it with the pre-industrial feedback fraction.

      • 4.6 billion years ago the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was astronomical. It provided the initial feedback temp to start the evaporation precipitation process going. Once clouds and water vapour got into the atmosphere then CO2 became unimportant except for vegetation. CO2 is only important for plant life. It doesnt regulate the temperature. H2O and clouds do. According to my calcs Monctons total temperature feedback bar chart should be 7.2K clouds; 22.2K H2O vapour; and 3 CO2. As you can see CO2 is a very minor player. As an interesting aside I have calculated the worst case scenario using total energy in the atmosphere of all the gases vs temperature and have arrived at delta 1.62K which is composed of delta 1.47K feedback from H2O and delta 0.15K from CO2.

      • A snowball earth with no GHG’s has never existed. When Lacis (2010) pulled all the CO2 out of his model, he got a snowball earth in few years. This is the error of treating atmospheric water as feedback only. Water vapor sublimates out of ice. It is a very legitimate GHG on its own. It don’t need no steeenkin’ CO2.

      • In response to Gymnosperm, Lacis actually found that a dozen years after removing the non-condensing greenhouse gases there would be a slushball or (as it is now called) waterbelt Earth with open sea in the Tropics, and that the climate would stabilize in a new state in which albedo would be 41.8% and global mean surface temperature would be 252 K (or about 9 K above the emission temperature of 243 K). Their mistake was in underestimating the strength of the feedback response to the 243 K emission temperature, and attributing most of that response, incorrectly, to the non-condensing greenhouse gases.

        The primary influence of water vapor on climate is that it responds to any temperature or increase in temperature by way of feedback. It would only be a forcing if we were to add it to the atmosphere directly by some industrial process or another. This is done on a very small scale in some industries, but is not currently significant. Water vapor, then, is properly understood as a feedback: and the evidence that it is a far lesser feedback than had been thought is mounting daily.

      • Water vapor, then, is properly understood as a feedback: and the evidence that it is a far lesser feedback than had been thought is mounting daily.

        In the case of it as a positive feedback, absolutely.

        On the other hand water vapor is a massive store of energy and regulated how much it cools at night.

        It regulates Tmin to near dew point, it does this as air temps near dew point it starts condensing wv, and uses the stored latent heat of evaporation to stabilize cooling. This makes Tmin invariant to changes in the noncondensing GHG’s, as it just varies how much energy it taps to slow cooling.
        You can see this in action here

        Remember the optical window under clear skies is always bleeding energy to space, and the surface temps never come into equilibrium as you can see using an IR thermometer measuring Tzenith

        This is the action of a regulator. In the case on an increase in co2 forcing, as you rightly show there little to no positive to increase water vapor, but it also varies cooling independently to stop surface temps from trying to go below dew point.
        I started wondering why it stopped cooling in the middle of the night while doing astrophotography under clear calm skies. I noticed it did this as air temps neared few points, and then I started measuring Tzenith in IR, finding it was still about the same amount colder than the surface when it stopped cooling, as it was at sunset when temps dropped 3° or 4°F/hr. Then realized it tapped the stored energy in WV, as the vertical column cools, that IR radiates down, replacing the energy going out the optical window, but only enough to try and stay about few point. The effectiveness of this varies based on absolute humidity, deserts have little available and cools most of the night, and has a large drop in temps, the tropics however have an excess of WV, and doesn’t cool a lot at the surface. The rest of the planet varies between these two extremes.

        But in the end, co2 has little impact on what temp Tmin ends up at, why it can not accumulate energy in the system, WV just regulates it out prior to it slowing the cooling rate.

        All very elegant as a self emergent regulator. This reduces CS to as best I can tell from the biannual variation in insolation to below 0.5C/doubling.

      • Therefore we have 3 different calcs to counter the IPCC estimate to a doubling of CO2.

        Monckton ‘s figure of 1.23K
        Micro6500’s figure of 0.5K
        and mine of 1.62K

        All are much lower than the lower case of the IPCC and even at my figure of 1.62K that would not be a cause of runaway global warming for a doubling of CO2 which hasn’t even happened yet by the way.

        Monckton’s number was fund by calculating forcing vs sensitivity.
        My figure was found by calculating forcing vs total stored energy in the atmosphere
        and Micro6500’s figure was found by calculating sensitivity by humidity.

      • Not sure it ended up in the right place, so reposting answer

        To be clear I used delta insolation forcing / measured delta temp change over the biannual seasonal change in forcing.

        The exploration of cooling and RH was explaining why co2 has minimal effect.

      • Alan Tomalty March 31, 2018 at 12:49 pm

        At its formation 4.54 Ga, Earth was too hot to hold much air, and, as yet lacking a magnetosphere, the light gases H2 and He of the first atmosphere would soon have been lost. After the core differentiated and our magnetic field spun up, heavier gases could be retained.

        The surface cooled. and a second atmosphere formed. It included gases produced by volcanoes, similar to those released today, ie H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2 and H2, plus NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane). Again, the H2 was too light to be retained by Earth’s gravity, so was lost to space.

        Following more crustal cooling, liquid water condensed onto the surface. Plate tectonics got going. Solar UV made ozone from water molecules.

      • Nick Stokes: Quoting “I’m just pointing out the requirements involved in trying to apply Bode’s analysis to the climate. That was Hansen’s idea.”

        No, it wasn’t. What he said was that he was applying the terminology and procedures of Bode.

        What is the difference between “apply[ing] Bode’s analysis” and “applying the terminology and procedures of Bode “?

    • Well done all of you! However, – the bureaucrats have taken over, – we, therefore, have no say at all.
      Windmills will go up all over the place for another 20 years or so…. They will represent monumental manifestations of the follies of our time. (“A bureaucrat is a member of a bureaucracy and can compose the administration of any organization of any size, although the term usually connotes someone within an institution of government.” Wikipedia )

      • In response to Mr Hovland, our argument (if true) is simple enough that the climate campaigners will no longer be able to pretend that climate sensitivity is anywhere near as high as is at present asserted. One should not fear to tell the truth merely because the totalitarians would find the truth uncongenial.

  3. “let me make it plain that my approach is to accept – for the sake of argument only – that everything in official climatology is true except where we have discovered errors.”

    If that WERE true, this would be a magnificent achievement. I will leave it at that.

    • To grumble about a scientific result without making any specific objection is spite, not science, and reflects poorly upon the grouch.

      • I am not sure that I understand your comment, since my reading of what Mr Moon was saying, is that it would be a magnificent achievement if everything else in climatology were to be true. He does not appear to be making any comment or objection to your scientific result, so why the put down?

        I would suggest that it is extremely unlikely that everything else in climatology is true. Some of it maybe true, but to consider that everything else is all true, is highly unlikely. I can’t think of another branch of science where only one mistake has been made.

    • One piece at a time mon ami, one piece at a time. Brick by brick. Think of the game Jenga. If there is no scientific rebuttal to this work then the whole thing becomes a big mess.

  4. CMoB is one of my heroes, but how new is this? Wasn’t Lindzen saying this exact thing a long time ago?
    .

    • That discussion certainly zeros in on what MB was working on: the models do a poor job on “feedback”, “amplification”, “sensitivity”. Thanks for the link.

      • Mr Stokes (possibly some way below this reply, owing to the oddities of WordPress’ current thread management software) complains that there is nothing new in our result given that Professor Lindzen had already shown equilibriium sensitivity to be only 0.7 K some years back.

        Professor Lindzen’s work depends upon a short period of data from datasets subject to large uncertainties, and it is sufficiently complex to be inaccessible to the general observer. Our result, insofar as it is correct, is simple enough to be generally understood.

        We are less concerned with what is new than with what is true.

    • Of course the incomparable Dick Lindzen – the most knowledgeable of all climatologists – came to his own conclusion in 2009, reinforced in 2011, that equilibrium sensitivity is of order 0.7 K. His masterly papers are a model of scientific detective work. But they are sufficiently complex, and depend upon such uncertain datasets, that it is easy for the ruthless climate establishment to disregard him, knowing that most governments and their advisors won’t understand what he found.

      lf there be any merit in our own two distinct approaches, it is that they are at root very simple. As has been well demonstrated in these threads during the comments on the two earlier pieces, the idea that emission temperature induces a large feedback, just as the presence of non-condensing greenhouse gases induces a small one, is readily understood. Unless a significant enough error can be found in each of our two methods – one theoretical, one empirical; one pre-industrial, one industrial – then anyone with high-school math and sufficient determination can grasp what we have discovered and form his or her own view.

      If we are right, then people will be able to understand that we are right, however many fanatics block their eyes, ears and minds and shriek that we must – somehow – be wrong.

      • “reinforced in 2011, that equilibrium sensitivity is of order 0.7 K”
        And that is why this is such a hopeless muddle. This article says that MoB has revealed, in 2018, that CS is 1.45 K/doubling, so game over. But the incomparable Dick Lindzen revealed in 2011 that the sensitivity was 0.7 K. How many times can the game be over? Does 1.45 revive it? Who’s right?

      • Nick,

        Whether 0.7 or 1.45 degrees C, the game is over. It doesn’t matter what the correct value is, as long as it’s a fraction of IPCC’s baseless claim of 3.3 degrees C. Machts nichts if off by a factor of 4.7 times or 2.3 times.

      • Nick. lindzen was right about the adaptive cirrus iris (see my and Judith Curry’s back to back posts on that maybe two years ago on Climate Etc, and wrong about Lindzen and Choi 2011. Bad data, bad result. Wrote that up in the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth, which he prepub kindly critiqued. Nobody bats 1000. He was wrong in that last paper. My critique expalined how and why. IMO any effort to prove an ECS below 1.2 is doomed (includind previous Monckton) simply because basic physics and the world say cannot be so. My own vote, is 1.5ish, though perfectly willing to go with Monckton at ‘my’ 1.45 or his 1.55. Too mich uncertainty. No matter which value, CAGW is thereby permanently cancelled.

      • Rud,

        So MIT endowed chair physics professor Lindzen is doomed by basic physics? How could he be so ignorant?

      • ristvan, I did a search through the scientific literature for the term “CAGW” and found nothing. Can you please tell me how you can “cancel” something that does not exist?

      • Keith,

        Please tell retired NASA GISS director Jim Hansen that there is no such thing as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

        Hansen says that man-made CO2 has Earth on the “Venus Express”, such that our oceans are liable to boil. He says that “CEOs of fossil fuel companies should be tried for high crimes against humanity” and calls coal-fired power plants “factories of death”.

        These opinions aren’t catastrophic enough for you?

      • Chimp, please note that a scientist’s personal opinion is not relevant to actual science. Could you please show me where in the scientific literature the term “CAGW” is defined?

      • Keith,

        It’s not just the opinion of one purported scientist. That anthropogenic global warming will be catastrophic unless stopped is the “consensus”, don’t you know.

        The pseudoscientific literature is rife with dire warnings about the alleged catastrophic, disastrous consequences of man-made global warming. Dunno how you could possibly have missed them.

        How did you miss this widely cited scientific paper on the consensus on AGW, ie that’s it’s dangerous, else why worry about AGW?:

        Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

        According to President Obama, the best scientists assured him that anthropogenic “climate change” due to the global warming effect of more CO2 was real and dangerous. Indeed, he considered it the gravest threat to humanity.

        https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/20/obama-no-greater-threat-than-climate-change

      • Well, since we are into the long ad hominem rough. Let me explain. First,mgo read revised Lindzen and Choi 2011.I have. Then, consider their data inputs. The problem lies in an assumed 6 month cloud lag. Now, that parameter was statistically fitted to a short segment of sat cloud data.
        Why don’t you all vo read the revised paper and do the rest of,its,logical critique yourselves. Or, buy The Arts of Truth, read the climate chapter, and see what I said that Lindzen himself could not refute.

      • I’m familiar with Lindzen and Choi, original and as revised.

        My question was, why do you consider net negative feedbacks unphysical, when [MIT] professor of atmospheric physics Lindzen apparently doesn’t?

        Thanks.

        [Jest NIT-picking critiques, right? .mod]

      • Chimp: ” Dunno how you could possibly have missed them.” ….I guess I did, could you please show me where in the scientific literature the term “CAGW” is defined?

      • Chimp, the link to the ERL article doesn’t mention “catastrophic.” Again, can you please point me to a scientific article that qualifies and/or quantifies the “catastrophic” AGW?

      • ristvan: “Or, buy The Arts of Truth,” …
        ..
        LMAO, schlepping your carp ? Poor poor Rud, can’t get published in a reputable journal so he “sells” carp!

      • Keith,

        If AGW isn’t potentially catastrophic, why worry about more plant food in the air?

        The president said “dangerous”. Alarmists also call it a threat and a looming disaster. Some say it’s already too late to avoid catastrophe.

        Are you trying to argue that scientists don’t consider the threat of AGW catastrophic because they don’t define precisely what qualifies as catastrophic? NYC under water, as so many fear, wouldn’t be a catastrophe in your book?

        “Catastrophe” is Hansen’s word. Ask him how he defines it. Boiling oceans, I guess.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storms_of_My_Grandchildren

        Books by scientists on CAGW don’t count in your book, either, as scientific literature? Did you search books as well as papers?

      • Keith,

        Obama claimed to rely upon the scientific consensus, which is that climate change is real, caused by humans and dangerous, according to him.

        Also according to IPCC. You don’t consider IPCC reports scientific? On that we agree.

        “Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change”:

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html

        Dunno how you missed that part of the scientific literature, either, since it’s the CACA Bible.

      • Chimp, let me repeat: ” Obama is not a scientist, ”

        Do you understand that?

        Secondly, the IPCC reports on science, it does not conduct scientific inquiry. Can you please point me to a scientific study of the “catastrophic” AGW?

      • Keith,

        IPCC reports alleged consensus science, which includes catastrophe.

        You clearly haven’t read the CACA literature. It’s mostly rent seekers and publishing or perishing papers on how CAGW will adversely affect this, that or the other phenomenon. limited only by the imagination of the trough feeder.

        Again, I ask, if supposed AGW isn’t a threat, danger or looming disaster, catastrophe or calamity, why are we asked to spend so much global treasure on combating it? If, as its first proponents believed, AGW is entirely a beneficial thing, then what’s the problem?

      • Keith,

        You could not possibly be more wrong.

        The whole “climate change” industry is all about warning of dire consequences. Without the assessment that what people are doing will be very, very bad for humans and other living things, supposed scientists would be out of work and grant money. Hence, post-modern science is totally about being Cassandras and predicting various forms of ruin, death, destruction, disaster and catastrophic calamity. You really have not been reading the literature. It’s obvious.

        The original AGW proponents, like Arrhenius and Callendar, considered it beneficial. That was their scientific conclusion.

        Please, I ask for a third time, why is the world being required to spend trillions and tax itself into the Stone Age if more CO2 in the air is not a threat of some sort or another?

        Why did Obama’s science advisers tell him that AGW is so dangerous as to constitute the gravest threat we face?

      • PS: You speak from a “scientist’s point of view”. Does that mean that you are a scientist?

        Are scientists like Ehrlich and Sagan, who purveyed scenarios of environmental and nuclear disaster, not then scientists, because they make value judgement? IMO they aren’t scientists because they don’t practice the scientific method, not because they consider some outcomes worse than others.

      • Chimp, it doesn’t matter what I am from a scientific point of view. I could be a janitor in a hospital for example, and that doesn’t change the science. Next you say: ” IMO they aren’t scientists” which of course is just your opinion. I do hope you realize that science does not care about your opinion.

      • These guys aren’t scientists, either, then, despite publishing in the world’s most prestigious scientific journal?

        Abstract
        “Rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse gas emission are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.”

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6357/1242

        Or those at Scripps Institute of Oceanography who published that rapid, man-made global warming poses and “existential threat” to humanity, not scientists, either?

        http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-scripps-climatechange-20170914-story.html

      • Well, end of a long and probably dead thread, but here goes. The no feedbacks CO2 doubling value is 1.1 (here) to 1.2 (Lindzen 2012). My own best guess is 1.16.
        Now, the TCR must be higher than no feedbacks (since GHG do cause primary warming) and the ECS is likely something higher still. There are two logical arguments as to why. 1. If TCR was less than no feedbacks CO2, it would be cooling, not unevenly warming. No feedbacks is generally 1.1-1.2K. Observationally false for actual observed values.
        2. ECS by theory cannot be less than TCR from the basic definitions of same, IF GHE exist at all. GHG must warm, not cool.

      • Keith,

        Your opinion of what scientists should or should not do counts for less than nothing. The fact is that you are wrong, as shown not only by what scientists are doing now, but what they have always done.

      • Chimp says: ” like Arrhenius and Callendar, considered it beneficial. That was their scientific conclusion.”
        ..
        Chimp, when you post that, you’ve shown the whole world you do not know what science is. “Beneficial” is a value judgement, which lies in the domain of philosophy, not in science. Science cannot deem ANYTHING “beneficial.”

      • Chimp, “Policy Forum” from your link is where opinion is published, not where scientific research is published. Second link from the Chicago Tribune is not a scientific publication.

        Can you please post a link where either “CAGW” or “CACA” is rigorously defined?

      • Chimp posts: ” The fact is that you are wrong,”

        How can I be “wrong” when I ask you for a precise definition of the terms “CACA” and “CAGW” and you are unable to provide me with them?

      • Keith,

        Scientists can and throughout history have done precisely that. You clearly aren’t qualified to comment upon what science is or does. In short, it is practicing the scientific method. Scientists often chose what to investigate based upon their perception as to its value to humanity or to them.

        Individual scientists have always made value judgements. Hence, Arrhenius and Callendar concluded, based upon their scientific investigations, that AGW was a good thing.

        And hence, the IPCC found AGW potentially “catastrophic”, and scientists told the president that it was dangerous. Other scientists call it disastrous, and existential threat and calamitous.

        They are scientists. You, plainly, are not. You’re just chirping from the peanut gallery as to what you imagine or someone told you that science is or isn’t.

      • I gave you operational definition after definition of catastrophic AGW.

        Every paper that highlights a new alleged negative consequence of AGW further the definition.

        How obtuse can you get?

      • Similarly, Hansen and IPCC contributors who use the term “catastrophic” provide specific instances of what they mean by it. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

        Next you’ll be asking for a scientific definition of gravity. Good luck with that!

      • Chimp says: “I gave you operational definition after definition of catastrophic AGW.”
        ….
        I asked you for a definition from the scientific literature. Your definition doesn’t count. Show me the definition of CAGW that scientists are using.
        …”c
        Scientific papers do not make value judgements. They cannot ascribe a result as either “beneficial” or “detrimental”

      • For example Chimp, science can describe the capture of a neutron by a U235 nucleus and the resulting splitting of said nucleus and energy release. Science does not say if said process is “beneficial” or “detrimental.” It depends. If the fission is in a power reactor that generates electricity, it could be deemed “beneficial.” However, if that fissioning nucleus is within a military explosive device on the battlefield, it might be deemed “detrimental”

      • Keith,

        You are simply, completely, totally and utterly wrong. Allegedly scientific paper after paper for decades now has gone on about how really bad, awful and dreadful is AGW. The “climate change” literature is sadly lacking in any real science. It’s mostly dreck along the lines of how bad AGW will be for this, that or the other thing.

        Honestly, please do a real literature search, instead of just pretending to have done one. Most of the so-called literature is just “scientists” upping their publication count by ginning up a hypothetical new disaster, based upon GCM projections of future GW.

        Much of science operates without precise definitions. Tell me how to define a microbial species, for instance. Or, as I mentioned, gravitation.

        Thanks.

      • Keith,

        Post-modern “climate science” doesn’t follow the rules of science. It’s all about providing policy makers and media with new horror stories. Your naive view of science is not only outdated, but it never was really like that to begin with.

        The atomic scientists were very concerned about whether splitting nuclei was a good thing or not, but pursued the project because they felt that N@zi Germany was a greater evil than nuclear weapons or power ever could be.

        Pasteur went into medical research in order to improve human health. Dr. Snow considered the spread of cholera to be bad, so sought to understand it.

      • Chimp asks: ” Why is that so hard for you to grasp?”
        ..
        I understand your problem. You are unable to separate “opinion” from science.
        ..
        Where in the scientific literature ( NOT OPINION ) is “CACA” and “CAGW” defined?

      • Where in the scientific literature ( NOT OPINION ) is “CACA” and “CAGW” defined?

        In the hearts and minds of every “scientist” who attended every CAGW-CACA-IPCC conference and panel meeting at every one of their worldwide global warming sites. It is intrinsic in their propaganda and n every press release. In every picture of a polar bear, penguin and seal/walrus/cave bear habitat that is “threatened by global warming”. In every prediction of the Hudson River flooding New York, of every political warning of the Norfolk Harbor flooding, of every hurricane warning and every falling hillslide and every overflowing dam in California blamed on rains/drought/lack of snowfall/too much snowpack.

        There may be no “CAGW” in the “literature” but I’ve found hundreds of thousands of “polar ice cap albedo solar radiation feedback ” “death spirals” that have NEVER been challenged as “exaggerated” by ANY CAGW-funded self-called “scientist”. Instead each paper repeats the meme. And then add “… more funding is needed …”

      • PS: For Pasteur, microbial roles in industrial and commercial processes were also important, not just health.

      • Chimp says: “Pasteur went into medical research in order to improve human health. Dr. Snow considered the spread of cholera to be bad, so sought to understand it.”

        Good!

        I’m glad both of them were highly motivated individuals.

        What is your point?

      • Chimp, the motivation of an individual has no bearing on science. Science doesn’t care if the person that discovered a fact was in it for the money or in it for the prestige. Some people discovered significant science with no motivation at all.

      • Chimp says: “Post-modern “climate science” doesn’t follow the rules of science”

        Obviously you are not actually doing climate science, because if you were, you’d not make a fool of yourself by making such an absurd assertion.

      • Keith,

        If you imagine that science requires precise definitions for the terms it uses, you have never, ever practiced science. By the very nature of science, definitions always change. You obviously have never studied the history of philosophy of science, let alone engaged in it.

        Again, please provide me the agreed upon, precise definition for such important scientific concepts as “species”, “universal gravitation” and “evolution”. Thanks! The recent discussions here over the concept of “feedback” would be instructive for you to read.

        No one needs to define “catastrophic” for CACA spewers. They want “climate change” to pose vague but grave threats.

        I can’t believe that you have ever actually reviewed the literature. Had you done so, you’d have seen the most preposterous litany of alleged looming threats to every imaginable value. The site often provides instances of the most outrageous such attempts to keep up the scare through “scientific papers”.

        Your naivete knows no bounds.

      • Chimp if you truly believe that post-modern “climate science” doesn’t follow the rules of science, then why do Lindzen, Curry, Monckton, Christy and Spencer all follow the rules?

      • Kieth Sketchly:I guess I did, could you please show me where in the scientific literature the term “CAGW” is defined?

        I think you have made your point: There is no scientific basis to the claims that CO2-induced warming will be catastrophic. Claims by famous alarmists like James Hansen go beyond what is scientifically supportable. Could you point that out to organizations such as AAAS who are advocating urgent action to forestall the catastrophic warming that is not supported by science? Or to people who claim that the Trump Administration does not advocate urgent action for a “problem” that the science does not indicate the existence of?

        Meanwhile, CAGW, scientific or merely political or rhetorical, has suffered a blow.

      • ristvan, I did a search through the scientific literature for the term “CAGW” and found nothing.

        Keith, maybe you don’t know how to use search engines? The term can be found in the following scholarly publications:

        Carlin 2011 – http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8040985
        Lindzen 2012 – http://www.euresisjournal.org/public/article/pdf/EJv2id9_SM2008_Lindzen.pdf
        Van Kooten 2012 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4988-7_3
        Nemeth 2014 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7353-0_14
        Rose 2014 http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2014/90196gcags/abstracts/83.html
        Parker 2016 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nleng-2015-0031

      • Poptech, link #1 is economics.
        .
        Link #2: “. . “This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors..”
        .
        LInk #3: No mention of ‘catastrophic’
        .
        Link #4: “Let me sketch out here my vision of the cloistered cornucopia of AD 2100:” Speculation/opinion
        .
        Link #5: Author uses term in abstract, but does not define it.
        ,
        Link #6: Nice try, don’t see the definition.
        .
        I see your problem Mr. Poptech, you can search for a term, and get hits, but you still haven’t provided a link to a paper that DEFINES the term. The internet is hurting you, not helping.

      • Keith

        I agree completely

        There is no such thing as CAGW!

        Hence there is no issue that simple migagation won’t resolve. See between the 2 of us we just solved the whole thing, good work buddy!

      • ristvan March 30, 2018 at 8:19 pm

        Thanks for your reply.

        Even with net negative feedback, there is still warming at, say, 0.7 rather than 1.2 degrees C. However, under some conditions, added CO2 does indeed appear to cool. Javier has linked to a recent study finding cooling in Antarctica as a result of higher CO2. Others have argued that above about 30 degrees C in the moist tropics, more CO2 also causes cooling.

        Relying on “theory” for such questionable concepts as “climate sensitivity” isn’t IMO warranted.

        IMO it makes sense that a self-regulating water planet would feature more negative than positive feedbacks. In the case of water vapor, it’s obvious what some of them are, and that they are ignored or downplayed in the GIGO GCMs of “consensus climate science”.

      • Keith Sketchley March 30, 2018 at 9:11 pm

        Of course I can provide a definition, but you asked for an accepted scientific definition. It’s whatever CACA spewers want it to be. As with all else, they fudge it.

        The most harped upon prospective catastrophes are sea level rise and loss of sea and land ice. The former would be manageable and the latter is a good thing. But in fact, MSL is rising no faster now than since the end of the LIA, and Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012.

      • Nick Stokes: And that is why this is such a hopeless muddle. This article says that MoB has revealed, in 2018, that CS is 1.45 K/doubling, so game over. But the incomparable Dick Lindzen revealed in 2011 that the sensitivity was 0.7 K. How many times can the game be over? Does 1.45 revive it? Who’s right?

        The short answer is that “scientists do not know” the climate sensitivity. Each calculation depends on so-far not thoroughly tested assumptions. CMoB here takes a set of “IPCC endorsed” propositions and shows that, carefully used, they produce a lower estimate of the sensitivity than the “IPCC endorsed” estimate of sensitivity. The contradiction is too important to be superciliously rejected; if the sensitivity is as high as the “IPCC endorsed” value, some other of the “IPCC endorsed” propositions must be in error. Lindzen started with different propositions as assumptions.

        After reading your comments a few times, I confess that I have missed what might be called the “gist”, some coherent central criticism. Are you claiming/asserting that the “IPCC endorsed” derivations are correct?

        Clearly “IPCC endorsed” is my own shorthand for a long set of references to the particular propositions and their places in the reports. CMoB provides a lot of those. Is he misquoting?

      • “Are you claiming/asserting that the “IPCC endorsed” derivations are correct?”
        I am claiming that there is nothing here that says “game over”. The calculations here are mostly primitive – where they do, at a late stage, approach legitimacy, they simply duplicate those of Lewis and Curry. And they have no relation to any “grave error” by climatologists. My summary is here.

        As to what the IPCC endorses, the AR5 SPM D2 said
        “The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence). The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same.”

        They acknowledge considerable uncertainty. In fact there is no “game over” here, as Lord M’s estimates are mostly within the range. And even if they could be taken seriously, they would be just one more item of evidence. They would not obliterate the other studies on various different bases. No-one else puts forward a new estimate and says – “here it is, game over”.

      • “Is it not true that the IPCC has used the same model?”
        Well, the IPCC does not use any model. But they cite papers that have used various models. They summarise this in Box 12.2 of the AR5:

        “ECS and TCR can be estimated from various lines of evidence. The estimates can be based on the values of ECS and TCR diagnosed from climate models (Section 9.7.1; Table 9.5), or they can be constrained by analysis of feedbacks in climate models (see Section 9.7.2), patterns of mean climate and variability in models compared to observations (Section 9.7.3.3), temperature fluctuations as reconstructed from paleoclimate archives (Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.3.2; Box 5.1), observed and modelled short-term perturbations of the energy balance like those caused by volcanic eruptions (Section 10.8), and the observed surface and ocean temperature trends since pre-industrial (see Sections 10.8.1 and 10.8.2; Figure 10.20). For many applications, the limitations of the forcing-feedback analysis framework and the dependence of feedbacks on time scales and the climate state (see Section 12.5.3) must be kept in mind. Some studies estimate the TCR as the ratio of global mean temperature change to RF (Section 10.8.2.2) (Gregory and Forster, 2008; Padilla et al., 2011; Schwartz, 2012). Those estimates are scaled by the RF of 2 × CO2 (3.7 W m–2; Myhre et al., 1998) to be comparable to TCR in the following discussion.”

        I don’t think they have ever cited a paper that just divided warming to date by current forcing to get ECS. It has long been recognised that such a ratio will not reflect further warming that the raised flux will create in the future (so not equilibrium) but also will depend on the time history of forcing. Hence TCR is defined, but with a specific history (70 years of exponentially rising forcing, leading to a doubling after 70 years). The above passage does allude to trying to estimate TCR by ratio of ΔT to ΔF. Forster and Gregory, though, used ERBE satellite data to get TOA balance, and said of the process:
        “The uncertainty range is due to a combination of the short time period for the analysis as well as uncertainties in the surface temperature time series and radiative forcing time series, mostly the former. Radiative forcings may not all be fully accounted for; however, an argument is presented that the estimate of climate sensitivity is still likely to be representative of longer-term climate change. “
        The uncertainty was high; the data is noisy.

        The idea of dividing by forcing corrected by heat uptake originated with Gregory et al, 2004. They used it for GCM studies, where at least the relevant fluxes could be estimated accurately. The idea of applying this to measured data is obvious, but people no doubt held off because of the uncertainty of the quantities. Lewis and Curry (not from IPCC casting) plunged in, but at least did an uncertainty analysis, which properly indicated that this was no panacea. The noisiness of the data was reflected in wide uncertainties.

        But the point of “primitiveness” is that the methods have been available, obvious, and mostly eschewed, for a long time. You can’t suddenly advance such a calculation in 2018 and say “game over”.

      • Nick Stokes: But the point of “primitiveness” is that the methods have been available, obvious, and mostly eschewed, for a long time. You can’t suddenly advance such a calculation in 2018 and say “game over”.

        So the method was “eschewed” while still being cited? “No one ever …” comes up short of saying that how CMoB used the method was wrong, only that his approach is novel.

        I do agree that his claim of “game over” is optimistic.

      • “So the method was “eschewed” while still being cited?”
        No. As I said, I don’t believe the IPCC has ever cited a paper which just used the primitive method of dividing current warming by current forcing. To get anything published, let alone cited, you have to do something to overcome the obvious flaws in that. Allowing for ocean heat, as Nic Lewis did, is one such. But then you have to do a proper uncertainty analysis, as he did. That is where the improvement is needed. And it still wasn’t good.

      • Keith, so does the term “CAGW” exist in the scholarly literature? If you would like a further education in how to use search engines in the future let me know.

      • Poptech, I’d be glad to let you “educate” me on searching, but only after I give you a lesson in reading comprehension. For example, if you read through this thread you’ll note my continual reference to “SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.” I see that you misunderstood these two quite commonly used words and substituted your “SCHOLARLY LITERATURE” in it’s place.

      • >>
        Keith Sketchley
        March 30, 2018 at 7:33 pm

        . . . can you please point me to a scientific article that qualifies and/or quantifies the “catastrophic” AGW?
        <<

        I don’t usually feed trolls. This troll is completely off topic (typical for trolls), is discussing a nonsense point (also typical of trolls), and is wasting everyone’s time (the primary purpose of all trolls). Since the troll doesn’t seem to know how to search properly, I’ll try to help him out (“try” is the operative word here). CAGW is shorthand used on this site. If the troll searches for “catastrophic” and “climate change,” he will get a better result. When I search on EBSCO, I get 585 hits. If the troll knows his history, “climate change” replaced “global warming.” Doing a search on EBSCO for “catastrophic” and “global warming” gets about 128 hits.

        So when they say “climate change,” they really mean “global warming.” And when they say “global warming” they really mean the “anthropogenic” kind (otherwise, why bother if it’s the “natural” kind).

        I hope this helps the troll.

        Jim

      • Jim you are making the same mistake that Poptech makes, your use of the EBSCO database is too broad, and is not focused exclusively on scientific literature. You can use “CAGW” or “Catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming” in quotes in order to get an exact match. (that is because that is what the acronym represents. I suggest you read the post above from matthewrmarler because it hits the nail on the head. Science does not deal with “catastrophic” because that is a non-objective value laced term, beyond the realm of actual science.

      • PS Jim, when you say: ” CAGW is shorthand used on this site.” this fact indicates that the acronym is not in widespread use within the scientific community. If it were commonly used in the scientific literature, it’s use would range much farther beyond just this site.

      • Keith, you used a term that is not defined in a dictionary, “scientific literature” but rather by Wikipedia which is not the most reliable source but it does state: “Scientific literature comprises scholarly publications that report original empirical and theoretical work in the natural and social sciences,”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literature

        Thus all the publications I presented count and it can irrefutably be established that the term is present in the scientific literature.

      • >>
        Science does not deal with “catastrophic” because that is a non-objective value laced term, beyond the realm of actual science.
        <<

        And that’s more nonsense from our troll. Those 585 hits were of scientific papers published in scientific journals. Nice try.

        Jim

      • Poptech says: ” Wikipedia which is not the most reliable source”
        ..
        Thank you, you are correct. Your choice on an unreliable source indicates to me that you have no problem compromising your ethics when it suits your purposes. As such, your citations provided above are suspect. Seriously, although “economics” is a social science your picking that as a source referencing “catastrophic” warming is hilarious.

      • jstalewski,

        You’re right.

        Happily, I didn’t need to keep feeding the shameless troll. His time-wasting efforts have been thoroughly shown idiotic by other commenters in this thread, and here:

        HAL 9000 GORE April 2, 2018 at 3:37 pm

        http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-DQXK199204010.htm
        https://www.nature.com/articles/35098000
        http://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10315
        https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/incorporating_catastrophic_climate-change_into_policy_analysis.pdf

      • Keith, each of those scholarly articles mentions “CAGW.” So it appears that the term is used in the scientific literature. As for a definition, you appear confused, scholarly articles are not dictionaries.

        Carlin 2011 – http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8040985

        “The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.”

        “There is little doubt that proposals to mitigate the threat of climate change, sometimes referred to as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CAGW) or global warming, has presented environmental economics with its most important challenge to date in terms of providing useful advice on what if anything should be done concerning what is perhaps the major environmental public policy issue of the last decade or more.”

        “Hypothesis 2: Increases in atmospheric CO2 levels interact with the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, to create a large positive feedback capable of creating catastrophic global warming.”

        “List of Acronyms:
        CAGW – Catastrophic AnthropogenicGlobal Warming

        Lindzen 2012 – http://www.euresisjournal.org/public/article/pdf/EJv2id9_SM2008_Lindzen.pdf

        “This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”
        “The scientists who participate in such exercises quite naturally are supportive of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis despite their ignorance of the underlying science.”

        Van Kooten 2012 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4988-7_3

        “A more recent survey of the same database but covering more recent years showed that scientific opinion was shifting away from belief in catastrophic anthropogenic warming, and not toward it (Schulte, 2008), while a survey of climate scientists showed that the matter remains very much debated among them (Bray and von Storch, 2007).”

        Nemeth 2014 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7353-0_14

        “This was a significant tipping point for the fortunes of humankind in my estimation: without A1 Gore in the White House, the long-lumoied possibility of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming had finally teetered over into the realm of the real.”

        “In every less-than-catastrophic anthropogemc global warming scenario generated by current climate models, chemical energy production on Earth (e g the food cycle) seems sustainable for humankind, although not at current population levels.

        Rose 2014 http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2014/90196gcags/abstracts/83.html

        “The latter three disciplines argue against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).
        “Recent and continuing unsavory revelations (“Climate Gates I and II”) have also cast doubt among the general public on the objectivity of the science underpinning CAGW, motivated by ideology and the search for research funding. Indeed, the greatest threat posed by the whole controversial CAGW campaign of the past 25 years may be the loss of public confidence in the integrity of Western science.”

        Parker 2016 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nleng-2015-0031

        “The computational generalized GIA adjustment is unfortunately an argument often used to reverse the results of ‘non-cooperative’ results towards compliance with the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative.

      • Poptech asks for a “dictionary” definition of scientific literature. Poptech must not realize that “scientific literature” is two words, not one. The reason you will not find a definition for “scientific literature” in a dictionary is the same reason you will not find a definition in a dictionary for “black cat.” The fact that you ask for a definition from a dictionary is an indication you are grasping at straws.

      • No Poptech, you don’t have to go through the trouble of linking to a dictionary for the four letter acronym. The problem with the four letter acronym (CAGW) is that it is not a scientific term. Science studies the AGW phenomena, but the “C” is not a part of the science. In fact the “C” is actually a strawman, built by the cohort of folks that reject mainstream science, that they use in a futile attempt to discredit said mainstream science. To put it even simpler, once you begin discussing the “C” prefix to AGW, you’ve left the realm of science, and entered the realm of opinion.

      • Keith,

        However, if you want to argue that Mann and Hansen aren’t scientists because they use the phrase, “catastrophic climate change”, then I’ll agree.

      • Poptech, round two.

        SCIENTIFIC
        ..
        Stop substituting “scholarly”
        ..
        One is the subset of the other. Publication of an opinion can be scholarly, but publication of an opinion is not scientific.
        ..
        Hansen and Mann’s use of the term when expressing their opinion does not detract from their status as scientists.

      • Chimp, that wonderful table from Oxford’s philosophers is not scientific. It is in fact bestowing a value judgement on categories of events. That is not science, and is a subject field within philosophy called ethics. You see, science cannot determine if something is good or bad, only what is and what isn’t

      • “Oxford philosopher’s matrix for catastrophic and existential risk”
        This haggling reminds me of a quote from British PM Disraeli. He seemed to be making a distinction between a disaster and a catastrophe, and was asked to clarify. He said
        “Well, if Mr Gladstone were to fall into the Thames, it would be disaster. But if someone were to pull him out, it would be a catastrophe.”

      • The game is never over, it goes on and on. What Einstein was is not relevant to this conversation, unless of course Chimp in your world a person is allowed to only wear one hat. Einstein’s greatest contribution was to physics, but that does not preclude him from pursuing other interests. Bostrom’s chart is not science.

        Poptech, I’ve avoided nothing, and you are confusing “scholarly” with “scientific.”

      • Keith,

        Nope, the game is over. You know it, but can’t admit it.

        As shown among other proofs by your inability to answer our questions.

        For Einstein, ethics, epistemology and physics were all one, just as truth is one. The path to righteous behavior is the same as the path to understanding the natural world.

        As the dying Romantic poet wrote, “(B)eauty is truth, truth beauty,’ – that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

      • The game is not over just because you say so. Now, you mention “our” questions, yet you have not asked one. Who is “our?”
        ..
        You are ignorant of the differences between ethics, epistemology and physics. They all deal with different subject matter.
        ..
        Again, science does not deal with “good” and “bad.” If you think it does tell me, is a neutron good, or is a neutron bad? Does science tell you that five electrons are better than two protons?

      • And of course for Newton, too, it was all one: math, physics, alchemy, biblical chronology, Deist theology, until he gave it all up, and left Cambridge to run the mint and Royal Society in London, where he might smite his enemies.

      • Keith,

        You are profoundly ignorant of science. I wonder if you have ever even met a practicing scientist.

        Your imaginary world doesn’t exist in reality.

      • Same goes for the great British physicists of the 19th century: Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell.

        A tendentious Darwin scholar has claimed, without much support, that the greatest 19th century English naturalist also developed his hypotheses and theory from ethical grounds, being motivated by his anti-slavery beliefs. To put it mildly, I’m not convinced, but the fact is that all the pottery heir Wedgwoods were anti-slavery, whether Christian, like Charles’ cousin-wife Emma, or agnostic, like the Darwin side of the family.

      • Keith,

        Your profound ignorance is yet again on display.

        F=Ma is an equation, not a definition. How ignorant can you get?

        Now please provide the precise definitions for scientific terms which I have repeatedly asked of you. You won’t because you can’t.

      • I’ll make it really really easy for you Chimp, I’ll ask you a multiple choice question…….
        .
        Is a proton good, or is a proton bad?
        ..
        A) it is good
        B) it is bad
        C) Science cannot answer this question.

      • Keith,

        Can you possibly really be this obtuse? Apparently, yes.

        That some scientific discoveries are value-neutral doesn’t mean that all are. Why is this hard for you to grasp?

        Why do you suppose that there is such a thing as the Union of Concerned Scientists? Why do you suppose that so many “climate scientists” feel the need to warn that alleged AGW is potentially “catastrophic”, as you’ve been shown over and over again?

        Why did Sagan, Ehrlich, Schneider, et al feel the need to warn about “nuclear winter”?

        Clearly, you have never studied science, the history of science nor the philosophy of science.

        But thanks for making such a fool of yourself. Your betters have had a good laugh, but now you’re just boring.

        Buh-bye, pathetic troll.

      • Keith,

        You are such a blithering scientific ignoramus that you don’t even understand the Second Law. The equation F=ma isn’t a “definition” of “force”, but of momentum.

        Please quit embarrassing yourself and quite digging your hole deeper.

      • Keith, you failed to provide a definition of “scientific literature” from a dictionary to support you usage. Wikipedia clearly supports mine.

        The term “catastrophic” implies impacts and thus it is going to be found in the same scholarly literature referenced in Working Group II and III of the IPCC reports.

        Everyone can see you are avoiding answering the following questions:

        1. Is the term “catastrophic anthropogenic warming” (CAGW) used by scientists in the scholarly literature?

        2. Does the IPCC talk about catastrophic climate change?

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html

      • F=ma=d(mv)/dt

        You lose Chimp

        The change in momentum per time is equal to mass times acceleration.
        ..
        “force” in physics is defined in units of mass, time and distance

      • Keith,

        [pruned]
        The verbiage definition of force is “any influence that causes or attempts to cause a free body to undergo a change in the acceleration or the shape of the body.” The 2nd Law equation which describes momentum in classical Newtonian physics is F=ma.

        This is entirely different from a worded definition of a term such as “catastrophic”. Why is this hard for you to grasp.

        Please do as asked and provide the precise, accepted scientific definitions for the terms I’ve repeatedly asked you to define, to wit, gravitation, spacetime, energy, matter, species, evolution and life. Thanks. Hope the fourth time is the charm.

      • Poptech: RE: dictionary definition of “scientific literature”……please see post above regarding “black cat.” In other words, you are requesting something that does not exist.
        ..
        THIRD (maybe fourth) TIME: “scientific literature” is not the same as “scholarly literature,”
        .
        The IPCC reports on science, it is not science per se. So, please do a search of SCIENTIFIC literature and post a link to the SCIENTIFIC definition of “catastrophic”

        Hint: What are the units they use to measure “catastropic?”

      • Keith Sketchley

        Hint: What are the units they use to measure “catastropic?”

        Hmmmn. “Loss of power, influence, funding, my future salary, my future speaking and media engagements” = Catastrophic.
        See, you are playing a classic switch-and-bait-by-distraction game. The IPCC is NOTHING, has NO influence, power, control, or political strength if it has no “catastrophe” to threaten the world with by its annual/monthly/weekly/daily forecasts of absolute and death and doom by flooding/loss of habitat/death by mosquitoes/malaria/drought/famine/flooding (again)/chocolate/easter eggs/lack of polar bears/penguins/elk/moose/mouse etc, etc, etc.

        You are trying to pretend that the climastrologist community of politicians/academia/laboratory/”scientists”/publicists/bueaucrats/demonstrators/anti-human sociopaths are “scientific” and “pristine” in their ivory towers of learning. They are not. They are USING their ivory towers of soapboxes to CREATE hysteria and catastrophe where there iis none, and when there will be none to CREATE their power and their funding and their media images. No catastrophe in their supposed “scientific papers”? Do you pretend to ignore the polar ice “death spiral”, or pretend it (the “catastrophe” you are spending dozens of replies to distract us with) is not there when it is disguised by the more erudite “albedo feedback” leading to “loss of the polar ice pack” … even when loss of Arctic sea ice leads to more cooling?

      • Keith,

        You clearly missed the entire Newtonian mechanics class. The term “force” is not defined by the equation F=ma. “Force” is proportional to acceleration. F is the net force acting on the body, m is the mass of the body, and a is the center-of-mass acceleration.

        Please educate yourself at the most elementary level:

        https://www.thoughtco.com/force-2698978

      • Sorry Chimp, “force” is a defined quantity in physics.
        ..
        F=ma
        F=m(dv/dt)

        Take your pick
        ..
        because a=dv/dt, and you must have learned basic algebra

      • Chimp says: “”Force” is proportional to acceleration. ”

        Very good Chimp, now…..

        F/a=m which is the proportionality factor

        See, even you can understand it.

      • Keith if you are illiterate and cannot answer these questions please say so.

        1. Is the term “catastrophic anthropogenic warming” (CAGW) used by scientists in the scholarly literature?

        2. Does the IPCC talk about catastrophic climate change?

  5. It’s all, and only theoretical. Cooling is done through convection, what individual human produced molecules – 10, 700 or 70 000 – does in a hurricane is totally irrelevant.

    A half open gate does not prevent half of anything escaping.

    • In response to Mr Larsen, our argument based on the pre-industrial state of the climate is theoretical, for we cannot measure that state. However, our argument based on the industrial era, which we can measure to some extent, is empirical.

      And of course our calculations are not incompatible with the non-radiative transports in the atmosphere – notably evaporation and convection up, advection across and precipitation and subsidence down. But there is no need to model them explicitly in our simple method, which uses the zero-dimensional-model equation (1 and 2 above) as it is intended to be used – diagnostically. The narrow purpose of the equation is to indicate how a given feedback fraction will act in the actual climate and, therefore, to diagnose not only what interval of equilibrium temperatures the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models would predict based on their current feedback fraction 0.67 but also what temperature those models would be likelyto predict based on the substantially lesser feedback fractions that we have derived after correcting climatology’s error.

    • RJ, just wrong, Tropospheric cooling is indeed done partly by convection. BUT, our planet has an atmospheric ‘envelope’ surrounded by space at CMB 2.7K. Now, how the heck does your convective cooling extend to space.? iT DOESN’T. Only radiative outbound LWR can ultimately cool this planet. To space, there is no convection and no conduction. Period.
      Now, in partial forgiveness of your conceptual error, Willis Eschenbach has posted many times on how convection can help cool despite the GHE by lifting heat above most of the GHE. And I have posted many times on how his irrefutable observation means the climate models are misparameterized so run inarguably hot.

  6. You say; “Global temperature in 1850 was 287.6 K.”

    I say false precision and in need of a very large error bar.

    Very clear reasoning and an excellent job of isolating the analysis from the usual distractions. Thank you.

    • In reply to the Dawg, first of all many thanks for your kind words. Secondly, the ISCCP dataset finds today’s global mean surface temperature to be 288.4 K, and the HadCRUT4 dataset finds the warming from 1950 to 2011 to be 0.8 K. The difference – 287.6 K – is the approximate value of global mean surface temperature in 1850.

      Furthermore, even if one were to vary the value a little bit either way, it would make little difference to the conclusion. All I have done is to work with official mid-range estimates. And, because my method is explicitly stated step by step, the Dawg is free to substitute any alternative value he considers appropriate and recalculate.

      • Herein lies the problem

        None of the data sets are fit for purpose such that we cannot empirically test anything using observational data.

        Merely for the sake of argument, let us assume that if we had properly measured temperature and had proper and accurate data on this, such that we would see that the temperature today is no greater than it was in 1940 and in 1880 (there being some variations between 1850 to 2017, but the peaks of 1880 and 1940 were the same, or slightly greater, than the peak of 2016/17), are you really saying that that fact would not impact upon your conclusion?

        Are you really saying that if there was no temperature increase during the period when about 97% of all manmade CO2 emissions have occurred, that would not impact upon your conclusions?

        I find that difficult to comprehend.

      • “Are you really saying that if there was no temperature increase during the period when about 97% of all manmade CO2 emissions have occurred, that would not impact upon your conclusions? ”

        Our current instrumentation(satellites, buoys), balloons, is certainly better. Thus the near panic over the “pause”.

      • One agrees with Mr Verney that the datasets are unsatisfactory and uncertain and disagree with one another. However, small variations either side of the temperature as it stood in 1850 are not going to make that much difference to the calculation.

  7. Can anyone who really believes in man made warming please help me out here. My data sets (Mean, Min. and Max) made up from 54 weather stations (27 Nh and 27 Sh, balanced to zero latitude) are showing, over the past 40 years:
    0.000K/annum i.e. no warming in the Sh
    0.024K/annum warming in Nh,
    That gives me an overall result of 0.012K/annum [for the past 40 years], which, in actual fact, does not even compare badly with what Spencer & them are getting.
    My dilemma is this: if the warming were due to more CO2, noting that CO2 is rising globally, should we not measure equal rates of warming in the Nh and the Sh?
    Just asking.

    • The position of the continents is a major factor in climate processes, particularly ocean currents. Sorry I can’t offer a more detailed answer; maybe someone will come along with a more thorough explanation. It is a major effect, though, and can be seen in some of the paleoclimate data as a lag.

      • Kristi
        well, true enough, the abundance of continent in the Nh could be another clue to the truth.
        In fact, two of my stations’ results made me wonder: In Las Vegas USA I noted a steep rise in minimum T. No, here one has to consider that they turned a desert into a paradise [over the past 40 years].
        In Tandil, ARG, I noticed a steep decline in minimum T. Apparently here they cut all the trees down. It left me pondering with the conclusion that the ‘greening’ of the earth that everybody wants, actually does trap heat. I mean everybody wants lawns, trees and crops. We also know that the increase in CO2 also contributes to the greening of earth. I think I could look this up but I remember I did see a report here on WUWT showing that earth has become 30 or 40% greener compared to 40 years ago. Is that then maybe not the reason why the warming in the Nh is more pronounced?
        Could the CO2 be something like dung in the air and is it not the resultant greening
        – that everybody wants and needs –
        the main reason for the warming trend?
        You tell me!

    • Based on linear regression of annual CO2 levels against the monthly CET data since 1950

      a rise of 0.006K per extra ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is found, with teleconnections such as Arctic Oscillation (AO), East Atlantic (EA) and the lagged monthly insolation more important variables.

      https://mynaturaldiary.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/whither-the-weather-2/

      This suggests if the background CO2 level is doubled from 280ppm to 560ppm a background rise of 1.68K would occur.

      • Actually that makes sense. There is correlation. Namely there are giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans. What is the first smoke in a kettle when you boil it?
        HCO3 – + heat = CO2 (g) + OH-

        So there is always correlation. But not necessarily causation. Heat causes more CO2. For sure. But I maintain that it has never been proven that more CO2 is the cause of more heat.

      • HenryP – Monckton of Brenchley’s excellent post above highlights the IR dipole moment mechanism which is the causal mechanism for CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

        The question remains to what extent it effects us. His analysis suggests doubling the preindustrial concentration will result in heating in the order of 1.5K. The best subsets regression model suggests about 1.7K. These are far beneat the 3.3K IPCC and CMIP5 models.

        Incidently the strongest driver for Monthly CET values since 1950 is unsurprisingly last months solar insolation,

        followed by the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (teleconnections ‘weather’ influencing jetstream)

        and the East Atlantic, East Atlantic/West Russia. Also the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

        With all these factors combined in a model selected by best subsets regression, you can predict the monthly CET

        CO2 is the weakest component in this relationship.

      • mynaturaldiary
        you say
        Monckton of Brenchley’s excellent post above highlights the IR dipole moment mechanism which is the causal mechanism for CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

        That is exactly where the problem lies.
        Looking at the spectrum of CO2 we have absorption of CO2 in the UV [ that is how we can identify it on other planets], at 1-2 um and 4-5 um [ I remember I used to measure the CO2 in nitrogen using the 4600 nm]. These are the bands of the CO2 in the spectrum where the sun emits. Then there is also the absorption at 14-15 um where the earth emits which is causing some entrapment of heat. My question is: where is the test report that shows that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming rather than cooling? I am afraid that the closed box experiments won’t apply since it does not take the cooling effect of the CO2 into account. You need to give me a report that quantifies both the cooling and warming effect.

      • HenryP

        Regarding the long term carbon cycle and it’s effect on the climate, you couldn’t do better than to watch this.

        It’s 49 mins long, but a fabulous watch, linking causation of ice ages across geological time.

        The academic papers are there, but paywalled off from the general public.

        I appreciate your concern with ‘test tube experiments’ vs the global system. I work with an analogy in the day job – shifting test tube chemistry onto chemical plants. Simple reaction kinetics often can be poor prediction of what happens on a reactor undergoing complex mixing and temperature cycles at industrial rate. Empirical models of the type I employed on the CET can often be more predictive, if you use methods like best subsets. Check

        https://mynaturaldiary.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/whither-the-weather-2/

        for more details if you are interested.

      • Sorry Kristi and mndiary
        Sleeptime here now.
        I will get back to you and we can still speak about another thing:The elephant in our room….

      • mynaturaldiary,

        I’m afraid your statistics are terrible. You are not getting a good enough signal from anything to make any conclusions at all. If you are going to take this sort of approach, you would use a multivariate analysis (such as multiple regression or principle components analysis) that would tease apart the different effects in one test.

        But it’s pointless. All these questions have been addressed long ago by scientists who dedicate their lives to such things. Natural variation is a driver of change, but humans are at least as influential.

        Henry P:
        “It left me pondering with the conclusion that the ‘greening’ of the earth that everybody wants, actually does trap heat. I mean everybody wants lawns, trees and crops. We also know that the increase in CO2 also contributes to the greening of earth. I think I could look this up but I remember I did see a report here on WUWT showing that earth has become 30 or 40% greener compared to 40 years ago. ”

        This is a good question to ponder, but turns out it’s quite complicated. I’m not sure what the figures are for greening, or what the 30-40% means – increase in leaf area, I suppose, but it seems quite high. This has a pretty picture of the change:
        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
        “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” This is a very different statistic, since even a 2% greening in 30% of the vegetation would count.

        Notice that there are areas of red, as well. The models generally predict greater extremes of precipitation/drought, and this is borne out by observation. (Interesting – I’d heard that the area just south of the Sahara was greening, but it looks more like desertification.) Some of the additional greening is due to thawing permafrost. Boreal forests have also responded to CO2 and are a big sink, at least temporarily.

        Anyway… I’m not sure about the idea that forests trap heat. Some, such as tropical rainforest, transpire lots of water and can have regional impacts on precipitation and cloud cover, but I’m not sure if anyone knows the net effects that has on temperature – cloud effects and tropical precipitation are the two biggest sources of difficulty and debate in climate modeling.

        CO2 level affects photosynthetic rate and water use efficiency, but in general, the effect has been found to diminish with increasing CO2. Temperature increase alone can have a big impacts on many ecosystem variables, and in concert with CO2 the effects are likely to be quite complex. Rates of photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration and root growth and uptake; microbial and fungal interactions; nutrient availability and use; water tables; change in season length and pollinator and seed disperser communities; range, rate of spread and potential damage by invasive plants, pests and pathogens – ALL of these are likely affected by climate change and some already have been. Many many species of plants have been shown to be coming out of winter dormancy significantly (days to weeks) earlier.

        I know I’m not providing links as evidence. You can trust me, do some research yourself, or if you really want the background I will give links, but it takes time that I suspect is largely wasted. Most of the above I was just reading about yesterday. Plant ecology is my area of expertise.

        “Looking at the spectrum of CO2 we have absorption of CO2 in the UV”

        CO2 absorbs in IR. Three peaks, one of which is in a trough for water vapor, which is one reason it’s as effective as it is.

        “My question is: where is the test report that shows that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming rather than cooling? I am afraid that the closed box experiments won’t apply since it does not take the cooling effect of the CO2 into account. You need to give me a report that quantifies both the cooling and warming effect.”

        Have you ever looked? Who needs to give you a report? You are the one that doesn’t trust, and yet you don’t even know if your distrust is appropriate because you don’t have and won’t seek the knowledge. The theory is 150 years old. Why wouldn’t lab experiments pick up cooling? It doesn’t matter – there is NO cooling effect of CO2. The fact that this is a GHG is so well-established that you really should just accept it, and if not it’s on YOU to show why that’s wrong (Sorry, I don’t mean to single you out, I’m really talking to everyone. I figure the only way I might be able to get people to question their “skepticism” [ironic!] is by pointing out examples erroneous/baseless assumptions, poor reasoning, denial, misplaced distrust and judgments that are based on ignorance resulting from distrust [how can anyone reject something without knowing about it, and how can they know about it if they reject it first?]. I don’t care about policy half as much as I care about the public’s distrust of science.)

      • “CO2 level affects photosynthetic rate and water use efficiency, but in general, the effect has been found to diminish with increasing CO2. ”

        Not to any meaningful level until we get far far above current ppm levels.

        Indeed the increase is fairly linear, as is the increase in drought tolerance.

        In short more food on the same amount of land and water. Whereas the purported harms are failing to manifest.

      • Kristi Silber

        Best subsets regression is multiple regression analysis – the overall fit to the annual monthly CET since 1950 is 93.2%. Check the link for the details.

      • David A –

        “Indeed the increase is fairly linear, as is the increase in drought tolerance.

        “In short more food on the same amount of land and water. Whereas the purported harms are failing to manifest.”

        This is just the kind of oversimplification that leads to erroneous judgments.

        The in situ effects of elevated CO2 are not going to mimic the CO2 fertilization in greenhouses. I’m not sure if that’s what you are referring to, but that’s my guess. Correct? Or do you have a reference for a linear CO2 effect in nature, across species?

        Just a couple hints of the greater complexity involved, first I came across…

        ” We assessed whether N limitation caused a reduced stimulation of net primary productivity (NPP) by elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration over 11 y in a free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment in a deciduous Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum) forest stand in Tennessee. During the first 6 y of the experiment, NPP was significantly enhanced in forest plots exposed to 550 ppm CO2 compared with NPP in plots in current ambient CO2, and this was a consistent and sustained response. However, the enhancement of NPP under elevated CO2 declined from 24% in 2001–2003 to 9% in 2008. Global analyses that assume a sustained CO2 fertilization effect are no longer supported by this FACE experiment. N budget analysis supports the premise that N availability was limiting to tree growth and declining over time —an expected consequence of stand development, which was exacerbated by elevated CO2. Leaf- and stand-level observations provide mechanistic evidence that declining N availability constrained the tree response to elevated CO2″
        http://www.pnas.org/content/107/45/19368.full

        Or, for a quickie excerpt:
        The effect of elevated [CO2] on A [photosynthesis] is well characterized, yet the
        photosynthetic stimulation observed in CO2 enrichment
        experiments does not always match theoretical expectations
        …. Similarly, while gs [stomatal conductance] at elevated [CO2] is typically
        reduced, the effect is variable and subject to environmental
        feedback ”
        https://www.bnl.gov/face/pdfs/Ainsworth_%26_Rogers_2007.pdf

      • mynaturaldiary – Thanks, I remember seeing (some of) that data before. Interesting that you get such a nice change in signal depending on time of year. Boy, that’s a long article, you put a lot of work into that! I’m afraid I don’t have time to read it all now, but it looks interesting.

    • Not that I’m someone who “really believes in man-made warming,” but keep in mind that IR (i.e., the alleged “reradiation from CO2”) can’t warm the oceans since IR does not penetrate beyond a few MICRONS of the ocean surface.

      • AGW is no science,'”Not that I’m someone who “really believes in man-made warming,” but keep in mind that IR (i.e., the alleged “reradiation from CO2”) can’t warm the oceans since IR does not penetrate beyond a few MICRONS of the ocean surface.”

        Even at that penetration (if true), it doesn’t mean oceans can’t absorb heat! The surface absorbs and transfers heat to lower depths.

      • True but irrelevant. Oceans are warmed by post albedo SWR. They will accordingly emit LWR. Nobodynever said oceans were warmed by backradiation (well, except some idiots).
        REMEMBER, AGW is NOT indirect warming, it is only the absence of offsetting indirect IR cooling.
        Get the basics of the physics, the rest follows pretty simply.

    • HP, not necessarily symetric hemispherical wrming. Much more ocean in the SH, so much bigger heat sink. Thanks to the Hadley cells on either side of the ITCZ, there is not a lot of cross equator atmospheric mixing.

      • ristvan
        heat sink? you think the supposedly extra heat from the CO2 in the SH vanishes into the oceans?
        I don’t believe that. I conducted an empirical experiment – and I must say that this was still in the time where I was convinced that the science on AGW was sound –
        Perhaps you have an explanation for me for my particular results?

        Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
        I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:

        The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
        I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:

        Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.

      • hp, some basic conceptual physics. You are correct (except perhaps for the micron thick evaporative surface layer) that ‘IR backradiation’ cannot heat the ocean. But this formulation of AGW completely misstates GHE. It is not about direct warming, it is about indierct cooling, No one disputes that incoming solar SWR warms the oceans—the photic zone where photosynthesis can take place is variably about 100-200 meters deep. The question is how the incoming residual heat energy is lost. That is a radiative cooling, not radiative heating, problem.

    • I believe the warming in the NH is due to the increase in open water in the Arctic ocean. I draw your attention to the graph of Arctic temperatures on the WUWT sea ice page. This seems to show the change from a frozen surface, “continental” type climate to a more marine climate.
      Virtually all the global positive temperature anomaly we see is North of the Arctic circle. It is due to the state of the Arctic ocean.
      I believe the present relatively low extent of Arctic sea ice is probably temporary. There seems to be ample historical indication that this is a cyclical phenomenon.
      We may indeed be headed for a warmer world and an ice free Arctic. This would be due to our continued ascent from the depths of the LIA and not thanks to CO2.
      If the global temperature anomaly is caused by open Arctic water and it is cyclical then we have been putting the cart before the horse. Open Arctic water cannot be caused by high air temperatures . It is the other way round. Open water causes high air temperatures. Open water is most likely caused by higher ocean temperature. This is the input to the cyclical switching of the state of Arctic ice and therefore NH temperature.
      The reason for this cycle is simply that in the more open water state it takes time for the ocean to cool. The decreased summer albedo slows this portion of the cycle. Once it has cooled sufficiently the ice begins to grow again, summer albedo increases and slows the warming of the water.
      It seems that the Arctic climate is somewhat sensitive and precariously balanced between permanently frozen and permanently open. This shouldn’t be surprising since whatever caused the present ice age to initiate is only two million years old so our current climate paradigm is probably barely established.
      This Arctic oscillation should be studied more extensively since it will probably be one of our warning signs for the onset of the next glaciation. Which will be actual Catastrophic Climate Change. Not the phony Socialist imaginary twaddle we are forced to slap down today.
      For as much as I can follow this seems to be solid work by CMoB and I thank him for his efforts. Some hard science will help but this is a political creation and in the end politics will bring it down. Politics, too, is cyclical.

    • Also…. maybe Earth’s tilt? If zero degrees, equal warming? With tilt, unequal warming?

  8. “Stepwise refinement of science!” That’s what you call publishing drafts that get longer and longer the more they try to “prove” a case?

    What is this feedback, Monckton? You go on about it, but what’s the mechanism for a feedback at a static temperature? “feedback response that arises from the presence of emission temperature” What is “the presence of emission temperature”?

    And for what reasons do climate scientists reject your ideas, and in what ways are they wrong? It doesn’t prove your case to demonstrate it with a bunch of math if the fundamental questions aren’t answered. It’s not enough to show that “official climatology’s grave error arose” by studying a 2010 climate model when the “grave error” is theoretical and fundamental.

      • They are only informative if they represent real interactions. I prefer not to talk in analogies. Network analysis just another kind of model, subject to erroneous assumptions. What’s the amplifier? Sorry, I just don’t get it and no amount of network analysis will help me see the feedback mechanism.

      • In response to Silber, I have simply used the zero-dimensional-model equation that climatology uses, with the amendment that the forms of that equation shown as the right-hand identities in eqs. (1, 2) in the head posting are not used in climatology. Silber may care to read ch. 3 of Bode (1945), and work through the slightly more complicated form of the zero-dimensional-model equation therein, where the fact that the input signal (i.e., emission temperature in the climate) must itself induce a feedback provided that feedback processes such as those in Table 1 are present will become all too apparent.

      • Kristi,

        Sorry, I just don’t get it and no amount of network analysis will help me see the feedback mechanism.

        OK, here is a bit on feedback, now from a graduate course on Climate Modelling.
        Lecture 3: Climate sensitivity and feedback

        That is from:

        ATM 623: Climate Modeling
        A graduate-level course on the hands-on use of climate models for understanding climate processes.
        Brian E. J. Rose
        University at Albany, Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences

        I hope this helps :)

      • Kristi.. MB is explicitly answering the last half of your question:

        “And for what reasons do climate scientists reject your ideas, and in what ways are they wrong?”

        As for the first half of your question, I also would like to know what reasons “climate scientists” reject MBs work. But will they show up here? So far, crickets.

      • Sailboarder, ‘Kristi.. MB is explicitly answering the last half of your question:

        “And for what reasons do climate scientists reject your ideas, and in what ways are they wrong?”

        That makes no sense. How can he explicitly answer the criticism of the scientists without telling us what they are? Surely he knows – he must in order to “prove” them wrong.

    • Most grateful to Sailboarder for his timely interventions. In answer to the acerbic Silber, the zero-dimensional-model equation that demonstrates the relationship between reference temperature before accounting for feedback and emission temperature after accounting for feedback is well and clearly described in Roe (2009), considered at a more advanced level in Bates (2016) and discussed in several papers by Professor Lindzen.

      • Roe (2009)
        “The broadest definition of a feedback is a process that, when included in the system, makes the forcing a function of the response; in other words, some fraction of the output is fed back into the input”

        Feedback in Roe is clearly a function of change. So you gave me one reference that contradicts your assertion. I’m not going to waste my time with others. I asked a simple question: what is the mechanism of the feedback you hypothesize? That should be something you can answer, not something in the literature. You are responsible for your statements.

        Compared to the things you’ve said about others, my tone is quite polite.

      • the feedback mechanism is the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere in response to warming.

        climatology agrees that the temp increase since 1850 also increase the water vapor in the atmosphere. what mb has pointed out is that warming of the earth by the sun from 3K to 1850 also increase the water vapor in the atmosphere but was not accounted for because of an error in the climatology definition of feedback.

      • If Silber would work through the equations in ch. 3 of Bode, it would become apparent that, in a dynamical system in which feedback processes are present, a feedback response must arise in the presence of even a constant input signal, even if that signal be unamplified.

        Or do it algebraically. Take an input signal of 255 K. Take a combination of feedback processes (the feedback block) that causes 8% of the output signal to be returned via the backward path to the input node. What is the output? The answer, using the simplified form of the Bode equation that is usual in climatology, is that the output signal is 255 / (1 – 0.08) = 277 K.

    • What is this feedback, Monckton?

      The feedback is the combined feedback of all known (significant) feedbacks, as reported by the IPCC.

      In IPCC (2013), the mid-range estimates of the sub-decadal temperature feedback sum is 1.6 W m–2 K–1, since the feedbacks other than the water-vapor feedback sum to zero.

      They are mentioned in table 1 above.

    • I think the argument is that there is almost no feedback. That is, double CO2 and the increased forcing does not lead to any rise in any other forcings. All you have is whatever forcing CO2 itself causes.

      I’m not quite sure what the evidence for this is, or how consideration of electronic feedback relates to that. Have to read it all again more carefully. It looks like an empirical question to me, but maybe I am missing something.

      • Michel may like to read all three articles in this series, and also ch. 3 of Bode (1945), and Roe (2009) on feedbacks in the climate. Roe gives a good historical explanation of the origin of feedback theory at Bell Labs, then in New York, in the 1920s and ’30s, and shows how the equations derived from that theory – now of universal application in what is called “control theory” – are no less applicable to temperature feedback in the climate as they are to voltage or current feedback in electronic network analysis.

      • Michel,

        Please see my comment slightly above: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/30/game-over/comment-page-1/#comment-2778050
        That links to a lecture on feedback in climate modelling, as part of a graduate course at University at Albany.
        You might recognize a lot there of what has been discussed here.

        Of course as to the exact total feedback, that is very much a bit of an open issue.

        And many other related issues are not universally accepted (like how much of an effect CO2 doubling really has), but for the sake of the argument that is ignored here in order to stay on track (as was stated above: ‘acceptance solum ad argumentum’, i.e. just for sake of the argument).

      • That is, double CO2 and the increased forcing does not lead to any rise in any other forcings.

        But it does lead to negative feedback from water vapor, ie a reduction of the normal amount of feedback.
        You can see the feedback changing in the net radiation response as RH rises.

    • Jaap, thank you for the reference, but that’s not the issue. I know about climate feedbacks. I don’t see how a given temperature can lead to a feedback. Temperature is not the output, radiation is, and “output” itself implies change.

      So what possible mechanism is there for a static temperature to induce a feedback? This is the whole crux of the argument. Monckton won’t tell us what the arguments against his hypothesis are or how he addresses them, and that is essential in science.

      “The key assumption in climate feedback analysis is that CHANGES in radiative flux are proportional to surface temperature changes:

      ΔFTOA=λΔTs

      where λ is a constant of proportionality, with units of W m −2 K −1 “.

      • I don’t see how a given temperature can lead to a feedback. Temperature is not the output, radiation is, and “output” itself implies change.

        Perhaps not really the temperature itself, but really more the corresponding energy.
        For water vapor the standard climate science feedback mechanism is described as follows:

        CO2 up –> temperature up –> water vapor up –> temperature up

        Note that you may read energy where you see temperature (and the exchange of that energy can be via radiation).
        And also note that temperature is both an input as well as an output for the water vapor feedback (hence it is named a feedback). Because input (in T) up leads to output (in T) up this is a positive feedback.

        That mechanism is based on the idea that higher temperatures allow for more water vapor in the air before saturation is achieved (and before clouds and rain).

        Of course a weakness in that argument is that merely increasing temperature does not necessarily mean more water vapor, it just means more room for it. But of course higher temperatures means more evaporation. But whether that immediately fills all extra available space for more water vapor … AFAIK that is rather unlikely; however it is likely that at least some extra evaporation will take place due to higher temperatures.
        In any case this has diminishing returns because this should increase the chances at clouds and rain (hence in the end it is limited by ever stronger negative feedback).

      • Jaap, you can see in the surface data, when MinT went up from a rise in dew point, rh started to drop.

        The main flaw with positive wv feedback theory of climate is there just isn’t a lot of excess water to evaporate except over water, and open water doesn’t warm all that fast so that leads to little extra evaporation from there.
        Surface dew points just follow the ocean cycles as they move pools of warm water around.

        Same mechanism that leads to El Nino warming.

      • Silber “cannot see how a given temperature can lead to a feedback”. However, the more sophisticated form of the zero-dimensional-model equation that is given in Bode, Ch. 3, has input and output values E0, ER that are defined on p. vii in such a fashion that they may serve either as entire values or as deltas. Our testing, both on our own rig and on an improved model constructed at a government laboratory, showed that even an unamplified (mu = 1) input signal (e.g. emission temperature in the climate system) must induce a feedback response as long as a nonzero feedback fraction (beta in Bode) is present.

        In our paper, we describe the math behind the Bode version of what, in the climate system, is tthe zero-dimensional-model equation, and prove – as does Bode himself – that the output signal is necessarily the ratio of the product of the input signal E0 and the direct or open-loop gain factor mu to (1 minus the product of mu and the feedback fraction beta).

        This elementary feedback math (which, though simple, is monstrously counterintuitive until one gets used to it) is of direct application to any dynamical system, including the climate.

      • I wouldn’t get too hung up in the feedback angle.

        That isn’t to say Lord Monckton isn’t blowing smoke again, of course. This time he swears by electric-circuit equations, whereas last time he said climate models were wrong because they “were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit.” He based his theory then on a ludicrous misinterpretation of the feedback-equation hyperbola, even though many of us who actually knew something about the subject had explained that error (and several others) to him. His responses were no less inapposite then than they are now.

        Independently of whether he swears by electrical circuits or rejects them, though, his fanboys will gush.

        That said, whether a given quantity is characterized as feedback depends too much on definitions, assumptions, and the level of abstraction. I personally favor a feedback view, but a colloquy over at Roy Spencer’s site illustrates how arbitrary those characterizations can be.

        As you recognize, it doesn’t matter whether you call, say, average snow cover and the resultant albedo a forcing, a feedback, or neither. The issue is whether, as Lord Monckton contends, the climate models simply cut such effects’ responses to temperature off at an arbitrary temperature. That’s an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary proof.

        And proving it is a task to which Lord Monckton has betrayed no evidence of being even remotely equal.

      • the is no such thing as a constant voltage except the ground/ reference. when you fist turn on the circuit this is a change in all other voltages and at that instant the feedbacks are established.

        the change wirh respect to the zero (reference/ground) voltage is no different when you switch the circuit on is no different than any other voltage change. if one creates feedback all create feedback.

      • The correct mechanism is described as follows (approx.):

        Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature up –> Equatorial Atmospheric Water Vapor up 3 months later –> Equatorial Temperature up -> Global Temperature up one month later -> Global Atmospheric dCO2/dt up (contemporaneous with Global Temperature) -> Atmospheric CO2 trends up 9 months later

        What drives Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface Temperature? In sub-decadal timeframes, El Nino and La Nina (ENSO); longer term, probably the Integral of Solar Activity.

        The base CO2 increase of ~2ppm/year could have many causes, including fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc, but it has a minor or insignificant impact on global temperatures.

      • Joe Born – Thank you, you’re right. It’s not worth pursuing the feedback thing, completely futile and unnecessary. It’s really nice, btw, to know there are others around that see things similarly (though I’ve no idea of your views as a whole, at least you can see the dynamic going on here). Gets pretty frustrating sometimes seeing the endless comments vilifying climate scientists while poor arguments and “evidence” get lauded.

        Feedbacks are obviously an extremely important part of climate. A feedback at stasis? Uh-uh.

      • Joe Born

        Your long standing issues with MoB is showing through, the 2 of you need to come to some resalution and leave the rest of us out of your squabble.

    • KS, if you believe “greenhouse gases” to function as so-called “climate science” preaches, then the real question is not “how can a static temperature induce a feedback,” but “how can it NOT induce a feedback?”

      The “mechanism” for feedback from the IR emitted based on the solar insolation reaching the Earth’s surface is no different than that based on IR supposedly “re-radiated” from “greenhouse gases,” i.e., the absorption of such IR radiation by the so-called “greenhouse gases,” as it is being lost to the relative vacuum of space.

      Do you suppose that the IR emitted as a result of solar insolation has a “special pass” which exempts it from being absorbed by “greenhouse gases,” while the “reradiated” IR *from* “greenhouse gases” (which would not even exist if no feedback applied to the IR emitted as a result of solar insolation) is incapable of escaping being absorbed by “greenhouse gases?!”

      • “special pass” = magic!

        No, it’s no magic, it’s how well any antenna absorbs a photon/radiowave of a given length. Colored glass is a great visual example. Narrowband red filters, only pass red, not blue, not green, etc.
        Co2 has a few bands it absorbs, 15u is the main one of interest, visible light and other wave lengths of IR pass right by unaffected (unless they are in other co2 bands such as 10u)

    • What is this feedback …

      Feedback was invoked by Hansen et al. link The idea was that the slight warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor which, in turn, would cause more warming. It’s the only excuse for having to worry about CAGW.

      Monckton et al found a fundamental error in Hansen’s analysis. Even if everything else said by Hansen and his successors is correct, this fundamental error sinks the CAGW ship.

  9. Note that the ‘mid-range’ estimate in the table above of f = 0.5 is in fact the theoretical maximum for a combined effective feedback in a system with equilibrium(s), because the eventual gain G=1/(1-f) becomes unlimited once f>0.5 and the system will simply ‘explode’ to infinity.

    So that feedback factor f has a maximum at f=0.5 with Charney sensitivity 1.09/(1-0.5) = 2.18 K

    • Mr Titulaer makes a good point that dynamical systems with feedback fractions above 0.5 can (not must) become unstable owing to factors such as unreliable componentry or unforeseen ambient operating conditions.

      As Table 1 in the head posting shows, IPCC’s mid-range estimate of the individual feedbacks implies a feedback fraction 0.5, implying 2.2 K Charney sensitivity. No surprise, then, that IPCC declined to state a best estimate of Charney sensitivity, since it would have to explain how it was that, after 40 years of “settled science”, it was being compelled to abandon the 3.0-3.3 K mid-range Charney-sensitivity estimate on the basis of which governments have been panicked into squandering trillions.

  10. “let me make it plain that my approach is to accept – for the sake of argument only – that everything in official climatology is true except where we have discovered errors. By this acceptance solum ad argumentum, we minimize the scope for futile objections that avoid the main point, and we focus the discussion on the grave errors we have found.”

    The statement above is exactly why sceptics have failed to bring a decisive end to the AGW conjecture. There can be no decisive victory if we keep playing in their sandbox.

    I congratulate Viscount Monckton in his victory in this particular battle. However I am pointing out that this approach of accepting the foundation claims of the radiative greenhouse conjecture as true, will never win this war.

    It is true that gases with three or more atoms per molecule can absorb and radiate LWIR (Tyndall 1859 -1860 via empirical experiment), but this is not the foundation claim of the AGW conjecture. The foundation claim of the AGW conjecture is that the Sun alone could only heat the surface materials of this planet to an average of -18C (255K) in the absence of radiative gases in our atmosphere. It is in this foundation claim the most egregious error in the AGW conjecture lays. This foundation claim defies known physics and empirical observation throughout the solar system. This is not the main point of Viscount Monckton’s argument, but it should be the main point of the sceptic argument.

    Given that Sun is the source of almost all energy in our climate system, studying how the surface materials and atmospheric gases absorb this energy must be the first step in any climate modelling. Given that most solar energy is initially absorbed in the surface materials of this planet, correctly calculating solar thermal gain in the true surface materials of this ocean planet is the most critical step in climate modelling.

    CS (climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2) is not the critical figure in climate science. It’s not the pea, it’s just the thimble AGW promoters pray that sceptics keep focused on. The critical figure in climate science is “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere”. If sceptics keep accepting 255K for this critical foundation figure as a priori for argument, battles may be won, but the war to save science, reason, freedom and democracy will be lost.

    Game over? Not yet.

    • In response to Wolf, insofar as there is any merit in our argument we have proven – by a simple method that all who wish can understand – that global warming will not exceed half of the 3.0-3.3 K mid-range estimate that has prevailed for 40 years. That being the case, as far as the global-warming debate is concerned, it’s over.

      Of course, there are many other fascinating aspects of the climate that are worthy of study, and Mr Wolf is encouraged to concentrate on those areas that are of particular interest to him. He will find the process easier now, because the field will no longer be dominated by fear of catastrophic global warming. There will be some warming, but it will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial.

      • I accept that using common priori for emission temperature without radiative atmosphere, and demonstrating that CS for doubling CO2 is less than half of the current mid range estimates should reduce climate alarmism, an admirable goal. Others such as David Evans have produced similar calculations.

        But ending climate alarmism is not the only goal. The standing mistakes in atmospheric physics must be erased so science can advance. Any political victory that leaves CS for a doubling of CO2 above 0.0, no mater how slightly above, is not a victory for science.

        We have suffered a global outbreak of Lysenkoism that has threatened the scientific foundations of our modern civilisation. How AGW sceptics seek to bring this outbreak of pseudo-science under control will have great bearing on whether we suffer similar outbreaks in the future.

        The primary surface material of this planet is salt water. Empirical evidence from our solar system indicates that the “snowline” in our solar system is out in the further reaches of the asteroid belt. It is only beyond that point that worlds with frozen oceans like Europa and Ceres can exist. The foundation claim of the AGW conjecture “Surface Tav of 255K without radiative atmosphere” for an ocean planet only a third of that distance from the Sun cannot possibly be correct. Accepting this non-physical foundation claim as a priori may win a court battle, but it will not win the war against science sceptics need to end.

      • Wolf

        The problem is that the 255K assertion cannot be empirically tested. That being the case, one ought to be rather sceptical as to the claim. The truth is that we do not know what this planet’s temperature would be absence GHGs in its atmosphere, and everyone is simply speculating on its temperature.

        I have made a similar point about Mars and the so called faint sun paradox, which pardon the pun is rather illuminating.

        Mars is of course considerably further from the sun, and in the early days of the solar system, the solar luminosity was perhaps only about 70% of that seen today. To visualise this, it is like considering that Mars lies in the asteroid belt and yet it is thought that, with this low amount of solar irradiance, Mars had running water.

        There is no paradox if one accepts that it is atmospheric mass and pressure, and not GHGs, that are the big players in determining planetary temperature. That would be the Occam razor approach to dealing with this postulated paradox.

      • “The problem is that the 255K assertion cannot be empirically tested.”

        Richard,
        that claim is not entirely true. We can easily empirically test solar thermal gain in most surface materials of this complex planet with all atmospheric effects save surface pressure and cloud albedo removed, with vacuum insulated solar illuminated samples allowed to radiatively cool toward a 3K background. Materials we can easily empirically check in this manner –
        Sand.
        Rock.
        Water.
        Ice.
        While it is very difficult to design an empirical experiment to check solar thermal gain in vegetation, this is a minor part of our planetary surface and can be ignored for an initial “sanity check” of the “Surface Tav of 255K without radiative atmosphere” claim that is the very foundation of the AGW conjecture.

        It is imperative that this foundation claim be empirically checked because we have very strong reason to believe is is in error by 2 to 3 times the 33K warming claimed for the proposed atmospheric greenhouse effect. The evidence that there is likely an error so huge comes from studying the moon.

        But first, where does the 255K claim come from? All that was done to derive this figure was to enter 240 w/m2 (average sunlight at the surface) into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. This yields 255K. This flawed calculation ignores the true emissivity and absorptivity of surface materials. It ignores the conductivity and specific heat capacity of surface materials. It ignores depth of solar penetration into surface materials and it ignores the diurnal cycle of solar illumination.

        We know that a flawed calculation just like this was initially used to estimate average Lunar surface temperatures. Its few variables were average solar illumination, estimated albedo, estimated solar absorptivity and estimated LWIR emissivity. When this crude Tav estimate for the lunar surface is compared to empirical results from the DIVINER Lunar Radiometer Experiment, a 90K error is found. If the Stefan-Boltzmann equation cannot get it right for the simple Lunar surface, there is zero chance it can work for the far more complex surface materials of this planet.

        This report on the DIVINER Lunar Radiometer Experiment:
        https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2012-03-08/2_thomas_pdf_10647.pdf
        gives some idea of the work needed to empirically determine the true solar absorptivity and LWIR emissivity of Lunar surface materials, calibrate instruments against those experiments and the modelling complexity needed to match the empirical data returned from the mission. Without empirical experiments, empirical data and quality of modelling like this presented to support the “surface Tav of 255K without radiative atmosphere” claim for our planet, that claim simple can’t be believed.

      • Wolf

        There is considerable merit in many of the points raised. Last year, I commented on the difficulty of calculating, from a theoretical perspective, the temperature of the moon. One only has to look at the surface of the side that faces us to see the vast differences in albedo which means that one would have to slice the moon into very small sectors to even begin to get a theoretical temperature. It is no surprise that there is a substantial difference between our measurements, and our theoretical assessment. Just because it is wondrous to behold the moon in all its glory, I post a picture:

        You say:

        While it is very difficult to design an empirical experiment to check solar thermal gain in vegetation, this is a minor part of our planetary surface and can be ignored for an initial “sanity check”

        Whilst I accept that it is difficult to design an empirical experiment, I am unsure that that it is a minor part of the planetary surface. For example, tropical rain forests cover about 17% of the planet’s ice free areas, and significantly lie in the tropics, around 10degN to 10 degS. This is the band area where most solar insolation is received, and where most surface radiation occurs.

        Indeed, tropical rainforests are so dense that only about 2% of incoming solar irradiation actually reaches the forest floor. This begs the question whether solar irradiance actually warms the the surface over much of the tropics since as far as tropical rainforests are concerned, the solar insolation is being absorbed more than 30 to 45 metres above the ground, and much of it is not directly reradiated but is instead absorbed and used to power photosynthesis.

        Then one has the boreal and temperate forests.
        According to http://www.interholco.com/Temperate-Forests.360.0.html

        According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN), the world’s forested area amounts to around four billion hectares. This corresponds to roughly thirty percent of the world’s land area. Tropical forests account for around 48 percent of the forested area, boreal forests for thirty percent and temperate forests, such as those in North America and Europe, for 22 percent. Here the forested area grew by 29 million hectares in the 1990’s. This area is bigger than the territory covered by Great Britain and Denmark together.

        Then one has to consider the role of algae in the oceans, and of course, the oceans do not absorb solar irradiance at the surface, but instead at depth (typically 2 to 20 metres but some up to >100 metres,) and the solar irradiance absorbed at depth takes time to resurface, maybe some part of it in the order of up to 1000 years.

        To conclude, I see the difficulties to be immense.

      • The conversation between Wolf and Richard Verney, though a little off topic, is interesting. It is certainly evident that the naive whole-body emission temperature of 271 K for the moon, derivable from its insolation and its mean Bond albedo, is considerably above the correct temperature, not least because of latitudinal variability in insolation.

        However, Merlis et al. (2010) have done some interesting work on Earthlike tidally-locked aquaplanets with a mean albedo 0.38 (rather above the 0.30 on the current Earth). Their conclusion is that at today’s insolation the dayside would be 280 K and the nightside 250 K, mean surface temperature 265 K, 18 K above the 247 K emission temperature derived solely from the insolation and albedo.

        By spherical geometry it is not difficult to integrate the mean dayside temperatures on today’s Earth without greenhouse gases or feedbacks. The mean dayside temperature would be 289 K. If the nightside temperature were 259 K, (i.e. 9 K above the nightside temperature on a Merlis aquaplanet, just as the dayside temperature would be 9 K above the dayside temperature on a Merlis planet), global mean surface temperature on Earth would not be 255.4 K, as the crude SB calculation would suggest, but more like 274 K. If so, then, particularly after allowing for feedbacks to that 274 K baseline temperature, there would be little room for either forcings or feedbacks in response to greenhouse gases.

      • Can we determine the temperature of the surface of the earth wit SB. I am not so sure the earth is not a black body or a gray one either, the surface of the earths radiates, but the surface of the earth is not the radiatant heat source it is an insolator between the heat source and outer space, so the earths surface is really the outer edge of an insolator between two radiating heat sources. Neither heat source is well understood nor is insolator. It is clearly not the surface of the moon.

      • In response to Mr Bider, I shall explain how the emission temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases or feedbacks is currently derived. It is dependent solely upon insolation and albedo (since emissivity may be assumed to be unity without great error). Insolation is currently measured at about 1364.625 Watts per square meter, but this must be divided by four to allow (crudely, one confesses) for the ratio of the area of the Earth’s great circle to that of the equidiametric rotating sphere. Albedo is about 0.293. The fundamental equation of radiative transfer is then deployed, thus: emission temperature is equal to [1364.625(1 – 0.293) / (4 x 0.000000056704)]^0.25, where the very small quantity is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The answer comes out at 255.4 K.

      • Richard,
        I agree that determining true solar thermal gain in vegetation would be immensely difficult.

        However for the purposes of a crude “sanity check” on the foundation calculation for the AGW conjecture, all that would be required would be to accept the figure of 255K for ~20% of the planet’s surface, and calculate for the remaining 80% using empirical results from lab tests on sand, rock, water and ice samples.

        The style of experiments used before the launch of the DIVINER lunar mission can find true solar thermal gain in sand, rock, water and ice samples. Modelling very like what the DIVINER scientists used where the latitude of material distribution is accounted for could then be used to derive a crude figure for “surface Tav without radiative atmosphere”. This could then be used to check if the 255K assumption is anywhere close to correct. The results from DIVINER indicate this would be extremely unlikely.

      • Viscount Monckton,
        In your response to Bob Bider, you have shown the simple mathematical modelling that is used to derive the figure of 255K for “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” that is the foundation claim for the AGW conjecture.

        However you have acknowledged that this type of calculation results in a significant error compared to empirical results when used to model lunar surface Tav. The Sefan-Boltzmann calculation results in a dramatic ~90K error for Lunar surface Tav when compared to the empirical data from the DIVINER mission. If it won’t work for the simpler materials of the Lunar surface, how can we trust the S-B approach to work to determine “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” for the far more complex surface materials of the Earth?

        Calculating “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” and comparing it to current surface Tav is how we are supposed to know the atmosphere is providing a 33K greenhouse effect. But as the methodology used to determine surface Tav without radiative atmosphere has been shown to fail against empirical data for the Lunar surface, we cannot claim with any confidence that a 33K atmospheric greenhouse effect even exists on this planet.

      • This shows 10K of GHG effect as minimum under these conditions. There is going to be some amount more, but since no one has even identified the part here exists, the theory and math are nonsense.
        One of the problems is the amount of effect varies based on conditions and is nonlinear.

    • The basis for the calculation is simple, and is hardly climatology. After albedo, the earth can emit only about 240 W/m2 IR. A black body (as Earth is pretty much for IR) at 255 K emits that amount. A warmer body will emit more, which it does not have. You don’t explain why you think that is wrong.

      • You don’t explain why you think that is wrong.

        There is more than one way to cause something to radiate energy away. That isn’t dependent on its actual temperature.
        For instance cooling a large volume of water vapor and releasing it’s latent heat of evaporation.
        It is no longer emitting as a blackbody.

      • No surface material or atmospheric gas on this planet can be considered a blackbody in SW, SWIR or LWIR.

        You claim water can be considered a blackbody in IR. Nothing can be further from the truth for water under an atmosphere which facilitates cooling via evaporation (loss of energetic molecules (like the ones just impacted by an IR photon)). For water to be considered a blackbody in LWIR, heating of water by surface incident LWIR would need to match surface cooling by emission of LWIR.

        Nick, if you have empirical evidence of surface incident LWIR heating water free to evaporatively cool, you could make a fortune. 100,000’s of food and beverage process engineers would love to ditch the hassle of cleaning and maintenance of immersion heaters. They could just hang a non contact IR lamp providing 300 w/m2 of LWIR over a tank of liquid for a 30C gain!

        No immersed electrics. No difficult to clean elements. It would be marvellous. I wonder why no one is doing this?

      • Wolf,
        “Nothing can be further from the truth for water under an atmosphere which facilitates cooling via evaporation (loss of energetic molecules (like the ones just impacted by an IR photon)). For water to be considered a blackbody in LWIR, heating of water by surface incident LWIR would need to match surface cooling by emission of LWIR.”
        Emissivity is simply a property of the surface; how much does it emit at a given temperature. Evaporation fluxes have nothing to do with it. Here (from here) is a plot of measured emissivities for various surface types, including ocean. It’s pretty close to 1. Could use actual emissivities in determining temperature with little difference.

      • “Emissivity is simply a property of the surface; how much does it emit at a given temperature.”
        Wrong. Utterly wrong.
        The hemispherical LWIR emissivity of water is 0.67. (Anyone with a quantum cascade LWIR laser and detector can test this claim).

        Materials don’t absorb radiation solely at their surface, nor do they emit radiation solely from their surface. In the case of water, LWIR is emitted from within the first 100 microns of the skin evaporation layer.
        For water, after 55 degrees from zenith, LWIR emissivity falls of a cliff.

        Say Nick, would you like to claim on the permanent Internet record that liquid water has a hemispherical LWIR emissivity above 0.9?

      • Wolf,
        “Say Nick, would you like to claim on the permanent Internet record that liquid water has a hemispherical LWIR emissivity above 0.9?”
        Emission from sea surface is effectively black body. I’ve shown a PNAS plot above. Here from here is another (U Miami)

        Your sources?

      • No Nick, that is “apparent emissivity”. That is what you use for the emissivity setting on your IR instrument to get an effective non-contact temperature reading on textured surfaces, or materials that emit LWIR from below their surface.

        “Apparent emissivity” is not the same as “effective emissivity”.

        If you knew about IR observation, you would know about “cavity effect”.

        True hemispherical emissivity of water is 0.67. Apparent hemispherical emissivity of water is over 0.9.

        Never use “apparent emissivity” used to correct for “cavity effect” as the true ability of a material to radiate in LWIR.

      • “True hemispherical emissivity of water is 0.67.”
        Again you give no sources. I have already given two. Wiki gives pure water as 0.96, and says, explicitly
        “These emissivities are the total hemispherical emissivities from the surfaces.”
        Here is one of their sources. I have not found anywhere an emissivity of 0.67 quoted.

  11. OK, so MoB has destroyed the IPCC position yet again, now what? Who in authority gets to see this, who gets to act on it? I’m tired of the lies, the deceit, the refusal of alarmists to play ball in any way. This needs shoving in their faces without their consent. Who is going to make something positive come of this?

    • CheshireRed raises a point to which we have given some thought. My own belief, born of a Classical training in mathematics and science as in much else, is that, as the apocryphal text beautifully puts it, “Great is truth, and might above all things.” We submit that we have proven that global warming will not exceed half the 3.0-3.3 K that has prevailed as the mid-range estimate for the past four decades, and that our proof is simple enough for anyone sufficiently diligent to understand. That being the case, word will slowly, surely spread.

      In due course, when science has had a proper opportunity to scrutinize our argument and if science agrees that we are in substance correct, then it will no longer be legitimate for the international community to pursue the inadvertently genocidal policy of denying affordable, reliable, continuous, base-load coal-fired electrical power to the 1.2 billion people worldwide who are now prevented from having it.

      There will come a point when attempting to assert that global warming will prove catastrophic unless the West is shut down will come to constitute fraud. Already, fraud authorities in various jurisdictions have had their attention drawn to particular aspects of official climatology that are fraudulent. The file is open and the public authorities are watching (indeed, they are very probably watching this thread). In the end, if we have proven that global warming will be small, slow, harmless and beneficial, attempts by certain parties to mislead politicians, Press and public by trying to suggest otherwise will be at best misguided, at worst fraudulent. Only one or two prosecutions will be needed before the scientific community relearns that it is subject to just the same laws as the rest of us.

      The end and object of science is not profit; it is not the destruction of capitalism; it is the objective truth.


  12. Note in passing that, as discussed earlier, the upper-bound feedback fraction works out at the absurd value 1.0.

    Oh it’s not absurd at all. It tells us the seas are about to boil. But some components of sensitivity had a slow reaction time, so we have maybe a few years before the end is near. Where’s my Bible again?

    • Amen to that, brother! Time to reread some of the more excitable Psalms, to say nothing of the juicier bits of the Book of Revelation.

      • ‘Well, the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
        The law of the jungle and the sea are your only teachers’

        ‘Jokerman’ which might apply to some of the commenters here.

      • The Hebrew word you translate as “expanse” means a solid dome, not an “expanse”.

        The word “rāqîaʿ” (רָקִ֫יעַ‬), in Biblical Hebrew is derived from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning “to beat or spread out thinly”, e.g., the process of making a bowl by hammering thin a lump of metal. It’s onomatopoetic from the sound of pounding on metal, similarly to English “racket”.

        Like most ancient Near Easterners, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome (“vault of heaven”) over the flat earth. The Greek Septuagint translated “rāqîaʿ” as “stereoma”, which St. Jerome rendered into Latin as “firmamentum”, hence English “firmament”.

        The “waters above” include the “storehouses” or “treasures” of what we would call precipitation, ie rain, snow, sleet, hail, but also of the wind. The Bible doesn’t understand the hydrological cycle.

  13. “This is not coincidental. The ‘best’ Charney sensitivity, whether calculated using the energy budget, or observed v. modeled via Bode’s feedback fraction f, is half of the ‘best estimate’ in IPCC (2007).”

    And I showed here why it is not coincidental. The effect of all this rigmarole about feedback is a fantasy. As a matter of simple arithmetic, all that is done is the very most primitive calculation possible. That is to take the current degree of warming since industrial (or any other time you like, but thta is used here) and divide by the forcing difference over that time. That gives sensitivity in units of K/(W/m2); to convert to K/doubling. multiply by 3.5.

    People have been doing that since forever, but it is clearly unsatisfactory, because it doesn’t take account of the time needed to settle down, and you can get radically different answers depending on time interval. It doesn’t correspond to ECS, or TCR either So Lord M’s final step is to multiply by a fudge factor 1.4, to try to allow for this. You can choose any factor you like. Rud prefers 1.25 which gives better agreement to his favourite outcome.. So yes, it isn’t a coincidence.

    There is nothing new here. “Game over”. Yes, Lord M has spoken. 1.4. The end.

    • As Mr Stokes knows perfectly well, 1.4 is not a fudge factor: it is a value directly calculated, as explained in the head posting, from a mainstream, published estimate of the Earth’s radiative energy imbalance. If Mr Stokes does not like that value, he may choose his own.

      • ” If Mr Stokes does not like that value, he may choose his own.”
        Exactly! As Rud did. But the way it is done in the head post is by offsetting the ocean flux. This is just what Lewis and Curry did. So it isn’t some new event that says “game over”. It is just a rehash.

        But the fact is that the quantities juggled here are not at all well established. Lord M says 0.59 W/m2 for ocean flux today; a day or so ago, it was 0.7 W/m2. Nic Lewis realised this, and tracked the uncertainty properly. Here is how he stated the result:

        Rud likes quoting the figure of 1.6 K/doubling as ECS gospel. But when you go to source, and look at the 95% range (actually, 90%), it is, on a preindustrial base, 1.05 to 4.05 K/doubling. Or, on a more recent period, a mean of 1.72 but a range 0.9 to 9.45 K/doubling. That is Lord M’s calculation, done properly. And it obviously isn’t game over. In fact, it doesn’t dent the IPCC range at all. It is even more uncertain.

      • NS, you are flailing about in dispair in pseudouncertainty, Read the Lewis and Curry paper again, for their confidence intervals. Look at the table you reposted, with its absurd upper bound per Bode analysis. It really is mathematical game over, IMO.
        First Army rule of holes. When in one wanting out, first stop digging, STOP DIGGING.

      • “Read the Lewis and Curry paper again, for their confidence intervals.”
        Tell us about it, Rud. I showed the relevant table from the Lewis and Curry paper, with the confidence intervals as they showed them. Why do you say they aren’t true?

      • Mr Stokes’ increasingly bitter contributions do not do him credit. Our method is not a “rehash” of Lewis & Curry 2014: it identifies climatology’s failure to take due account of the feedback response to emission temperature in deriving its feedback fractions. Our empirical calculation to derive Charney sensitivity, which was carried out merely to verify that the theoretical calculation was reasonable, was done in a far simpler manner than that in Lewis & Curry.

        All we did was to take the product of equilibrium temperature (i.e., observed temperature of 0.75 K since 1850 uplifted by 37.4% to allow for the mid-range estimate of the energy imbalance in Smith 2015) and the ratio of the 3.5 W/m2 CO2 forcing to the 2.29 W/m2 net anthropogenic forcing to 2011 (IPCC, 2013, table SPM.5). Answer: equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.55 K. Naturally, we also derived the feedback factor implicit in this result: namely, 1 – 2.29 / 3.2 / 0.75 / 1.374 = 0.29 (the divisor 3.2 being our way of allowing for the Planck parameter). We were interested in the feedback fraction because we wanted to see how it compared with the feedback fraction of 0.203 obtained by the pre-industrial, theoretical method. It is very much on the high side, suggesting either that the measurement of energy imbalance is inaccurate (not surprising given the sparsity of the ARGO bathythermographs) or that some fraction of the industrial-era warming arose from internal natural variability.

        The wide uncertainties in Lews & Curry arise because, like the models, they do not use feedback directly at all in their calculation. It is entirely the hyperbolic feedback response curve that accounts for the very high equilibrium sensitivities (>4.5 K) that have hitherto been imagined. The method of Lewis & Curry cannot rule out such high sensitivities: our method does. That’s why we say it’s game over.

      • “All we did was to take the product of equilibrium temperature (i.e., observed temperature of 0.75 K since 1850 uplifted by 37.4% to allow for the mid-range estimate of the energy imbalance in Smith 2015) and the ratio of the 3.5 W/m2 CO2 forcing to the 2.29 W/m2 net anthropogenic forcing to 2011 (IPCC, 2013, table SPM.5). Answer: equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.55 K.”

        And that is exactly what Lewis and Curry do. It is a rehash. Here is their equation:

        Lord M’s factor of 137.4% is just 1/(1-ΔQ/ΔF). IOW, he writes
        3.5*ΔT/(ΔF-ΔQ) as 3.5*(ΔT/(1-ΔQ/ΔF))/ΔF

        “The method of Lewis & Curry cannot rule out such high sensitivities: our method does. That’s why we say it’s game over.”
        The methods are identical.

      • Mr Stokes continues to fail to acknowledge that our theoretical approach to the derivation of climate sensitivities owes nothing whatever to Lewis & Curry. It is based on a correction to climatology’s large error in failing to make due allowance for the amplitude of the large feedback response to emission temperature.

        Then we verify that result by an empirical method which is similar to that of Lewis & Curry to the extent that it takes note of the measured energy imbalance. However, it is manifestly distinct from that of Lewis & Curry in that, since we have already established an approximate upper bound on the feedback fraction by the theoretical method, we can rule out the extreme variances in energy balance that a few authorities try to suggest, and, therefore, we do not get the same monstrously wide sensitivity intervals that are evident in Lewis & Curry.

        What on Earth would be the point of our merely regurgitating Lewis & Curry, or any other published paper, for that matter?

      • “However, it is manifestly distinct from that of Lewis & Curry in that, since we have already established an approximate upper bound on the feedback fraction by the theoretical method, we can rule out the extreme variances in energy balance that a few authorities try to suggest, and, therefore, we do not get the same monstrously wide sensitivity intervals that are evident in Lewis & Curry.”

        No, it is manifestly identical. You kindly spelt out your calculation sequence; I put that in exact correspondence, number for number, with the formula that Lewis and Curry use. One point of showing that your method gives a result numerically independent of the feedback fraction is that putting an upper bound on that fraction can make no difference to the CS result or its uncertainty. If you perform the same calculation sequence as L&C, the result will be subject to the same uncertainty.

        “What on Earth would be the point of our merely regurgitating Lewis & Curry…”
        I don’t know.

      • Mr Stokes continues deliberately to ignore the fact that we reach our estimates of transient and equilibrium sensitivity by two distinct methods, the first of which is theoretical, applies to the pre-industrial era and corrects official climatology’s long-standing error in imagining that there is no feedback response to emission temperature. We verified our theoretical result with an empirical calculation using a standard and rather obvious method akin to, if rather simpler than, similar methods that appear in the climate-sensitivity literature.

        The difference is that we can rule out the absurdly high upper bounds imagined e.g. by Lewis & Curry because those upper bounds could only arise in the presence of very large feedbacks, while our theoretical study indicates that the feedbacks are not very large.

    • Is the method something like this?

      Figure out what the direct warming effect of 280 ppm in 1750 would be, absent any other forcings. Then assume that any excess over this to get to the 1750 temp must be feedback. Then apply this to the warming from 1750 to present as a test. If the combination of the rise in CO2ppm plus the excess gives the observed rise in temperatures, this validates the first estimate, so assume this is the effect of a rise in CO2, and project it forward.

      Is that the method being used?

      • In answer to Michel, Mr Stokes finds it expedient to say that our method is a “rehash” of Lewis & Curry 2014. It is, of course, no such thing. One only has to look at the immense error-bars in the Lews & Curry paper to see that they have not found a way to constrain the amplitude of the feedback fraction.

        Our theoretical method has nothing to do with the Lews & Curry method at all. We begin by noticing that official climatology takes little or no account of the actually substantial feedback response to emission temperature, even before accounting for the warming caused by non-condensing greenhouse gases. We show that if one allows properly for that large feedback response, the feedback fraction becomes considerably less than current estimates. From the corrected, lower value of the pre-industrial feedback fraction, we derive first a transient sensitivity and then an equilibrium sensitivity.

        To verify that result, we operate a second, distinct method, this time empirical and, therefore, based on the period since 1850, for which data such as a global temperature record are available. Here, we derive transient sensitivity and then equilibrium sensitivity by a comparison between the industrial-era direct warming (before accounting for feedbacks) that corresponds to IPCC’s estimate of 2.29 Watts per square meter net anthropogenic forcing to 2011 and the observed global warming over the same period. It is really as simple as that. We wanted to keep it simple, if we could, so that as many as possible would be able to understand our argument. That element in our approach seems to be working.

        There will be further pieces in this series, if strength permits (for I am very unwell at present). These pieces will explain in more depth some of the concepts that commenters here are finding difficult, and, as with the current head posting, we shall take into account any adjustments that those comments properly suggest we should make.

  14. “Rud goes on to point out that, as several papers show, the CMIP5 models produce about half the observed rainfall, implying that the modeled water-vapor feedback is double the true value.”

    I don’t thin k it is true (half), but anyway it certainly doesn’t carry that implication. There is no rule that says rainfall is proportional to humidity.

    • Another interesting question is whether the exponential growth in the atmospheric burden of water vapor that is found in, say, Wentz (2007) is occurring in reality. A commenter here says James Hansen shut down the GISS water-vapor monitoring project in 2009 because there was not much evidence of such growth. If such growth is not unmistakably evident, it could be that increased precipitation is a homoeostatic process tending to keep the atmospheric burden of water vapor near-constant.

      Another interesting question: is the exponentiality of the feedback process offset by a logarithmicity in the radiative effect? The CO2 forcing is approximately logarithmic within the interval of interest; is the water-vapor feedback forcing likewise approximately logarithmic? I only ask because I want to know.

      • Water vapor generation may be dominated by wind. The relationship might be near exponential to average wind velocity. The failure of water vapor to rise with temperature, as expected, might be due to the lack of significant change in the earths winds.

      • Monckton of Brenchley March 30, 2018 at 6:03 am
        Another interesting question is whether the exponential growth in the atmospheric burden of water vapor that is found in, say, Wentz (2007) is occurring in reality. A commenter here says James Hansen shut down the GISS water-vapor monitoring project in 2009 because there was not much evidence of such growth. If such growth is not unmistakably evident, it could be that increased precipitation is a homoeostatic process tending to keep the atmospheric burden of water vapor near-constant

        You shouldn’t believe everything you read on blogs!
        Here’s a link to the current NASA water-monitoring project:
        https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV

      • Phil,

        That’s not GISS’ water vapor-monitoring project. NASA is still observing our planet’s water vapor, but GISS isn’t. NASA has various components. GISS itself should be shut down. I’m disappointed that Trump hasn’t done so.

      • “That’s not GISS’ water vapor-monitoring project”
        So what is this supposed GISS project that was supposedly closed in 2007? This project linked by Phil., AFAIK, is the only one NASA has had, and as you can see, it has run from 2002 to present.

      • I have visited the NASA water vapor page mentioned by “Phil.” The page states not that the burden of water vapor is inexorably increasing but that “The most noticeable pattern in the time series is the influence of seasonal temperature changes and incoming sunlight on water vapor.”

    • Nick, over on Climate Etc I just cited three of the AR4 papers footnoted in The Arts of Truth, plus both essays in ebook Vlowing Smoke that carry those findings into AR5. You want to play hwre, at least do your literature homework like I have.

      • Rud,
        “Nick, over on Climate Etc I just cited three of the AR4 papers footnoted”
        The conventional thing is to cite details where you claim. But OK, I did some homework. And as I expected, they don’t say anything like what you claim, which was, per MoB
        “Rud goes on to point out that, as several papers show, the CMIP5 models produce about half the observed rainfall, implying that the modeled water-vapor feedback is double the true value”
        What Wentz says is quite different. I’ll quote (wish more people would):
        “Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the
        atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate
        models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. . A
        recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of
        precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total
        atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades.

        Earth’s surface warmed by 0.2 K decade–1 during this period,and hence the observed changes in E and P suggest an acceleration in the hydrologic cycle of about 6% K–1 , close to the C-C value. I”

        So, it isn’t half the observed rainfall, which would be unbelievable. He is talking about the rate of increase, not the amount. And the paradox, if any, is that the models are underpredicting rainfall increase. But it says that they got the total water vapor about right. And that is what determines feedback.

      • From Wentz (2007), it seems that the observed rate of increase in precipitation is between twice and seven times the rate predicted in the models. This may be one reason why so few datasets show the model-predicted tropical mid-troposphere hot spot.

        But let us suppose that the water vapor feedback and, therefore, the feedback sum is 1.6 Watts per square meter per Kelvin, as IPCC (2013) finds it to be. Then the feedback fraction is 1.6 / 3.2, or 0.5, as IPCC shows in its table of feedbacks. In that event, equilibrium sensitivity is 3.5 / 3.2 / (1 – 0.5), or 2.2 K, scarcely above the 2 K low-end estimate of the CMIP3/5 models. But is the feedback fraction really at all likely to be as high as 0.5? On our theoretical analysis based on pre-industrial temperature, we think not.

      • Nick says, “So, it isn’t half the observed rainfall, which would be unbelievable. He is talking about the rate of increase, not the amount. And the paradox, if any, is that the models are underpredicting rainfall increase. But it says that they got the total water vapor about right. And that is what determines feedback.”

        Rainfall = precipitation
        precipitation = negative forcing

        If the rate of increase of precipitation is underpredicted (underprojected?) by the models does that not constitute a major problem calling the results of the models into question?

        While the models may have the water vapor concentration “right” it is disingenuous to ignore the cooling effect of precipitation. Clearly a flaw which has to have a significant effect on the value of these models’ determination of feedback. If precipitation is increasing, that is an increase in a negative feedback, is it not?

      • Mr Stalewski makes a fair point. Since measured precipitation is increasing at up to 7 times the models’ predictions, one inevitable consequence is that the additional precipitation will tend somewhat to diminish the precipitable column water vapor and consequently to reduce the water vapor feedback. It is already apparent that the IPCC had overestimated the water vapor feedback. Indeed, there has been little net increase in column water vapor or specific humidity throughout the period of record and, in the vital mid-troposphere, where more water vapor might actually make a difference to global temperature, there has if anything been something of a decline, in stark contrast to the predicted mid-troposphere “hot spot”, which is not found to be present except in one (or perhaps two) suspect databases.

  15. MOB, one nit:

    “Emission temperature would obtain at the Earth’s surface if there were no non-condensing greenhouse gases or feedbacks present.”

    Should probably be more correctly stated as follows:

    “Emission temperature would obtain at the Earth’s surface if there were no greenhouse gases or feedbacks present.”

    This will avoid any related circular arguments about the feedback being “baked in,” since what you are defining is the blackbody radiation temperature absent feedbacks, i.e., it does not encompass ANY “greenhouse gases” (not *just* the “non-condensing” variety) or feedbacks whatsoever.

    • A fairish point from AGW is not Science: my own formulation was intended to preserve the distinction between the non-condensing GHGs (which exert forcings) and water vapor (which is the agent of a feedback).

      • Except that there is zero difference conceptually between water vapours and CO2. COT do0es not ‘force’. It is a feedback in its own right, expressed as a forcing for mathematical convenience.

        The presence of CO2 and indeed water vapour lowers the effective emission temperature of the earth as a whole, by reflecting or re-emitting radiation that would otherwise radiate to space.

        The only realise to additionally call water vapour ‘positive feedback’ is on account if the erroneous and refuted hypothesis that as temperature rises, more water vapour (but not more cloud) will be present in the air.

        The T^4 term is the most massive negative feedback term in global temperature. I suspect the water cycle is the next most significant.

        Water feedback is not positive, its negative. Cloud tops cool and it rains or snows cold stuff. Clouds INCREASE the radiation temperature of the earth and INCREASE its albedo.

        For sure the IPCC is operating on a broken model, but Christopher, with respect, I think you are, too.

        I think we will find in the end that climate change as its understood by the warmistas, is in fact a localised phenomena in time and in place.

        Imagine this is the atmosphere:

        And like the beaker, its heated from below by sunlight falling on the surface.

        What you see are chaotic circulations patterns as localised lumps of ‘hot’ are displaced by falling bits of ‘cold’ with the whole think held more or less in a constant temperature by what in this case is the massive feedback of the latent heat of evaporation, and, in the atmospheres case, is the t^4 term Plus a bit of latent heat on evaporation as well.

        Now add in the complexity of geography, where oceans and currents have limited scope to operate, and mountains that divert atmospheric flows and cause precipitation, and you have more than enough complex non linear variables to account for everything observed.

        Remember it is not necessary to show how and why climate varies, merely to show that the process is not dominated by man made CO2. The temperature record alone shows that.

        Once that is demonstrated and becomes accepted by the political classes, all the bad consequences of climate change – renewable energy etc etc – vanish.

        There remains only the case for ‘Be prepared’ for uncontrolled and uncontrollable NATURAL climate change.

      • If by our actions we burn coal, oil and gas and thus return to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that was present in former times, then we are forcing the climate. This is called the “CO2 forcing”.

        If, on the other hand, that forces cases warming, and the warming raises the temperature of the upper or mixed stratum of the ocean, then by Henry’s Law CO2 will be outgassed from the ocean, and this is the “CO2 feedback”, though it is remarkably difficult to quantify.

    • Dear Mr Andrews, – Many thanks for your kind comments. I did some elementary physics at school, and a lot of math since, but the value of our argument is that it is comprehensible to anyone with high-school math and a little determination.

      • With respect, no, it isn’t.

        I find it muddled and not very clear, and playing fast and loose with the concept and mathematics of feedback and lacking a clear understanding of the difference between mathematical models of convenience and the reality of physical processes in so far as that has meaning anyway.

        However its perfectly delightful Counter BS to go up against the IPCC BS.

  16. “Transient climate sensitivity, the warming expected to occur immediately in response to a forcing. The chief reason for the difference is the delay occasioned by the vast heat-sink that is the ocean.”

    But in reality the AMO acts as a negative feedback to changes in indirect solar forcing. So does ENSO, a period of weak solar wind will drive El Nino conditions, as will major volcanic aerosol events. That puts a spanner in the works of a positive TCS.

      • On what basis do you assert that I am not correct, the popular assumption that ENSO and the AMO are internal variability and unforced?
        Low solar increases negative AO/NAO, which drives a warm AMO, and negative AO/NAO is directly associated with slower trade winds.

      • Yogi Bear appears not to understand that transient and equilibrium sensitivities are derived on the basis that there is no natural variability, or that, if there is, it is canceled out. Natural variability affects the real climate, but it does not affect the derivation of climate sensitivities. We are not looking at regional events in the short term, but global events in the long.

      • “Yogi Bear appears not to understand that transient and equilibrium sensitivities are derived on the basis that there is no natural variability, or that, if there is, it is canceled out.”

        Of course I understand that with assuming that the ocean cycles are internal variability, that they should amount to zero sum in the long term.

        “Natural variability affects the real climate, but it does not affect the derivation of climate sensitivities.”

        I contend that ENSO and the AMO function as negative feedbacks to solar variability. That would have a devastating effect on the perceived non-condensing ECS margins. It also gives a frame of reference for how weak rising CO2 forcing must be, as that should in theory inhibit AMO warming by increasing positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, like stronger solar states do.

        “We are not looking at regional events in the short term, but global events in the long.”

        ENSO has global impacts, the S Hem has a strong AMO signal.

      • Yogi Bear can “contend” anything he wants. However, the basis on which the head posting is written is that everything in official climatology is accepted except what we can prove to be erroneous. This thread, therefore, is not the place for alternative theories, however interesting. In official climatology it is a matter of definition – and a common-sense one at that – that natural variability is excluded when deriving climate sensitivities to anthropogenic influences.

      • “In official climatology it is a matter of definition – and a common-sense one at that – that natural variability is excluded when deriving climate sensitivities to anthropogenic influences.”

        It’s a matter of deception stating that the AMO cycle is purely internal without understanding what causes it.

      • Yogi Bear still has not gotten the point. We have accepted all of official climatology for the sake of argument, except where we are able to demonstrate an error. If Yogi Bear wishes to write a paper on his theory and submit it to a learned journal, he is entitled to do so. But his opinions on whether the ocean oscillations ought to be treated in a manner different from their current treatment in climate-sensitivity studies is simply irrelevant here, and is beginning to acquire the characteristics of a deliberate diversion.

  17. I hate throw a wet blanket on this “CO2 is a blanket just not a big, thick, hairy one” theory of climate, but the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide is actually zero. Don’t become flummoxed by the fluxes up, down, whatever…….In a free and open convective atmosphere CO2 cannot trap heat. Read @nikolovscience

    • One of my favorite descriptions of this is “Attempting to “trap” heat with CO2 is like trying to “trap” mice with a chain-link fence.”

    • Minarchist, comments like yours are what give skeptics a bad name. Don’be ridiculous about a basic GHG fact shown experimentally by Tyndall in 1859.

      • Tyndall did no such thing. In his 1861 paper he confused absorption with opacity. He also held the mistaken notion of luminous ether. You are just falling for the propaganda of Spencer Weart and the revisionist history contained in his paper “The Discovery of Global Warming”.

      • In 1859 Tyndall empirically demonstrated that some gases could warm by absorbing LWIR. In 1860 he empirically demonstrates the same gases could cool by emitting LWIR.

        These experiments while valid, say nothing about the net effect of these gases in our atmosphere. Tyndall’s work is not empirical evidence of an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.

        To date there has been no empirical verification of Fourier’s 1820’s calculation that the Sun alone could only heat the surface materials of this planet to a temperature around 30 degrees below our current average.

      • No, he has a real point.

        If we look at heating from below, convection carries warm air/water vapour above the level where CO2 can ‘re -radiate’ escaping heat backwards

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/effective-emission-height/

        gives a decent explanation of the complexities involved.

        Since a large amount of heat is radiated from heights over 10,000 feet where already the atmosphere is getting much thinner, CO2 will have far less of an effect.

        “The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km” says wiki.

        shows that decent thunderheads will easily match that, taking cloud top radiation well above most CO2

        THis is what one fines all over ‘warmista’ science’ Facts are there, but are totally ignored, like the one I keep going on about, that thermally induced feedback MUST respond identically to increased CO2 ‘forcing’ as to major volcanic eruptions. And yet the science doesn’t treat these the same.

      • Come off it ristvan. Analogies are never very good. This one on parr with the greenhouse Analogy; so best not to throw stones.

        Meanwhile the clouds shoot up through the chain links with lots of energy to dissipate into space. OK — Another trite remark.
        Cheers.

      • The exchanges immediately above the present comment demonstrate why I have taken the strict approach of accepting ad argumentum everything in climate science that I cannot disprove. That allows the discussion to be focused on the errors we say we have identified. Chief among these is the failure of official climatology to accord due weight to the large feedback response to emission temperature.

  18. Yogi Bear makes the valuable point that there are a number of thermostatic processes in the climate. It is not clear that the general-circulation models take these processes sufficiently into account. For instance, Willis Eschenbach, in his incomparable series of data studies, has found clear evidence of a thermostatic feedback in the one place that really matters – the tropics. As the equatorial zone warms, tropical afternoon convection (i.e., some of the most spectacular thunderstorms on Earth) occurs earlier in the afternoon than before, tending to keep the surface cooler. I do not know to what extent the models take account of the Eschenbach phenomenon, but I suspect they don’t represent it properly – or many others like it.

    • The big feedback in the tropics is the drop in cloud cover since the mid 1990’s. Which is popularly misconstrued as a positive feedback.

    • CMoB, they do not account for it at all. The grid cells in CMIP5 are farmto large to model convective processes. These are parameterized, then tuned to best hindcast. See my guest post here some years ago, The Trouble with Models, for details and illustrations.

      • Mr Istvan draws attention to one of the fundamental problems not only with the models but also with the datasets. The Argo bathythermographs from which the planetary energy imbalance is derived, for instance, each cover an area of ocean the size of Lake Superior with the equivalent of a single measurement less than once a year. Many of the processes that drive the climate are sub-grid scale. But if the grid became well-enough resolved to encompass those processes, the computation time would become excessive. That is why modeling the climate has severe limitations that the modelers themselves find it profitable seldom to discuss, except when asking for more taxpayers’ money for the next generation of supercomputer.

  19. “and the emission temperature of 255 K that would prevail today in the absence of greenhouse gases”

    You cannot have 0.3 albedo with no clouds. Your dry Earth black-body temperature is 279K.
    Though that figure (394K*0.25^0.25 = 278.6K) is unphysical as the Earth is heated only on one side and not uniformly. The real forcing figure is an average 394K*0.5^0.25 = 331.3K for the sunlit side, and zero for the dark side. That’s why the Moon is such a cold mistress, nothing to do with its slow rotation as many would like to believe.

    • The speed of rotation plays a role whenever something is not a blackbody.

      If there was perfect instantaneous response (as there is with a genuine blackbody), it would not matter how quickly the body rotates.

      The issue is what impact does the speed of rotation have?

      It would be interesting to look at Mars, since this rotates at a similar speed to Earth. I have not found good evidence on this, but the following is of some interest:

      Temperatures swing by as much as 58 degrees Fahrenheit (32 kelvins) in this odd, twice-a-day pattern on the planet Mars.

      Researchers using NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have found that temperatures in the Martian atmosphere regularly rise and fall not just once each day, but twice.

      See: http://earthsky.org/space/temps-in-mars-atmosphere-mars-rise-and-fall-twice-a-day

      • But in practice the average temperature of the black body is half of 331.3K and not 279K whether it is rotating or not.

      • “The issue is what impact does the speed of rotation have?”

        The big issue is what impact do the thermal reservoirs have? Ocean surfaces barely cool at night, the 850mb level of the atmosphere barely cools at night.

    • “You cannot have 0.3 albedo with no clouds. Your dry Earth black-body temperature is 279K.”
      Yes ! I always like to ask, “Where did all that cooling come from?” :-)

      Apparently what Lacis does is implicitly introduces the water and a low enough temperature that he gets the albedo governed by the surface contribution of the solid phases of water. How all that solid phase appeared is an unanswered matter.

      • Lacis may overlooked a critical aspect of atmospheric physics, that having only 10% of current levels of atmospheric water vapour, would increase the amount of solar irradiance reaching Earth’s surface, because water vapour absorbs considerable amounts of solar near infrared.

    • In response to Yogi Bear, I consider the 255 K emission temperature that is standard throughout paper after paper after paper after paper in the learned literature of climatology is incorrect. probably very much on the low side. But I cannot yet quite prove it. So I am accepting this value, like many others, purely for the sake of argument. Even if that value is correct (and I think it should be some 19 K higher), then we can demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial.

      • Mr Verney raises the legitimate question why 1850 is taken as the beginning of the industrial era in our calculations. The reason is that anthropogenic influence, though theoretically possible from 1750 on, was negligible before 1850, and we have a global dataset of surface temperature from 1850. As far as possible we have tried to base our result on the available data.

      • “then we can demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial.”

        Within that irrational frame of reference you most likely can indicate that.

      • As Yogi Bear will learn if he ever does any science, it is necessary to try to compare the longest possible datasets that cover the same period. That is the frame of reference within which every scientist will try to operate.

      • Monckton says:
        “.. if he ever does any science..”

        You are blind to the physics of what you are trying to model with maths. I offered you science and you talked around it and denied it. By insisting that the oceans are only heat sink and not a heat source (on your last post). By asserting that natural climate variability is internal. And you haven’t directly challenged my comment above at March 30, 2018 at 6:18 am.

      • Yogi Bear continues to take a regrettably intemperate and unscientific approach. I did not insist that the oceans are only a heat sink: I explained carefully, politely and on several occasions that in the head posting I had accepted all of official climatology for the sake of argument. The ocean is a heat sink to the atmosphere but is also to a far smaller extent a heat source for the atmosphere insofar as it transmits magmatic heat upward via overturning.

      • “Yogi Bear continues to take a regrettably intemperate and unscientific approach.”

        No at all, I introduced you to the elephant in the room. Oceans are a huge heat source every night, their surfaces barely cool, due to nigh time convection in the upper ocean.

      • Someday I must take Yogi Bear to Earth, where he will see that the ocean surface warms during the day and cools during the night. However, elementary calculations indicate that the change in temperature of the first five meters of ocean depth, ttreated as a slab, is not that great from day to night and back again. It is simply irrelevant to the climate-sensitivity calculation. Of more interest is the extent to which the upper or “mixed” stratum of the ocean (in this case a rather thicker slab) is warming owing to the fact that the atmosphere above it has been made warmer by greenhouse-gas emissions. This warming is measured (albeit sparsely, inadequately and with very large errors) by the ARGO bathythermograph buoys, and the measured temperature change is then converted to a change in ocean heat content.

      • “It is simply irrelevant to the climate-sensitivity calculation.”

        It’s not the atmospheric greenhouse effect which keeps the ocean surface warm at night. Keep thinking about the night time convection until the penny drops.

        “Someday I must take Yogi Bear to Earth, where he will see that the ocean surface warms during the day and cools during the night.”

        Maybe you should come back to Earth now and read what I wrote above.

        Tropical sea surface diurnal temperature:

      • Yogi, and those temps are why the increase in co2 has little impact on positive feedback over the oceans, and it has little impact over land because there little free standing water to evaporate.

  20. Whilst not joining issue with the theoretical approach that is the heart of your paper, and whilst I consider that feedbacks kick in as soon as temperature is raised above 3K, being the background temperature of space, which is essentially the non solar driven temperature of planet Earth, why take the starting point as 1850? Is using this date not simply curve fitting?

    For example, why not start the empirical exercise at the peak of the Holocene, or RWP or MWP? If we did this, a different conclusion would be reached.

    We are often told that the MWP was not global, but that assertion is not based upon evidence establishing that it did not exist in the Southern Hemisphere, but merely because there is an absence of evidence in the Southern Hemisphere for its existence. The drawing of conclusions from the absence of evidence is so typical of climate science

    However, there is an absence of evidence in the Southern Hemisphere generally because it is largely ocean or Antarctica. This is why Phil Jones, in the Climategate emails, was spot on with his forthright comment to the effect that the Southern Hemispheres temperatures are largely made up. In his 1980 paper he was not quite so forthright and merely noted that the position with the Southern Hemisphere was uncertain, due to lack of historic data and poor spatial coverage. Hansen in his 1981 paper essentially concurred with Phil Jones with regard to the uncertainties surrounding the Southern Hemisphere.

    The reality is that the data covering the Southern Hemisphere is so poor that we should be working only with the Northern Hemisphere. That being the case, why don’t we look at the position as from the MWP say using using data from the Greenland ice cores? On that basis, there would appear to be no empirical evidence that CO2 has done anything.

    PS, I understand fully the solum ad argumentum point, and I am merely pointing out so much of climate science is nothing more than curve fitting and does not withstand hard scientific scrutiny. Until we can fully explain the natural climate, we cannot even begin to assess whether there is some anthropogenic factor now in operation.

    • “…I am merely pointing out so much of climate science is nothing more than curve fitting …” – Not so much as fitting the curve to the data, as fitting the data to the curve…

    • “Until we can fully explain the natural climate, we cannot even begin to assess whether there is some anthropogenic factor now in operation.”

      THIS is the crux of what the “climate science” discussion should be about. We can’t explain the natural climate, and we do not have knowledge of all of the forces which impact it, nor enough information of sufficient quality over an adequate period of time to quantify the effects of all of those forces. So suggesting that with all of these open questions we can suddenly deduce a human influence, which must by definition be minuscule compared to natural forces which have caused much greater changes (and at greater rates) in the past, is ludicrous.

      • But that would be an unemotional discussion of science and that type of discussion does not attract very much grant money. As I suspect, no matter what the truth is, there will always be someone who declares “not it isn’t” and there will always be people ready to donate to that cause or whatever cause they believe will benefit them the most.

      • In response to Tom in Florida, if it can be proven – as we say we have proven – that official climatology is in formal error, and that that error is significant enough that, if corrected, it leaves no reasonably foreseeable climate crisis, then that is the end of the matter, and no amount of totalitarian bullying will change that.

    • R Verney, Your point is important to keep in mind. I often forget that the AGW alarmists chose it, thus setting the stage for their success until now. However, for the purposes of the subject of this article, using the 1850 starting point was necessary.

    • The reality is that this is a war for the soul of the industrialized West and we are discussing which of our awesome tank designs to put into production while the other side is advancing with computerized sticks and stones.
      It is politics, there is no supportable science in AGW.

    • (Comment repeated from above, where WordPress’ eccentric thread-management software placed it): Mr Verney raises the legitimate question why 1850 is taken as the beginning of the industrial era in our calculations. The reason is that anthropogenic influence, though theoretically possible from 1750 on, was negligible before 1850, and we have a global dataset of surface temperature from 1850. As far as possible we have tried to base our result on the available data

    • ” why take the starting point as 1850″
      It doesn’t matter. The computation is basically ΔT/ΔF. It could be for any period; the longer the better (hence 1850, though I think 1880 would cut out unreliable data with little loss). The issue is whether you get the same result regardless of period. For the primitive calculation, definitely not. For the modified calculation of Effective Climate Sensitivity, where the denominator is ΔF-ΔQ, Q heat flux into the ocean, there is a better chance.

      • Mr Stokes continues – now, I fear, wilfully – to ignore the fact that we have reached our result by two distinct methods. The theoretical method, based on the period up to 1850, recalculates the feedback fraction, and hence transient and equilibrium sensitivities, on the basis that the large feedback response to emission temperature must not be misallocated and tacked on erroneously to the feedback response to the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. The empirical method simply compares the direct warming that would be expected from the 2.29 Watts per square meter of net anthropogenic forcing to 2011 (IPCC, 2013, Fig. SPM.5) with the observed warming to 2011, adjusted for the measured energy imbalance to 2010 (Smith 2015). Knowing these two values, one may derive the feedback fraction and then compare it with the pre-1850 feedback fraction.

  21. So what possible mechanism is there for a static temperature to induce a feedback?

    Any temperature above 0 K implies a certain amount of energy in the system.
    All the feedbacks are about energy as both input as well as output (even though people speek about that in ‘temperature’ inputs and outputs).
    So in that way a given ‘static temperature’ can have a feedback. Obviously due to that feedback it is no longer ‘static’.

    Now some of the feedback may only start above a certain limit (and until yet another physical limit). But after that point there is no discrimination whether the energy has recently been inputted or was already there.

    Indeed the water vapor feedback can only start after a certain temperature, although even well below freezing ice can emit water vapor. And even when the average global temperature is say 0 °C (273.15 K) then there will be a large area of open water and local temperatures quite a bit above 0 °C.
    So we may expect water vapor to be created in large amounts at least in the tropics even when the average global temperature is quite a bit below 0 °C. And only after water vapor comes into the atmosphere we can get clouds.
    At what (local) temperature water starts to evaporate depends also on (local) pressure in the atmosphere.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Phase_diagram_of_water_simplified.svg

    • It is not static. One only has to look at the quiet sun, or at solar insolation variance caused by orbital changes (including tilt variations) to know that the temperature of this planet is not static.

      The increase in the output of the sun over time has obviously caused whatever feedbacks to temperature existing in the system, to kick in. As soon as this planet had oceans, there was water vapour feedback since there would always have been water vapour in the atmosphere..

      I consider the claims that there was a snowball Earth to be incredulous. There is huge amounts of energy going into the equatorial and tropical oceans, especially if there be less cloudiness to obscure incoming solar irradiance, such that the chance that that region would freeze over is extremely unlikely. Further, it is likely that oceanic currents would in this scenario not move as much heat content polewards rendering even less likely that there would have been a complete snowball Earth.

    • Mr Titulaer’s comment is most helpful. What is not generally realized is that feedback processes do not care at what point the input signal commenced: they respond to its current amplitude.

  22. The effort required to unravel the errors woven in to the climate models as discussed above reminds me of the following line from my file of tag lines and smart remarks:

    Never underestimate the power of carefully worded nonsense.

  23. Global warming is a multi trillion dollar carbon trading scam protected by a some very high status (climate science) liars. Arguing about the science is a complete waste of time.No one cares.

    The IPCC AR1 diagram with the medieval warm period intact is all you need.

  24. A discussion between Gavin Schmidt and Roger Pielke Senior was unable to find agreement on the most basic aspects of the so called science. No one knows.

  25. “Christopher’s claim that the Earth’s effective radiating temperature (ERT) to outer space (around 255 K) itself causes a “feedback” makes no sense to me, because it isn’t (nor does it represent) a “forcing”. Feedbacks, by the climate definition, are only in response to forced departures from energy equilibrium.” – Dr. Roy Spencer

    Got to believe in magic or game over said The Lord of the Rings

    • In reply to “Dr Strangelove”, the simple answer to Dr Spencer is that, with respect, a feedback is denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. It is thus a forcing proportional to the temperature (or temperature change, which is also a temperature) that induced it. Dr Spencer is right that the definition of a “feedback” in climatology has been artfully drawn so as to exclude the possibility of a feedback response to a temperature that is not a temperature change, but the feedback mathematics, as well as our test rigs, demonstrate quite clearly that a feedback will respond not only to an amplification of a pre-existing temperature but also to that pre-existing temperature itself.

  26. “Equilibrium sensitivity, the warming expected to occur within a policy-relevant timeframe once the climate has resettled to equilibrium after perturbation by a radiative forcing (such as doubled CO2 concentration) and after all temperature feedbacks of sub-decadal duration have aced, may be somewhat larger than”

    Should be “acted” I believe.

  27. WUWT at its finest. Glad to have made a small confirmatory contribution to such an important paper and finding. Hoghest regards to CMoB.

  28. Clarification, from a previous thread, now closed.

    ALLAN MACRAE March 22, 2018 at 1:26 pm
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-2772149

    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.
    ____________________________

    Monckton of Brenchley March 24, 2018 at 1:11 pm
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-2773812

    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.
    ___________________________

    Allan MacRae again:

    Thank you Lord Monckton for your reply, which I just saw today. We are agreed on my points a and b, so let’s discuss point c:

    My point c was a mathematical observation – that IF significant global cooling occurs and since your assumption (ad argumentum) was that all temperature change was driven by CO2 (which probably would continue to increase, albeit at a lower rate), then your calculation of Chaney sensitivity for this cooling period could indeed be negative. In fact, I made a rough calculation of this Charney sensitivity (using the same assumptions as Christy and McNider 2017) for the cooling period from ~1940 to ~1977 and it was MINUS 1C/(2xCO2).

    Your further comment about point c is that you believe that “On balance, I expect around 1.2 K warming this century, on the assumption that there are no significant efforts to abate CO2 emissions.”

    Although I have great respect for Dr. Svalgaard, my opinion is that naturally-caused global cooling will commence sometime within 2020-2030, as I (we) predicted in an article published in 2002. My cooling prediction is based on the probability of two consecutive weak solar cycles SC24 and SC25, and my opinion that the impact of the integral of solar activity on climate is greater than expected by many respected solar scientists.

    I hope that you are correct about future warming and I am wrong about future cooling, because humanity and the environment both suffer during cooling periods.

    Finally, I fully agree with your final statement:
    “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.”

    … and I am confident that Charney sensitivity does NOT exceed 1.2C/(2xCO2).

    Best personal regards, Allan MacRae. P.Eng.

    • It’s probably wise for all of us to realize that the politicians will move on once AGW is revealed to be nonsense. Unfortunately, the actual people and forces that created the monster will always be with us.
      Science may be safer for a time but civilization itself will always be at risk from those for whom truth is relative.

      • John Harmsworth wrote:
        “It’s probably wise for all of us to realize that the politicians will move on once AGW is revealed to be nonsense.”

        True John, and I suggest the politicians are already moving on. Global warming alarmism is a clear hypothesis that states “increased atmospheric CO2 will cause dangerous global warming”. As such, it can be disproved and it already has been disproved by credible evidence of very low TCS and ECS.

        So they moved the goalposts to “climate change”, which is an unclear hypothesis that cannot be disproved – it is whatever the alarmists say it is – it is in fact unscientific nonsense, the prattling of imbeciles.

        More goalpost moving, now the hypo is “sustainability”. Again, more unscientific nonsense, it is whatever the alarmists claim it is, to frighten the gullible and fearful, who live in a constant climate of fear.

    • In response to Mr MacRae, if internal variability or a decline in solar activity causes cooling when otherwise warming would be expected, that does not in any way alter the calculation of equilibrium sensitivity, which assumes that the climate would otherwise be in a steady state.

      • Agreed Sir, but if you ASSUME (ad argumentum) that ALL temperature change is due to increasing atm. CO2, and CO2 increases while temperature falls, you will calculate a negative value for climate sensitivity.

        This does not mean that climate sensitivity is truly negative; rather it is an outcome of your input assumption.

      • Mr MacRae has not understood the matter. If there is a period of cooling, then our method of verifying our original result will show a somewhat lower climate sensitivity than formerly, but that is all.

  29. @ Dr. Strangelove

    I think I already corrected the good doctor on this:

    “Christopher’s claim that the Earth’s effective radiating temperature (ERT) to outer space (around 255 K) itself causes a “feedback” makes no sense to me, because it isn’t (nor does it represent) a “forcing”. Feedbacks, by the climate definition, are only in response to forced departures from energy equilibrium.” – Dr. Roy Spencer

    Got to believe in magic or game over said The Lord of the Rings

    It does not matter how one calls it, it matters what the physical process is.
    It is all a matter of energy. Energy that is an external input into the system and any internal feedback mechanisms.
    Any process that does react to energy must react to both newly added extra energy as well as energy already in the system.

    I do not care what you call forcing, be it the radiation input from the sun or as a result of the creation of CO2. Things like any internal feedback (using the official physics term) is also called a feedback by climate science. Anyways how you call it does not matter. What matters is physics, which means energy, radiation, pressure, evaporation etc etc.

    Because it is about energy a starting point of 0 K makes sense. Any level above that means there is energy in the system and we do not discriminate between energy (already there) and energy (inputted from outside) and energy (lost to the outside),

    If you believe that any process which reacts to energy (say evaporation) can or does discriminate between energy already there and energy recently added to the same system, then you believe in magic.

      • In reply to “Dr Strangelove”, Mr Titulaer is correct. Like it or not, climatology measures feedbacks in Watts per square meter per Kelvin (Kelvin being the measure of temperature). Therefore, temperatrue feedbacks in conventional climatology are feedbacks to temperature. If “Dr Strangelove” does not like that, he should take the matter up with the IPCC secretariat (secretariat@IPCC.ch), and not with me. I have stated explicitly, in the head posting, that for the sake of argument I am accepting all of official climatology except where I can prove that official climatology is in error.

    • “It does not matter how one calls it, it matters what the physical process is. It is all a matter of energy.”

      Then you must agree with me and disagree with The Lord of the Rings. Temperature is not energy, it is matter’s response to heat energy. The feedback equation should use energy flux (W/m^2). There’s no temperature change in latent heat flow. You can double both the energy inflow and outflow without changing temperature because it’s in thermal equilibrium. Temperature and energy are not the same thing.

      • “Dr Strangelove” continues to argue not against me but against official climatology, which, whether he likes it or not, denominates feedbacks in Watts per square meter of the originating temperature (or temperature change). There is really no point in his trying to persuade me otherwise, because for the purposes of the present exercise I am accepting all of official climatology, right or wrong, for the sake of argument (but without warranty) except where I can demonstrate formally that official climatology is incorrect.

        if “Dr Strangelove” wants to recalculate everything in Watts per square meter per Watt per square meter, or in skerfuffles per gloopazoid, that is a matter for him. But climatology uses Watts per square meter per Kelvin, so that is what we have used in the head posting. Get over it, and move on.

      • Yes indeed, the energies are in W m-2. And temperature and energy are of course not the same thing.
        But they (IPCC et.al.) decided to formulate their feedback formulas in W m-2 K-1.
        As in ΔTs=−R/λ where R is a ‘forcing’ in W m-2 and λ the ‘climate feedback’ parameter (in W m-2 K-1 obviously).
        Strictly speaking it is just that parameter which is in W m-2 K-1, defined that way in order to get K in the answer. In the mean time any actual physical feedback must work in the real energy world (in W m-2).
        At some point one has to convert back to be able to talk to the climate scientists in their world (and they like to hear things in temperatures).

        LOL, they live in a different world! So that’s what you meant by magic? :)

        Joking aside, I do not mind that they (try to) convert back into what it means in ΔT, i.e. in Kelvin.
        That doesn’t mean that feedback in a system suddenly behaves differently. So there we do seem to agree.

        [ And I agree that some of the IPCC (et.al.) choices may be a bit unfortunate, but I think the idea in this exercise is to simply keep everything as similar as to how IPCC (et.al.) defined it. ]

  30. Personally, I think there is a huge problem relating W/M^2 to temperature. The Thermosphere is “hot” yet an astronaut would freeze to death and water would freeze in it. The lower atmosphere is saturated with H2O relative to CO2, so CO2’s impact is irrelevant. CO2 is the equivalent of taking an aspirin for pain after taking a huge shot of morphine. It is meaningless. Glaciers wouldn’t melt in the Thermosphere where CO2 is the dominant GHG.

    Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
    In any serious scientific experiment, efforts are made to “control” for as many exogenous factors as possible. The whole purpose is to isolate the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable. ΔWeightloss = ΔCaloric Intake + ΔExercise + ΔBase Metabolism + error. To minimize the error of the model (maximize explanatory power), variables outside … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/isolating-the-contribution-of-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/

    • Like CO2islife, I too have many personal opinions about the climate. But, in the present research, we have taken the deliberate decision to accept, for the sake of argument, all of official climatology except what we can disprove. If CO2islife does not like the fact that official climatology expresses a feedback as a forcing proportional to the temperature that induces it, he should take the matter up not with me but with official climatology.

      • Lord Monckton, please don’t take my comments as critical. I greatly appreciate and admire your work. You are doing Yeoman’s work. My one concern is that Climate Alarmists can produce far far far more garbage than you and an entire team of researchers could debunk.Truth doesn’t matter to the Climate Alarmists, they are focused on Sophistry, not Science. Their objective is to produce plausible arguments that will win in the arena of public opinion and politics. Climate alarmists don’t rely on classical science and the scientific method, reproducibility, and experimentation, they rely on computer models, “theories” and “peer review.” How can you defeat arguments like “consensus” and “peer review” when the system is rigged? They just get Michael Mann to claim some nonsense, state that it is peer-reviewed, and therefore the “consensus.” That is science by authority, it is anti-science. If you look at the trial in San Francisco, pay attention to what the Judge Focused on. He didn’t focus on the minutia, he focused on the big pictures CO2 can’t explain. In my opinion, there is no way these highly scientific arguments would ever work in a court of law, they, in fact, work to confuse the issue and play into the climate alarmists strategy. By directing all the attention at the minutia, it opens the door for the Climate Alarmists to tie up the trial arguing over points that even if won, won’t change the outcome of the trial. Winning battles over minutia will end up losing the war. Remember in real science you only need to find one experiment to unseat the status quo, you only need one example to reject the null. The problem is, the judge and jury need to be able to understand that one experiment. That is why I focus on simple examples that the Climate Alarmists can’t explain. 1) Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is disappearing, but there is no evidence of warming at that altitude and location. The Climategate emails expose the Climate Alarmists know it is due to sublimation, not CO2. Simply ask the Judge to have the CLimate Alarmist explain how a glacier can “MELT” is sub-zero temperatures. 2) The oceans are warming, CO2’s only mechanism by which to affect climate change is through thermalizing LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. Those wavelengths won’t warm H2O 3) MODTRAN demonstrates that CO2 doesn’t impact the energy balance until H2O starts to precipitate out at about 3 km altitude.

        Once again, I greatly appreciate your efforts and admire your work. My only concern is that with limited time and resources, the climate alarmists can easily keep people distracted from the big picture by arguing over the minutia that even if they admit they are wrong on, they still win the trial.

        Sea Level Sophistry In San Francisco; Climate Alarmists are Playing the Judge as a Fool
        Reading the California vs. Exxon Lawsuit I had to laugh at all the stereotypical liberal dog whistles/Code Words. It reads more like campaign slogans than a court document. Global Warming, of course, is racist and will impact blacks, women and Hispanics worst. It is as if the 500 Women Scientists wrote it, complete with every virtue signaling non-relevant term … Continue reading
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/sea-level-sophistry-in-san-francisco-climate-alarmists-are-playing-the-judge-as-a-fool/

        Oil Companies Don’t Produce CO2, Car and Truck Drivers Do
        Reminiscent of the “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” argument, the SF Judge Alsup presiding over CA vs. Big Oil Lawsuit asked a very interesting, and potentially, very damaging question for either the plaintiff or society at large. In the document titled: Case 3:17-cv-06012-WHA Document 161 Filed 03/27/18, the judge asks: If plaintiffs’ theory is correct, why wouldn’t … Continue reading
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/oil-companies-dont-produce-co2-car-and-truck-drivers-do/

        Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie
        Thanks for Anthony Watts and Willie Soon over at WUWT, we now have the San Francisco Court Documents. My immediate thought was how short and concise the defense’s document was–Click Here and understand the issue–, compared to the prosecution’s–Click — and–Click Here and understand the issues. People that truly understand issues can better simplify the … Continue reading
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/

        Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
        I am not a climate “scientist.” I don’t have a degree in “climatology.” I’ve never stepped foot through the doors of NOAA, NASA GISS or HadCRUT. I am not an expert on the climate. Therefore I should not be able to write an article today that will prove 100% correct 10 years in the future, … Continue reading
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

      • Lord Mockton, here is an example of the power of the KISS Concept:

        San Francisco Judge Demonstrated a Real Understanding of Science; Vindicates KISS approach to Fighting Climate Alarmism
        Unlike other skeptical climate change blogs that focus on the minutia of scientific publications, here at CO2isLife we focus on finding ways to communicate the issue in a down to earth understandable manner. To us, the best way to fight this issue isn’t with countless scientific publications, it is to simply find the best “smoking … Continue reading
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/san-francisco-judge-demonstrated-a-real-understanding-of-science-vindicates-co2islife/

      • In response to CO2islife, I was brought up to understand that that which is objectively true must take precedence over that which is socially convenient, politically expedient or financially profitable. One cannot speak the truth unless one can first seek the truth. Difficult though it is to seek the truth about climate sensitivity – just look at the vicious manner in which those of us who have dared to do so have been publicly humiliated and vilified – we are not discouraged.

        If our result is correct – and nothing in these three long threads has done anything other than nibble at the edges – then it has two merits. First, it is a proven result, verified by several methods. It is something that will eventually pass peer review and be published in a leading climate journal. We know that that will be a struggle. We know that we face bitterly hostile vested interests. Already, one of our co-authors has been suspended from his university on a trumped-up charge because the vice-chancellor got to hear of our paper. Secondly, ours is a simple result, which anyone with sufficient open-mindedness and diligence can understand. Therein lies not its weakness but its power. Though there is a feeling that climatology is too specialist to be left to anyone except those who have certificates to prove that they have received appropriate Socialist training in the subject, we can demonstrate that a simple argument refutes all the complexity. If we are right, then that is the end, scientifically speaking. There will not be all that much CO2-driven warming, and that will be that.

      • co2is life, you are correct in your analysis. MoB is a ‘saint’ hoping to die gloriously , cheered on by his supporters,
        However in the real world of power, money and politics the ‘winners’ are those who produce the easy slogan to win over the masses. Unfortunately the warmists dominate all the mass media and no-one hears the objections.
        The only way this will be resolved is the painful way of real energy shortages, electricity black-outs, or some very simple repudiation of warmism that the great unwashed take to their hearts.
        Personally I think you can drive an omnibus through MoB’s logic, so this attempt isn’t the second of those. So we are still ‘hoping’ for real disruptions to electricity supply in one of the world’s biggest economies. Best bet is the UK at the moment.

      • In response to the sneering “jim”, my sole purpose in intervening in the climate debate is to seek the truth and then to speak it, as best I see it. I am not deterred by the malevolent attacks of the totalitarians. I am not put off by the notion that no one will listen. I am unmoved by the idea that governments, banks, oil companies, media, wind-farm boondogglers and all manner of other special vested interests are profiteering so mightily from this scam that they will not give in to the truth. The truth will prevail.

  31. I’m reminded of my passionate, logical rebuttals to the crazy-making nonsense of my former husband, before I recognized his malignant narcissism. Sheer futility.

  32. In warfare we have a term called bouncing the rubble. It is kin to killing everything and sowing with salt. Nuking from orbit to make sure. Well, even though you have a lot of bombs and shells left and might as well
    use them up sometimes it is okay to invoke the mercy rule. But in this case it seems to be a nightmare where a mythical beast will not die no matter how many mortal wounds it suffers. We have great heros
    taking turns whacking away at the thing for decades. Lord Monckton, as an awestruck observer on the
    sidelines, I note you have once again put in some mighty whacks. But, I fear the game is not over.

    We are up against greed, evil, ignorance, and the quest of many to have power over others. They will continue
    even from under the ice.

    • In reply to Snowsnake, one should never despair of seeking or seeking the truth on the ground that those in high office do not want to hear it. If our result is right, it is simple enough for anyone with high-school math to understand. So far, no one has landed a blow against our central point, which is that temperature feedbacks respond to emission temperature as well as to any greenhouse-gas enhancement of it and, therefore, the feedback fraction is a lot smaller than had been thought, and, therefore, climate sensitivity is less than half of the current official central estimate.

  33. As we’re told the Sahara desert is greening, that would mean there is more water to support plant life.

    If green decorative plants replaced living green plants that require water, the surface will become hotter. How can it be said water is a positive feedback? So called “runaway” greenhouse effect is not possible from my POV.

    Negative feedback rules. Convection cools.

    • Actually, plants use less water with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Their stomata can acquire the needed CO2 more rapidly, so the stomata need not open as wide or for as long as they do in lower CO2 concentrations, meaning that they lose less water. So plants in arid that receive higher doses of CO2 are better suited to efficiently use the limited water that is available to them.

      • My point was that dark “fake” vegetation will absorb more radiation causing the surface to warm whereas real live vegetation requiring water will cool the surface. There’s a reason why temperatures in the tropics at the same latitude as a desert location are cooler despite having a higher water vapor content. In the daytime convection removes the heat via water vapor much more effectively than radiation. Then at night the desert gets very cold in comparison to the tropics.

        Water cools and warms, but cannot cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

      • Gator March 30, 2018 at 9:46 am
        Actually, plants use less water with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Their stomata can acquire the needed CO2 more rapidly, so the stomata need not open as wide or for as long as they do in lower CO2 concentrations, meaning that they lose less water. So plants in arid that receive higher doses of CO2 are better suited to efficiently use the limited water that is available to them.

        If they’re C3 plants having their stomata closed will mean a higher O2 concentration inside the leaf so a higher level of photorespiration which will mean a less efficient production of carbohydrates

  34. Monckton of Brenchley,

    I do wish that you would pay more attention to the detail of the number of significant figures for your listed input variables, and the attendant error bars, and follow through with the justifiable number of significant figures in the consequent output.

    As an example of my reason for making the request, your are inconsistent in reporting the Charney sensitivity, sometimes reporting two significant figures to the right of the decimal point, and at other times only showing one when two would be justified. If you do not have an eye for such detail, please find a reviewer who does.

      • ALLAN MACRAE,
        OK, so I know where you stand. How about sharing with me and others exactly why you do not find my comment relevant. If you have no reason, then I will consider your comment irrelevant.

    • Ever smaller numbers are only relevant to the extent that they are accurate in reality, not just as calculations. As they are applied subsequently in equations, their importance may increase or diminish. In this case they have a miniscule effect on real world temperatures. I estimate 0.0C.

  35. Earlier today, March 30, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Joe Born wrote a comment that began with: “I wouldn’t get too hung up in the feedback angle.”

    I checked Roy Spencer’s blog ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/ )and read through those postings. Which by the way are very interesting. That brings me to the comment I want to make. Roy Spencer and Joe Born are both indicating that the feedback from the climate perspective does not work the way it is presented by Monckton.

    Dr. Spencer wrote, “The amount of surface temperature change in response to that energy imbalance is, by definition, the climate sensitivity, which in turn depends upon feedback components. … Feedback is just a convenient term that quantifies the proportionality between an imposed energy imbalance and the resulting temperature change response, …

    Feedbacks, by the climate definition, are only in response to forced departures from energy equilibrium.”

    This raises a couple of questions. Is it true that the earth ever have a true energy equilibrium? How does the climate determine what is a forced departure from energy equilibrium such that the climate knows that at this point, we now apply FEEDBACK. In other words, the earth is sitting at some magical equilibrium point. CO2 increases and then and only then does feedback kick in to make a difference.

    If hypothetically conditions stopped changing (CO2/Methane/no volcanoes/Solar stayed the same, ocean currents didn’t vary) and the earth reached an “equilibrium” temperature, then at whatever temperature that was, it would ALREADY incorporate all existing feedbacks due to the physics of the coupled atmosphere and ocean system.

    Dr. Spencer writes, “Christopher’s claim that the Earth’s effective radiating temperature (ERT) to outer space (around 255 K) itself causes a “feedback” makes no sense to me, because it isn’t (nor does it represent) a “forcing”.

    Feedback does not depend on a forcing. It does not start or stop arbitrarily at any particular temperature.

    Dr. Spencer writes, “Feedbacks, by the climate definition, are only in response to forced departures from energy equilibrium.”

    Monckton’s paper indirectly invalidates that definition. The definition is nonsensical from a physics point of view and should not be used (IMO of course).

    A doubling of CO2 is typically calculated to have a radiative impact of ~ 3.7 W / m2 (each time CO2 is doubled). This radiative change will impact the temperatures including ocean and planet surface. If there were no feedback, this change is usually estimated to be around 1 to 1.2 K. But the physics of the coupled atmosphere and ocean system create a net feedback. The feedback (f) could then by used to multiply the temperature of 1 to 1.2 K. A negative feedback in this case would be an (f) less than 1. Once the feedback is added to the forcing from a doubling of CO2, it is the Charney sensitivity (or equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2).

    The methods used in climate models to calculate past and future feedback and to derive the Charney sensitivity (see Monckton’s examples) assume feedback arbitrarily kicks in at 255 K.

    But for calculating feedback, the climate modelers can’t assume that feedback arbitrarily kicks in at any particular temperatures. Feedback exists due to the physics of the existing coupled atmosphere and ocean system. It does not kick in or end at an arbitrary temperature.

    • CMoB’s analysis deals with the calculation of climate sensitivity from a starting point that that accepts the forcing premise of mainstream climate science. I believe the flaws in that viewpoint are far more fundamental and pervasive but Lord Monckton has chosen to engage the enemy on their own ground and believes he has delivered a fatal blow. Time will tell if the vampire hydra is actually finished. They might already be planning to change the name to climate sameness and start telling us how that will destroy us. I blame Marx.

    • As commented on the previous Monckton post. Roy is correct about the climate definition of feedback. It is used implicitly in the CMIP5 models, where for example delta CO2 forcing causes delta warming causes delta water vapor causes delta water vapor feedback, and so forth, producing eventually an emergent model ECS.These models provably run hot, see for example Christy’s 29 March 2017 congressional testimony. So their ECS is by definition suspect.
      CMoB’s reply to Spencer can be summarized as just two points. First, the emergent model ECS must still correspond to the feedback circuit Bode equivalent result when using the data also inout to models. Second, when doing that circuit equivalent analysis, you must use the Bode circuit feedback definition. When one does, the result is ~1.45 not 3 or 3.3. Hence the fundamental error.
      In a sense both Roy and CMoB were right at Roys blog. Difference of perspective. But when using Bode analysis, only one of those perspectives is correct—and it isn’t Roys.

      The approach of this post importantly avoids having to diagnose how and why the models run hot. See my guest posts The Trouble with Climate Models and Why Models run Hot for plausible thoughts on that. In short computational intractability forces parameterization whose necessary tuning to best hindcast drags in the attribution problem. Put more specifically, cloud feedback ismobservationally zero (the actual resuotmof Dessler 2010b), not positive as in models, and the modeled water vapor feedback is high by a factor of about 2 because convection cells (WEs Tstorm effects) have to be parameterized. The indirect evidence for this is observed versus modeld precipitation. But the warmunists battle the dissecting models approach and control all the supercomputer ammo.pwesonally, almost no nonspecialist or nonmathematician could follow. Pretty smart people at Lucia’s got model partial differentials wrong a while ago, whichnis evidence that directly attacking model internals is not a winner.

      • directly attacking model internals is not a winner.
        ==========
        the more complex a model, the more likely it is wrong.

        Murphy’s Laws of Programming
        Every non trivial program has at least one bug
        The subtlest bugs cause the greatest damage and problems.
        The chances of a program doing what it’s supposed to do is inversely proportional to the number of lines of code used to write it.
        Most computer errors can be attributed to a similar problem – a screw loose behind the keyboard.

      • ristvan, I did go back and read your two posts (“The Trouble with Models” and “Why Models Run Hot”) and recommend those (don’t know how I missed them)! Also, do I recall that the models have a problem with high number of iterations and rounding that introduce more error?

        I do have problems following the intricacies of the arguments in this thread (remember: just a biologist) but I do have respect for the stepwise logic of CMoB’s latest posts.

      • “Second, when doing that circuit equivalent analysis, you must use the Bode circuit feedback definition. When one does, the result is ~1.45 not 3 or 3.3. “
        As I have shown here, the involvement of feedback in the ECS calculation is entirely illusory. It cancels out. The arithmetic has nothing to do with feedback, but is a far more primitive simple division of warming by forcing, with an arbitrary fudge factor. Here is the spreadsheet again:

      • Mr Stokes comes to the unremarkable conclusion that, when deriving either transient or equilibrium sensitivity from estimated net anthropogenic forcing and observed temperature change over a given period, one does not need to take feedback into account at all.

        But the models, trained as they are to explain the 32 K difference between temperature in 1850 and emission temperature by attributing the entire 32 K to greenhouse forcings and feedbacks, are programmed in such a way as to predict far more warming than has occurred or will occur.

        We began our research by deriving the feedback fraction theoretically by reference to the pre-anthropogenic period. We discovered that climatology had made the large error of assuming that feedback processes that respond even to the tiniest increase in emission temperature do not respond to emission temperature itself. Since feedback processes must and do respond to emission temperature, the feedback response to the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases is necessarily a great deal smaller than had previously been thought.

        Our reason for doing the industrial-era calculation was to derive some estimate of equilibrium sensitivity empirically, to verify the result given by our theoretical calculation. Since neither individual temperature feedbacks nor their sum can be directly measured, or distinguished by measurement either from each other or from the temperatures or forced temperature changes that induced them, it ought to be blindingly obvious that there was no way of verifying our theoretical result empirically on the basis of knowing what the feedback sum was.

        Instead, in our calculation in the head posting, we derived the industrialk-era feedback fraction from the observed temperature change and the latest value of the observed energy imbalance. That fraction is appreciably larger than the pre-industrial feedback fraction, suggesting the possibility either that there is considerable uncertainty in the ARGO bathythermograph measurements or that some element in industrial-era warming is natural, or both.

        But it is good news that Mr Stokes’ confirmatory calculation demonstrates equilibrium sensitivity to be of order 1.6 K, and not the 3.3 K that is the models’ current mid-range estimate.

    • BobG is right. A feedback process, denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induced it, does not discriminate between a pre-existing temperature and a subsequent increase in temperature. It acts in response first to one and then also to the other. The official climatological definition of feedback is, to this extent, false.

  36. CMoB,
    Many thanks for the additional illustrations and examples presented in the article above. Along with the ‘parry and riposte’ comments, greater clarity is provided for your mathematical arguments. Using the IPCC accepted ‘rules and regulations’ for the basis of your argument, you have truly shown the CAGW proponents ‘the fundamental error of their ways’!

    Should your team’s arguments, embedded in your amicus brief to “People of California v. British Petroleum plc. et.al.”, be legally validated and precedent set, the Trillion dollar industry of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is lawfully and scientifically demonstrated to be without merit.

    • Many thanks to JMac for his kind words. I’m not holding my breath for the California process to bounce in our favor: amici curiae are vulnerable in the U.S. system because they can be (and in the present case already have been) attacked by the parties without any formal opportunity to respond. However, our central finding that the emission temperature induces a temperature feedback, and that the temperature feedback to the presence of the naturally-occurring, noncondensing greenhouse gases is accordingly a lot smaller than previously imagined, greatly reducing climate sensitivity, is not easy to overthrow. The virtue of submitting our brief to the court is that experts from right at the heart of the climate community will have to look at our idea. They will scoff, but they will realize in the end that we are very much closer to the truth than they.

  37. Christopher’s claim that the Earth’s effective radiating temperature (ERT) to outer space (around 255 K) itself causes a “feedback” makes no sense to me, because it isn’t (nor does it represent) a “forcing”. Feedbacks, by the climate definition, are only in response to forced departures from energy equilibrium.” – Dr. Roy Spencer
    ===============
    The equilibrium temperature of the Earth is not 255 K. The Earth’s equilibrium temperature is slightly above 0 K, due to internal radioactive decay. It is ONLY after you add the Sun and CBR dues the Earth’s temperature rise to 255 K.

    Thus, the Sun and CBR represent nearly 255 K of total forcing over what the Earth’s equilibrium temperature would be otherwise in space. The problem MB has pointed out is that Climatology does not consider this 255 K of forcing in its calculations for CO2 sensitivity.

    A change in CO2 creates a change in temperature. It is this change in temperature, not the change in CO2, that changes the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which further affects the temperature.

    However, in physics, a change in temperature is a change in temperature, regardless of source. Thus, the nearly 255K of temperature changed due to the Sun and CBR as compared to empty space also must have changed the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which also must further affect the temperature.

    What MB has demonstrated is that this change in temperature due to the change in water vapor due to the warming of the Earth from 0 K to to 255 K has not been properly accounted for by Climatology.

    • “The problem MB has pointed out is that Climatology does not consider this 255 K of forcing in its calculations for CO2 sensitivity.”

      The problem of MB that Climatology knows is 255 K is not a forcing nor an energy flow that should be considered in calculations for CO2 sensitivity.

      “Consider the earth’s temperature. This can be converted to watts/meter squared. Since the earth is finite, the area is in meter squared, thus the total power represented by the earth’s temperature is given as watts.”

      Why do you substitute temperature for power? Just use power because their relationship is non-linear. When you use temperature instead of power, the math and physics are wrong.

      • Climate sensitivity* is a general property of the climate system. A change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) correspondes to a change in radiative forcing (RF) and is therefore, expressed in units of °C/(W/m2).

        For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so.

        *According to Wikipedia ;-)

      • I explained this before if The Lord was paying attention. The formula for feedback factor in climatology uses CHANGE in temperature, not absolute temperature. Now if he wished to use the amplifier feedback equation, then use energy flux, not absolute temperature.

      • “Dr Strangelove” should do the math, as Mr Stokes has suggested. Take an input signal of 255 K. Set the gain block to unity, i.e. no amplification from the presence of any non-condensing greenhouse gases. Set the feedback block to, say, 0.08 for the feedback fraction. Then, using the version of the zero-dimensional-model equation that is customary in climatology, the output signal is 255 / (1 – 0.08). Now, is that still 255 K? No, of course not. it’s 277 K. So where did the extra 22 K of temperature come from? Answer: It came from the feedback response to that initial temperature. If you cannot see this at once, simply change the value of the input signal from 255 K to some other value, and notice how the output signal changes with it.

        The head posting already specifically refers to the point that official climatology has mistakenly defined a temperature feedback as a feedback only to a change in temperature. That definition is incompatible with the truth, as one can see from working through the above simple equation. If “Dr Strangelove” wishes to add something to the discussion, let him provide some sort of rational, scientific or mathematical argument in support of official climatology’s definition, rather than merely restating it as though it were some sort of immovable totalitarian Party Line.

      • Sir, I found my error in regards to IR at 15 micro. Thanks again for your input.

        I withdraw my comment about it not having sufficient engery.

    • Dr Strangelove continues to imagine that feedbacks should be denominated in units other than Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induced them. If so, his complaint should be addressed not to me but to official climatology.

  38. To complete the op amp analogy:

    Consider the earth’s temperature. This can be converted to watts/meter squared. Since the earth is finite, the area is in meter squared, thus the total power represented by the earth’s temperature is given as watts.

    Consider an amp with a rated capacity of 1000 watt for simplicity. The amplifier has DC and AC continuity. Nothing has been added to filter out either signal.

    Adjust the gain on the amp to 1 and the feedback to 0. Now apply 255 watts at the input. This represents our 255 K temperature due the Sun, CBR and internal radioactive decay. We will see 255 watts at the output.

    Now adjust the feedback so that we see 10% of the output power fed back into the input. This will increase the total power at the input to 255 + 25.5 = 280.5 watts. This will increase the output to 280.5 watts. However, 10% feedback will thus further increase our input to 255 + 25.5 + 2.55 = 282.5 watts. This process will repeat in an infinite sum until our total power at the output = 255 input + 28.3 feedback.

    Now remove the signal at the input and the output and feedback will drop to 0 watts. Now re-apply the 255 watts to the input and the feedback will increase to 28.3 watts and the output to 283.3 watts.

    As can be seen, when the input power is constant, the feedback power is constant. When the input power changes, the feedback power changes.

    • Ferd –

      I would quibble that an op-amp rated at 1000 watts is hard to envision, and more to the point, it is voltage (not power) that is amplified in such an illustration, so allow me to suggest an input voltage of 255 millivolts (mV). You are quite correct that with 10% feedback the output ends up at 283.33333333….

      In the analog case, the “convergence” is essentially instantaneous. What you suggest, an intermediate step of 255+23.5 = 280.5 is essentially the first iteration of a discrete-time view. The next iteration is 255+28.05 = 283.05, and the next ones 283.305 (math error in what you wrote?), 283.3305, . . . 283.3333333….

      In fact, the analog case as the limit of a discrete-time case is basically the way I look at it:
      http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN219.pdf

      – Bernie

      • In fact, the analog case as the limit of a discrete-time case is basically the way I look at it:
        ==========
        agreed. As you noted, it makes no difference. The numbers work out the same. I was simply trying to make things simpler to understand.

      • Oh – I think it does more than make it easier to understand – now that I think about it. It shows that there is no such thing as a feedback without some delay – perhaps due to stray capacitance or to finite-slew-rates of op-amps. One of the problems with claiming “instantaneous” feedback is that it is possible to become alarmed that things blow up. The discrete time viewpoint (even very fast iterations) makes it Zeno’s Paradox which is easier to accept.

      • In response to Mr Hutchins, the delay in the operation of the principal temperature feedbacks relevant to the derivation of transient or equilibrium sensitivities is of years at most, accordinjg to IPCC (2013).

      • Monckton of Brenchley March 31, 2018 at 6:26 am said ” . . . . of years at most. . . . .”

        I seldom if ever have referred to anything except electronics, so by instantaneous I am thinking of something like throwing a switch, and in such case the result seems instantaneous with respect to human perception. In reality, there is a small resistance R and stray capacitance C, so there is a “characteristic time” usually taken as 1/e=37% of the RC product (units are time) in addition to mechanical contact bounce. It is in the back of every engineer’s mind.

        What Ferd and I were talking about is discrete-time (time-series) in which case all times are in units of the sampling interval. Any feedback is from the PREVIOUS time interval, so a notion of instantaneous (an unthinkable “delay-free loop”) never comes up.

        Accordingly, in terms of the non-engineer, a notion such as “What if it comes around SO FAST that it is ALREADY Larger and then again !!!!! ” – an apparent catastrophe, can be dissuaded. Much easier.

        In fact, DSP (Digital Signal Processing) is generally MUCH easier to understand than analog and some educators feel it should be taught (anti-historically) first.

      • In response to Mr Hutchins, one should not expect the climate to behave like an op-amp: but one can design an op-amp in such a way that it can illustrate the likely behavior of the climate in the presence of feedback processes. In the climate, the feedback processes are subject to a delay amounting to years at most (the water vapor feedback is of much shorter timescale).

    • How is this an analogue of, well, anything. It just says that if you set a device to multiply 255 by 1/(1-0.1) it will return the answer 283.333. Hopefully.

      • If you are asking where the term came from, my guess is that the profile of a track on a phonograph record was an analog (analogue!) of a sound pressure variation in time. Beyond that, we have analog computer possibilities for many things. I think today it means just “not digital”.

      • ferd
        “S=a/(1−r)”
        Yes. Exactly what I said. But all you are doing is verifying the formula for sum of a geometric progression, and the ability of an op amp circuit to do multiplication. This doesn’t you anything about climate.

      • Careful Nick – op-amps can’t multiply, except any signal by a constant (the gain of an amplifier), or with the aid of a FET as a switch, they can multiply any signal by a square wave signal controlling the FET on/off. A proper analog multiplier will cost you probably $15.

      • ” op-amps can’t multiply”
        They do in ferd’s circuit – he has designed it that way. Here is the Wiki version:

        V+out = V_in * (Rf + Rg)/Rg

        ferd is setting up with V_in=255 and R_f = R_g *.1/(1 -.1) = R_g/9
        So V_out = 283.3
        Elementary circuit stuff, but tells nothing about climate.

      • Nick Stokes March 30, 2018 at 10:43 pm
        ” op-amps can’t multiply”
        They do in ferd’s circuit – he has designed it that way. Here is the Wiki version:

        V+out = V_in * (Rf + Rg)/Rg

        Subject to the rarely mentioned limitation that Vout must be less than Vpower input (we have had some comments that too high a gain would cause the Op amps to be destroyed which doesn’t happen in the real circuit).
        A similar analysis is applied in chemical reactor theory, where a proportion of the output of the reactor is returned (fed back) to the input stream.

      • Mr Stokes continues to complain that climatology ought not to use the methods of network analysis in deriving the effect of feedbacks on equilibrium sensitivity. But that is how climatology has long done it. Let him take his complaint to them, and not to me.

        Climatology’s error lies not, as Mr Stokes thinks, in adopting feedback methodology as it had been originally derived for electronic network analysis, but in having misunderstood the zero-dimensional-model equation, expressing it in a form that improperly excludes the feedback response to emission temperature in the accounting.

      • “Mr Stokes continues to complain that climatology ought not to use the methods of network analysis”
        No. I am saying that there is nothing special about the methods of network analysis. All they do is generate some linear equations using nodal analysis and Kirchhoff’s rules, and solve them. Climatology does the same. Sometimes they like to point out the analogy. That has no effect on the validity or applicability of the linear algebra, which both should and do use.

        And neither does this silly business of building electronic circuits. It simply establishes that you can design and create one in which the Kirchhoff formulae satisfy the same arithmetic as the climatological model. If that works, you will get the same answer as you could have with the maths used to design the circuit.

        To illustrate exactly how this works, consider the op amp circuit above, and the node connecting R_f and R_g. The op amp is assumed infinite gain, and so for finite output, its terminals must be at the same voltage, with no current flowing between them. So the same current I flows through R_g as through R_f, and can be written
        I = V_in/R_g = V_out/(R_f+R_g)
        The circuit is just a way of implementing this linear relation, and it will give you the desired value of V_out. But so would linear algebra.

      • Nick Stokes said March 30, 2018 at 10:43 pm
        ” ‘ op-amps can’t multiply‘
        They do in ferd’s circuit – he has designed it that way. . . .”

        What I said was “op-amps can’t multiply, except any signal by a constant (the gain of an amplifier)….”

        which is exactly what you came back with. Sorry if it was a trick question.

        What I had in mind was a multiplier of two SIGNALS such as two sine waves (functions of time). For example, for a voltage-controlled amplifier or amplitude modulator. This requires a proper analog multiplier (transconductor) integrated circuit ($$$) or you can take logs (exploiting an inherent property of transistors, collector current being an exponential function of base-emitter voltage), adding, and taking the anti-log (VERY tedious).

        One reason I wanted to see Monckton’s “test rig” (my equivalent for a similar function used $0.81 total parts) was to see if his government lab foolishly tried an analog divide [by (1-f)].

      • In reply to Mr Stokes, both the circuits and the algebra demonstrate that a feedback response must arise where a) there is an input signal (whether or not it be amplified) and b) feedback processes are present. Since climatology finds this fact hard to accept, we not only did the not particularly difficult algebra but also tested it. Since the algebra makes it plain that there must be a large feedback response to emission temperature, the feedback response to the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases must be small. If the feedback response is small, equilibrium sensitivity must be small also.

      • micro6500 quoting nick, March 31, 2018 at 9:47 am
        “But so would linear algebra” and presented a supposed counter example.

        First, the correct term is “algebra” or perhaps “high-school algebra” but “linear algebra” is formally a more specific discipline involving matrices. Even H-S Algebra, after all, involves such matters as polynomials, not just straight lines.

        Secondly, the term “non-linear” as generally used in physics/engineering has the (inclusive) meaning of an ability (linear) or an inability (non-linear) to superimpose separate solutions. Too often it is just a “throw-away buzz-term” to suggest that thing are more complicated than is currently supposed. Perhaps so if one is specifically presenting a case.

      • Once again, for convenience, here is my Fig. 6 example. It has two inverting op-amps in series for a gain of (-1)(-1) = +1, with a feedback of +2/3 back to the input. Remove the red 3/2 resistor and you have just the original gain of +1. With the feedback of 2/3 in place, the output gain (Vout/Vin) is 1/(1-2/3) = 3. If I again take out the 3/2 resistor, and make the rightmost R resistor 3R instead, I have Vout/Vin =3 (by a different means).

        http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN219Fig6.bmp

        Based only on the values of Vout and Vin being at a 3:1 ratio, you can’t tell me the feedback parameters (A and f), or even claim that A is not just 3 with f=0 (no feedback at all). We know there is feedback not at all because of a larger gain (exceeds 1), but because we PUT the feedback there.

      • Here is Bernie’s figure 6

        And here is a Bode-less analysis – just using linear relations from current balance:
        let left output voltage be V. op amp inputs can’t have current flowing in (infinite gain), so current balance at the right input says
        V_out/R + V/R = 0, so V = -V_out.

        And at the left input, current balance
        V_in/R + 2*V_out/3/R = V_out/R
        So V_in = V_out/3; V_out = V_in * 3
        Gain=3.
        Just linear analysis. That is what Hansen did too with his linear equations. There is no Bode magic.

        Three unknowns, V_in, V and V_out. Two node current balance equations. End result, one linear equation, after eliminating V, so relates V_in and V_out.

      • In essence, Mr Stokes is agreeing that emission temperature must induce a feedback, even in the absence of any amplification from the non-condensing greenhouse gases. And that is the main point we are making.

      • Monckton of Brenchley said April 1, 2018 at 4:10 am: “In essence, Mr Stokes is agreeing that emission temperature must induce a feedback….”

        All that my presentations, and the one Nick gave just above at March 31, 2018 at 11:15 pm, show is that my circuit has a gain of 3, and that it yields to standard network equations (as already on my Fig. 6) OR that it CAN BE INTERPRETED as a Bode feedback ILLUSTRATION. Based on just the input/output results, it’s either/both. Without the internal details, it is foolish to talk about it being one OR the other. [Perhaps like solving a physics problem first with conservation of energy and then by conservation of momentum – giving the same answer.]

        So, if with climate we observed a gain of 3, we could speculate on a pure gain of 3, or on feedback. If challenged to suggest an actual physical mechanism for the value 3, we might be unable to establish a gain ploy, but could suggest feedback (like ice melts from white to dark), and to suggest a “sensitivity” of +3 through a positive feedback of 2/3. In the circuit (where the details are revealed), there it is. For the Earth, nature is more subtle, perhaps.

        Next suppose that the proponent of a sensitivity of +3 finds that the actual EVIDENCE suggests much less, perhaps +1.2. Bummer! But agenda still calls! Do you then claim that you have ALREADY ESTABLISHED feedback with the SUPPOSED (although failed) sensitivity of 3, so since the result is weaker, the positive feedback must have been weaker (+1/6 here)? Wrong tree – perhaps – I have no idea.

        Much we do not know. The math/engineering is clear. Application to climate, broadly attempted – not so much!

      • Mr Hutchins seems confused. Mr Stokes has accepted that, where emission temperature is 255 K and the feedback fraction is, say, 0.1, then even in the absence of any amplification at all from non-condensing greenhouse gases the output temperature is 255 / (1 – 0.1), or 283.3 K. He is so sure of this that he says it was “silly” of us to build electronic circuits to verify that emission temperature induces a feedback response even in the absence of any amplification from the non-condensing greenhouse gases.

      • “Mr Hutchins seems confused. Mr Stokes has accepted that, where emission temperature is 255 K and the feedback fraction is, say, 0.1, then even in the absence of any amplification at all from non-condensing greenhouse gases the output temperature is 255 / (1 – 0.1), or 283.3 K.”

        Absolutely not. I keep asking this question, with no answer:
        For snowball earth, a black body at 255K, with that also as its emission temperature, what would be the feedback to that emission temperature? What would that even mean?
        Lord M seems to provide an answer here. A black body emitting 241.2 W/m2 will have an emission temperature of 255 K, but after feedback to emission temperature, a temperature of 283.3 K. But really? That would violate Stefan-Boltzmann. And it just isn’t true.

      • To Monckton of Brenchley April 2, 2018 at 3:51 pm

        As a favorite mentor of mine once was heard to say – “I’ve explained it in all the ways I know how – the rest is up to you.”

      • Mr Stokes asks a question he knows to be meaningless and then complains that it has not merited an answer. Here are his ipsissima verba: “For snowball Earth, a blackbody at 255 K, with that also as its emission temperature, what would be the feedback to that emission temperature?”

        A snowball Earth would not be a blackbody. A snowball Earth would not have an emission temperature 255 K. A blackbody Earth would not have an emission temperature 255 K.

        Mr Hutchins, therefore, will now ruefully realize that Mr Stokes has a lot more explaining to do before his question makes any kind of scientific sense.

  39. What climatology calls “feedback” is actually the “change in feedback”. So for in our above example, with 10% feedback giving an output of 283.3 watts, consider what happens when we increase the CO2.

    When we increase the CO2, this increases the amount of power fed back from the output to the input. An increase in the back radiation if you wish. So for example, let us increase the amount of CO2 such that 11% of the output feeds back into the input instead of 10%.

    Now with 11% we are going to get a total feedback of (28 + 3.1 + .34 … ) = 286.5 watts. This represents a change of 286.5 – 283.3 = 3.2 K.

    The problem comes in determining how much of the original 10% feedback is due to CO2 and how water is due to water vapor. If most of the 10% is due to water vapor, then you will need to add a lot of CO2 to get to 11% feedback. If most of the 10% is due to CO2, then you will only need to add a little CO2 to get to 11% feedback.

    What MB has shown, is that the feedback is mostly due to water, because climatology did not properly account for the water vapor added to the atmosphere when the earth warmed to 255K.

  40. ps: The Sun’s energy is mostly an AC signal as far as the Earth’s surface is concerned, with a period of 24 hours. At the poles the tilt of the Earth’s axis integrates this into a DC signal depending on the time of year.

    Thus from the point of view of feedback it is incorrect to consider the Sun’s energy as constant (DC) power. It is AC power due to the rotation of the Earth and DC power due to the tilt of the axis. Thus any argument (misguided argument) that somehow feedback only exists for AC and not DC is irrelevant.

  41. The actual range for ECS is probably 0.7 to 1.7 degrees C per doubling of CO2, centered on the laboratory value of 1.2 degrees C, without feedbacks in the real world’s complex climate system. In arriving at 0.7 degrees C from scientific observations, Lindzen finds net negative feedback effects. I agree that on our homeostatic water world, net negative feedbacks are more likely than positive. But I can’t rule out others’ findings of slightly positive net feedback effects.

    So in the present state of our limited knowledge, 0.5 degree C from 1.2 degree C is a reasonable margin of error. IPCC’s unjustified, indeed unphysical, observation-free WAG of 1.5 degrees C either side of 3.0 degrees C would be ludicrous, had the scandalous sc@m not cost us so much in lives and treasure.

  42. The idea that our planet would only be about 255K absence GHGs seems at odds with what we think we know about Mars.

    We are now reasonable certain that Mars had running water (the photographic geographical evidence is strong) and this was at a time when the solar system had a faint sun, ie., at a time when the solar output was perhaps only about 70% of that observed today.

    The faint sun causes problems for running water here on planet Earth. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox), and one will note that in order for there to be running water on planet Earth it is argued that not only would there need to be more GHGs but also that the atmosphere must have been more massive with pressure perhaps up to 10 bar.

    But the consequences of a faint sun are multiplied when one looks at Mars unless planetary temperature is a facet of atmospheric mass and pressure and not one of GHGs.

    • There is also physical geological evidence on and from Mars of persistent liquid surface water in the past and ephemerally today.

      The faint early sun paradox has effectively been solved, at least for Earth. Other explanations, except for extremely higher GHG concentrations, may have some validity, but this finding suffices:

      https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08955

      No climate paradox under the faint early Sun

      Abstract

      Environmental niches in which life first emerged and later evolved on the Earth have undergone dramatic changes in response to evolving tectonic/geochemical cycles and to biologic interventions1,2,3, as well as increases in the Sun’s luminosity of about 25 to 30 per cent over the Earth’s history4. It has been inferred that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 and/or CH4 compensated for the lower solar luminosity and dictated an Archaean climate in which liquid water was stable in the hydrosphere5,6,7,8. Here we demonstrate, however, that the mineralogy of Archaean sediments, particularly the ubiquitous presence of mixed-valence Fe(II–III) oxides (magnetite) in banded iron formations9 is inconsistent with such high concentrations of greenhouse gases and the metabolic constraints of extant methanogens. Prompted by this, and the absence of geologic evidence for very high greenhouse-gas concentrations10,11,12,13, we hypothesize that a lower albedo on the Earth, owing to considerably less continental area and to the lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei14, made an important contribution to moderating surface temperature in the Archaean eon. Our model calculations suggest that the lower albedo of the early Earth provided environmental conditions above the freezing point of water, thus alleviating the need for extreme greenhouse-gas concentrations to satisfy the faint early Sun paradox.

    • But the consequences of a faint sun are multiplied when one looks at Mars unless planetary temperature is a facet of atmospheric mass and pressure and not one of GHGs.
      ========
      One can consider that the GHG theory of atmospheric temperature is wrong. This would explain why no progress has been made in narrowing CO2 sensitivity in spite of 40 years of investigation and billions of dollars spent/wasted. It would also explain why many of the predictions of GHG theory have failed.

      In my view, a more compelling theory is that the lapse rate warms the surface. This energy transfer to the surface results in a cooling of the upper atmosphere. And from the formula for lapse rate it is clear this is a function of the gravitational force and moisture content. Nowhere does GHG appear.

      And what explains the lapse rate? Convection. The highly efficient conversion between Potential Energy (PE) and Kinetic Energy (KE) that results during convection. Since Temperature is a function of KE, but not PE, conduction is able to warm the surface and cool the upper atmosphere without requiring any net work.

      • “And what explains the lapse rate? Convection. The highly efficient conversion between Potential Energy (PE) and Kinetic Energy (KE) that results during convection. Since Temperature is a function of KE, but not PE, conduction is able to warm the surface and cool the upper atmosphere without requiring any net work.”

        Yes, it is convection. But it does require work. What you describe is a heat pump. The energy comes from the wind – ie a heat engine driven by horizontal temperature differences.

    • The solar irradiance in Mars is 590 W/m^2 at noon. The equilibrium temperature is 46 C. It can have liquid water at day time. BTW the freezing point of 23% brine water is negative 21 C

      • Mars and Earth are two very similar planets.

        Both planets have approximately the same tilt.
        Both planets have approximately the same length of day, since they rotate at approximately the same rate.
        Both planets, on a numerical basis of actual molecules physically present in their respective atmospheres, have broadly similar amounts of GHGs in their atmospheres. Whilst the Martian atmosphere is thin, if one were to count the molecules it has more than an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules, compared to that in Earth’s atmosphere, but it has less water vapour (although more water vapour at very high altitude). Overall, it has more molecules of GHGs.

        Some people are of the view that its is GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere that keeps the planet warm. However, if one were to remove all the non GHGs from Earth’s atmosphere (ie., all the nitrogen, oxygen and argon) one would be left with the same thin atmosphere as has Mars, but with slightly less molecules of GHGs compared to that in the Martian atmosphere.

        Now if it is the molecules of GHGs that keep a planet warm, and not the molecules of non GHGs such as nitrogen etc, why does Mars, which has more molecules of GHGs, have no (radiant) GHE? That is the question that needs to be answered.

        Obviously, I am not suggesting that Mars because it has more molecules of GHGs should have about a 33K warming. After all, Mars is further away from the sun so one would not expect to see as much as an additional 33K. But if Mars receives some 590 W /m^2 at noon of solar irradiance and Earth receives some 1361 W /m^2 at noon, one might expect to see a (radiant) GHE in the order of 14K (lets say 8 to 16K). But there is none.

        This is extremely surprising since not only are their more molecules of GHGs in the Martian atmosphere they are more closely spaced (Mars is a smaller sphere and the atmosphere, such that it has, takes up less volume). The fact is this, it is far more difficult for a photon radiated from the surface of Mars to make its way to TOA of the Martian atmosphere without interacting with molecules of GHGs than is the case on planet Earth. Any photon escaping the surface of mars will be absorbed and reradiated by molecules of CO2 on more occassions than a photon escaping the surface of Earth.

        But despite all of these molecules of CO2, they appear top do nothing on Mars. On Mars your feet could be a comfortable 25 degC and your head would be freezing. They cannot even keep 2 metres of atmosphere near the surface warm.

      • Nick.

        It is well accepted that Mars has no significant measurable GHE. That is not a contentious statement (although hard data is limited as is all data in climate science). It may have a very slight one, I have seen papers putting it as high as about 1K, but the uncertainties are such that it is not readily patent.

        The European Space Agency notes:

        As a complete contrast to Venus, there is Mars. The Red Planet displays hardly any greenhouse effect. Mars does have some atmospheric carbon dioxide, but almost no atmosphere! The existing atmosphere is so thin that it cannot retain energy from the Sun

        NASA says;

        Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect

        Interestingly, the well known warmist site of Wikipedia notes:

        Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of about −143 °C (−225 °F) at the winter polar caps[11] to highs of up to 35 °C (95 °F) in equatorial summer.[12] The wide range in temperatures is due to the thin atmosphere which cannot store much solar heat, the low atmospheric pressure, and the low thermal inertia of Martian soil.

        It is the mass of the atmosphere that creates the thermal insulation. It would appear that on Earth, it is probably the heat capacity of the oceans and the lesser heat capacity of the atmosphere together with the thermal lag (of both the oceans and the atmosphere), that keeps our planet warm

      • Solar irradiance of Earth vs. Mars: 1361/590 = 2.3
        All things equal, Earth should be 2.3x warmer than Mars.
        Equator temperature to the 4th power of Earth vs. Mars: (313/293)^4 = 1.3
        But Earth is only 1.3x warmer. Mars is unusually warm. Maybe GHE of Martian atmosphere

      • richard verney March 31, 2018 at 2:26 am
        Mars and Earth are two very similar planets.

        Both planets have approximately the same tilt.
        Both planets have approximately the same length of day, since they rotate at approximately the same rate.
        Both planets, on a numerical basis of actual molecules physically present in their respective atmospheres, have broadly similar amounts of GHGs in their atmospheres. Whilst the Martian atmosphere is thin, if one were to count the molecules it has more than an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules, compared to that in Earth’s atmosphere, but it has less water vapour (although more water vapour at very high altitude). Overall, it has more molecules of GHGs.

        Some people are of the view that its is GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere that keeps the planet warm. However, if one were to remove all the non GHGs from Earth’s atmosphere (ie., all the nitrogen, oxygen and argon) one would be left with the same thin atmosphere as has Mars, but with slightly less molecules of GHGs compared to that in the Martian atmosphere.

        Except in that much thinner atmosphere the collisional broadening of the spectral lines is much less so the effective absorption of the outgoing IR by GHGs is much less.

        The fact is this, it is far more difficult for a photon radiated from the surface of Mars to make its way to TOA of the Martian atmosphere without interacting with molecules of GHGs than is the case on planet Earth. Any photon escaping the surface of mars will be absorbed and reradiated by molecules of CO2 on more occassions than a photon escaping the surface of Earth.

        Consequently this ‘fact’ is not true. Try running HITRAN with the appropriate parameters set for the two atmospheres.

      • Dr. Strangelove March 30, 2018 at 9:38 pm
        The solar irradiance in Mars is 590 W/m^2 at noon. The equilibrium temperature is 46 C. It can have liquid water at day time. BTW the freezing point of 23% brine water is negative 21 C

        No it cannot, the triple point of water is below the atmospheric pressure of Mars, you’d need a water vapor pressure exceeding the atmospheric pressure for liquid water to exist.

      • Dr. Strangelove March 31, 2018 at 7:21 am
        Phil

        NASA found brine water today on Mars. Brine has different phase diagram than pure water

        Indeed it does, but that’s not what you said that I responded to.

        Check it out here.

        https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1380.pdf

        “However, pure water is unstable in its liquid form due to the low pressures and temperatures associated with the Martian surface, so water is likely to be kept frozen and sublimating, or evaporating and boiling, if liquid [3]. Brines or salt-rich solutions composed of NaCl or CaCl2 have been suggested since they are known to lower the freezing point and evaporation rates”

  43. But there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. Heat transfer away from the Earth’s surface in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection and phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation. H2O always provides a negative feedback to any possible CO2 based waming because the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. The temperature profile in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has the effect of slightly lowering the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect that almost eliminates any warming that could be caused by CO2’s LWIR absorption bands. After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has been umable to measure the climate sensivity of CO2 because there is nothing to measure. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as is the radiant greenhouse effect.

    • In response to Mr Haas, he is entitled to his opinion that CO2 exerts no forcing. However, for the sake of argument I have adopted all of official climatology as gospel except where we can prove official climatology to be incorrect. We did not consider it our place to advance theories that we could not prove. That meant accepting that CO2 does cause a forcing, and even accepting that the forcing (albeit that it has been much reduced since earlier official estimates) is not too high.

      • This points to a major problem with climatalogy in that there are just too many variables and one cannot run definitive experiments to prove anything. I myself believe that mankind’s burning up the Earth’s finite supply of fossil fuels is not such a good idea and I would like to use the AGW conjecture as another reason to conserve. At first the AGW conjecture seems quite plausable but upon closer inspection it is full of holes. CO2’s having LWIR absoption bands is fact but that adding more CO2 to th atmosphere will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere is also fact but how these two properties of CO2 in the atmosphere combine to affect climate change is more of a matter of conjecture than it is fact. According to the AGW conjecture, adding more CO2 to the atmoshere will cause warming which will allow more H2O to enter the atmosphere. Because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas, more H2O will cause even more warming so H2O acts as a positive feedback to CO2. But this line of thought neglects the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere, moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. The fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate is evidence of the over all cooling effect of H2O. The feedback is not positive but rather negative so that rather than amplify the effect of CO2, H2O should act to retard the effect of CO2. This is all assuming that there exists a radiant greenhouse effect at all yet there is no real evidence that it does. The AGW conjecture would have us believe that the non-greenhouse gases are somehow thermally inert, an idea that I canot accept. If anything it is the non-greenhouse gases that retain heat energy because they are such poor LWIR radaitors to space and the only way that heat energy can get off this planet is by radiation.

      • Mr Haas’ opinion that coal, oil and gas should be consumed more slowly is not uncommon. However, the present thread concerns itself with a scientific rather than a political question. Will there be anything like as much global warming as official climatology says? Answer: No.

      • “Official climateology” ? What is it and what makes it “official”? There is no “scientific consensus” regarding the AGW conjecture. Scientists have never registered and voted on the matter. Such a consensus would be nonsense because science is not a democracy. The laws of sceince are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. I do however applaud your efforts that shows that, working in the confines of what the IPCC has published, the effects of the so called greenhouse gases are not nearly as bad as the IPCC makes out.

  44. Mr. Monckton’s argument appears to be wrong for at least two reasons. The first is that no-one involved in modelling the climate uses his Eq. 1 and therefore it is irrelevant whether or not there is an error in how it is applied or even whether or not it is valid.

    Secondly the claim that you can replace Delta T by T is wrong or at the very least misleading. Eq. 1 is concerned with a departure from an arbitrary equilibrium and if you change the equilibrium point from
    one temperature to another all of the parameters will change. The most obvious one is the Planck sensitivity parameter which is defined (Roe 2009) as 1/(4 sigma T^3). Clearly this increases enormously if you work near 0K as compared to 300K. Similarly the forcing will also all be strong functions of temperature. So there is no way you can take the values estimated at one reference temperature and apply them to another. It is
    like taking the coefficients of a Taylor series expansion about x=0 and using them to estimate the changes
    about x=300. You will not get a sensible answer.

    • a. It is blindingly clear that the canonical 1.5K to 4.5K sensitivity range has guided the modelers to try to reproduce it from their models so they don’t have to use the actual equation to have it influence them. Basically when a run falls below what is expected then it is rejected as wrong and the parameters are changed to produce a more ‘correct’ result. The climate sensitivity is kept high to keep the parabolic temperature increase in the future while the aerosol parameter is fudged to keep the past and current climate matching the empirical data. All this is based on the circular reasoning that the sensitivity must be high because a low value would not show any problem with CO2 levels – and we can’t show that conclusion can we?
      b. When you do radiative heat transfer with a model in nuclear physics then you have to include the convective feedbacks on old temps as well as new temps which requires iteration in order to get the final, correct answer. It’s true that the real situation for planet Earth would require iteration too so the circuit is not realistic. However I doubt Monckton believes in the simplistic electrical circuit analogy either but it is nevertheless used by the climate community. You seem to be arguing that we should ignore the equation and the electrical analogy because it is obviously based on a combination of wrong guesswork and a requirement for simplistic arithmetic. Fair enough but then also tell the alarmists to stop using such arrant nonsense for the purposes of egging the panic pudding.

      • Jasg,
        In regards (b) it is more than simplistic arithmetic is is complete nonsense. Monckton’s climate equation
        (1) refers to a change in temperature from an arbitrary ground state given a forcing F. Since he wants to
        apply that to a ground state where the sun is off we can take the initial temperature of the earth to be
        2.8K since it will be in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background. Then using the standard
        equation for the Planck sensitivity of 1/(4 sigma T^3) you get a value of 200855 compared with 0.26 or so
        at room temperature. Combine this with the forcing of 1000 W/m^2 you get when the sun turns on and the
        reference temperature becomes 200 million K giving a value for f of -717339. Now I am willing to bet
        that nobody would believe that number not even Monckton.

        Which suggests to me at least that either Monckton is being deliberately fraudulent in trying to deceive people
        or he has made an extremely simple mistake.

        [??? .mod]

      • Germinios working reminds me of the physicists joke in TBBT that ‘I have a solution but it only works for a sphere in a vacuum’. Many physicists do calculations of the atmosphere by doing a calculation as if in space then applying a correction factor to account for the atmosphere. They do this because the sums are much easier and empirical data is not usually available to correct them. In reality the actual forcing due to radiation in an atmosphere is proportional to the difference term (T1^4 – T2^4) which makes the numbers far more reasonable to handle than if you leave the 2nd term out (as germinio did). Unfortunately you need a computer for correct calcs (either analogue or digital); the TBBT whiteboard is just not good enough. That exta term on the lhs of the equations is the unknown final temp which is also on the rhs. Hence the correct equation requires the feedback on the input that M describes (as indeed do all input values dependent on temperature) but some conventional physicists may not grasp this concept immediately because they have always done their calcs in the oversimplified way – by just ignoring that 2nd term and hence ignoring proper feedback – in order to obtain an easy ‘hand-written’ answer. This over-simplification can give them massive confusion about the relative size of numbers.

    • Germinio says the argument presented in the head posting is incorrect because “no one involved in modeling the climate uses his Eq. 1 and therefore it is irrelevant whether or not there is an error in how it is applied or even whether or not it is valid.” Germinio is simply wrong. Read e.g. Roe (2009); Bates (2007, 2016); several papers by Lindzen; Hansen (1984); Schlesinger (1985); etc.. etc., etc. The zero-dimensional model is used in climatology to discern diagnostically the equilibrium sensitivities that the models would be likely to predict given specified reference temperatures and feedback fractions.

      Germinio is also incorrect to state that one may not use absolute or entire temperatures as inputs to and outputs from the feedback loop. We not only had the benefit of our own test rig and of a test rig constructed by a government laboratory but also the advice of two control engineers and a professor of applied control theory. The relevant feedback theory is well described in ch. 3 of the standard textboo, Bode (1945). The mathematics of feedback amplification is in essence the same for any dynamical system on which feedbacks bear.

      Germinio is also incorrect to attempt to calculate the Planck parameter on the basis of only a few K of incoming radiation. Temperature feedbacks do not concern themselves with how the emission temperature of 255 K (not 0 or 2.73 K) came to be: they respond to the temperature as they find it. Such matters are very easily confirmed by using a test rig, which is precisely why we and the government lab built test rigs.

      • If you look at Eq. 5 of Roe 2009 it reads:
        Delta T = lambda_0 Delta R/(1 – c_1 lambda_0)
        where lambda_0 is defined in Eq. 3 as
        lambda_0=1/(4 sigma T^3)
        and c_1 is the feedback.

        The question is then what is the Temperature T? Roe defines by:

        Let R be the radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere between the net longwave radiation flux, F, and the net shortwave radiation flux, S. In equilibrium, R = S + F = 0.1 Let T be the global- and annual-mean temperature that characterizes this equilibrium state.

        So before you can use Roe’s equation 5 “a reference system (i.e., a system without the feedback) must be defined. Defining this reference system is a central aspect of feedback analysis.” Again from Roe 2009.
        If you want to replace as Monckton does the Delta T in Eq. T with T then that implies that your reference
        state must be one with F=0 and hence the reference system is one in which the sun is not shining. This
        gives a reference temperature of about 3 K and so lambda_0 which is the Planck sensitivity parameter is
        about a million times larger than it is if you take the reference temperature to be the current average temperature. Which again gives a ridiculous value for the feedback parameter.

        Now as Roe states you can take whatever reference system you like but then you need to remember that
        Eq. 5 is only valid for small perturbations from that reference system. Again Roe 2009 has an entire
        section entitled “Feedbacks Are Just Taylor Series in Disguise” which concludes with:

        Gains and feedbacks calculated with respect to different reference systems cannot be directly compared.

        Something that Monckton and his colleagues are trying to do and not surprisingly it leads to nonsense.

      • Germinio’s latest muddled contribution talks of different reference systems. But we are talking of only one reference system: the climate. In the climate, the reference temperature is the emission temperature, which may be amplified by adding non-condensing greenhouse gases to the mix. Bode makes the same mistake as all other climatologists in not understanding that the emission temperature is itself capable of inducing a feedback.

      • Monckton – If you actually read Roe 2009 you would see that the reference system is a system
        without feedbacks and therefore cannot be the climate. In Roe it is an idealized gray body that
        emits according to the Stefan Bolztmann law. If you want to take the reference temperature as
        255K (the emission temperature) then all temperatures in your Eq. 1 are measured relative to that
        so that inputting a temperature of 255K would then imply that the actual temperature was 510K.
        Again you need to read Roe’s paper rather than just selectively cite it.

      • Geronimo seems confused. By definition, in a dynamical system the reference value of a variable is the value of that variable before accounting for any feedback response that arises owing to the presence of a) the reference value and b) at least one feedback process. Roe is explicitly (though in one respect erroneously) applying the Bode equation to the climate.

  45. I’ve always known you can win the science: it was always a scam. But can you win the politics? Can you change the hysteria that allows carpetbaggers to despoil our countries with wind/solar farms that add no value to a growing world – yet diminish the means whereby the first world can bring the third world into the present day? AGW was always a political entree to a UN-led order, where nobody, except the extremely wealthy Soroses and Gores (fill in the names as you will) of this world would benefit.

    • “Can you change the hysteria that allows carpetbaggers to despoil our countries with wind/solar farms that add no value to a growing world – yet diminish the means whereby the first world can bring the third world into the present day? AGW was always a political entree to a UN-led order, where nobody, except the extremely wealthy Soroses and Gores (fill in the names as you will) of this world would benefit.”

      This is a lovely example of one’s views of AGW becoming dominated by the politics.

      “despoil our countries with wind/solar farms” – How about the ugly power plants and refineries chugging out their putrid fumes, or the mines that blow the top of a mountain off?

      “diminish the means whereby the first world can bring the third world into the present day”
      What? It’s not the responsibility of the first world to determine their future. Many third world countries are electing to install renewables, as well as FF. Renewables are bringing electricity to villages off the grid. The price of PV panels has dropped so much that in some cases it’s less expensive than coal at auction, and it is generally catching up to coal. Renewable installation has been a major new employer, providing 100s of thousands of jobs in the U.S.

      …And while China takes the clear global lead in renewable energy while we sit back and argue it’s a waste of money to cooperate with the rest of the world in reducing the threats of climate change that we, more than any other country, contributed to. Because half the nation rejects the science and turns it into a political debate. Meanwhile, the U.S. is cutting funding for R&D and making installation of PV more expensive for no good reason, unless it’s to help the FF industry.

      “Skeptics” are constantly accusing AGW of being influenced by politics, yet seem completely blind to the fact that politics play an enormous role in their views. How is this possible? It baffles me.

      • The renewables industry has behaved badly:
        1. They’ve stolen some of our money to fund their business.
        2. They’re largely responsible for pushing-up the price of electricity in Australia to a level where our business can no longer compete with our Asian competitors (we’re highly automated so wages are not a factor).
        You’ll have an answer for the above and every other possible objections to unfair energy prices because you’re a fundamentalist eco academic who doesn’t function in the real World.
        Your life objective (like a hundred other Gov talking-heads and academics we know) is to live off other people in a socialist utopia. Half the World with extreme prejudice desires living off the other half .
        Unfortunately for your kind, physics is against you so good luck with that because in the long game the real World will prevail.
        Regarding China, we do business there and they don’t care about CO2 and it’s a standing joke to all except a small minority of EU schooled academics at Westernised universities there. China cares about:
        1. Pollution.
        2. Dominating the manufacture of solar and wind turbine components and systems.
        3. Fostering anti CO2 fanaticism in the West to encourage the relocation of energy-intensive industries to China and in a hundred years to Africa where they’re currently (small step at a time) establish a formidable beach-head
        Kristi has a lot of words paid for with others’ money. We, the real people here (many now retired) create employment and fill tax coffers (indicating we’re not a multi-national); well not yet.

      • If China takes the lead in renewables, why do their CO2 emissions keep increasing, while America’s keep falling? I’m happy to let them take the lead in the dead end of renewables. It’s shocking that Trump hasn’t presented a budget ending subsidies for wind and solar.

      • Warren,
        “You’ll have an answer for the above and every other possible objections to unfair energy prices because you’re a fundamentalist eco academic who doesn’t function in the real World.” Etc.

        Is this how you perceive the world in general, Warren? Do you learn just enough about a person to put him in a box that lists his attributes, so you don’t have to know a person before characterizing him? We all do this to some extent, but some list fewer traits, and don’t keep the box locked.

        No, I have no answers for you. I have no idea what’s going on between Asia and Australia.

        So you’re an Aussie? I lived on the Atherton Tablelands for about 3 years. I loved living down there, thought the people delightful and the land amazingly beautiful. I miss it. I did notice there were a lot of people on the dole.

        Socialism is impractical and wrong. It’s stuffing humanity into an unnatural mold. I’m a capitalist in favor of some regulation because I think free market capitalism is also idealistic. We can’t rely on humans to act in business in a way the promotes the good of society as a whole (e.g. put tax breaks back into the company rather than give bonuses to executives). ***Extreme*** wealth and income disparity is not good for society, and unrestrained free markets naturally lead to this disparity. Wealth is power and that means power is also uneven. Equal opportunity is a myth. I don’t know how to fix it, but socialism is not the answer.

        China:
        1) Agree
        2) Agree
        3) “Fostering anti CO2 fanaticism in the West to encourage the relocation of energy-intensive industries to China… ” Conspiracy theory? The “AGW is a Chinese hoax” hoax? What is this??

        Warren, we’ve all been influenced by our surroundings. But whether liberal or conservative we all have the capacity to break our molds and think for ourselves. We are all human.

      • Chimp –

        China’s CO2 emissions were rising extremely quickly because of their huge economic growth. Largely through transitioning to renewables, they actually turned that trend around so much that emissions dropped for a few years, although economic recession helped, and it increased again last year. Still, it’s pretty impressive; we’ll have to see what happens this year. Pollution is a motive, yes, but since China does a lot of climate research, I imagine that is also a factor. (I’m not saying China is innocent, and there are contradictions in words and action, but China is not alone there.)

      • That’s weird. The graph came without the text.

        (NYT isn’t normally where I go for my data. I’ve seen the graph elsewhere.)

      • Kristi,

        China’s emissions dropped because of their economic slowdown, not because of increased renewables use. China sells solar panels and windmills to the US because our environmental rules make it impossible to build them here, and thanks to China’s rare earth resources. But they make very little use of these technologies themselves.

        They are however shutting down old coal plants in favor of newer, more efficient ones. The air in China’s cities is worse than Dickensian London, during the days of dark Satanic mills.

    • Mr Passfield raises a point that many others here have raised. Even if we are right and can prove it, how will we overcome the totalitarian party line? Simple: we seek the truth and then we speak the truth. Our argument is sufficiently simple that anyone with high-school math and an open mind will be able to understand it. It is, in our submission, self-evidently true. It leaves remarkably little room for argument. Once this fact becomes apparent to all, that will be the end of the scare.

      As for Silber’s comment that skeptics have political views and can, therefore, be disregarded because they are not the totalitarian views that Silber espouses, the head posting does not constitute a political argument but a scientific one. It stands or falls on such intrinsic merits as it may possess, regardless of Silber’s politics or of anyone else’s.

    • Chimp –
      “China’s emissions dropped because of their economic slowdown, not because of increased renewables use. China sells solar panels and windmills to the US because our environmental rules make it impossible to build them here, and thanks to China’s rare earth resources. But they make very little use of these technologies themselves.”

      Have you ever Googled “china renewable energy”? There are umpteen reports about China’s use. Are they all propaganda?

      http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Chinas-Global-Renewable-Energy-Expansion_January-2017.pdf

      They also invest in renewable projects here. Just think: the Chinese are putting up the money for our energy industry.

      “The expanding rate of foreign investment by Chinese firms was examined in the 2013
      report by the World Resources Institute, which tracked 124 investments over the decade
      to 2012 (Figure 3). Investment has clearly accelerated since the global financial crisis,
      taking advantage of the retreat from global markets of Western firms, particularly banks”

      This is what happens when we shun globalization in a global economy: others capitalize on it.

      “…because our environmental rules make it impossible to build them here” Yeah, great industry to put tariffs on. Makes a lot of sense. (It’s not impossible to build them here, or course; it’s just cheaper in China.)

  46. “They arise solely because the models have been tuned over the decades to yield Charney sensitivities high enough to account for the entire 33 K.”

    No room for any poleward heat transport from the tropics?

      • Polar amplification is bunk. My point is that poleward heat transport raises the global mean surface temperature independently of the mean global atmospheric greenhouse effect. Particularly ocean transport.

      • Earth’s inner cire has been moving. Quite a lot. North east. Magnetic stirrer effect? Leaves is cooler here in South Africa. And warmer at the morth pole.

      • Yogi Bear is entitled to his opinion that “polar amplification is bunk”. However, official climatology, after measuring the relative rates of warming, confirms what theory would lead us to expect: that it is not bunk. It is so. Got over it. As I have repeated time and again, if people wish to disagree with official climatology, except where we have demonstrated it to be in error, this is not the appropriate thread.

      • You are the confused party, poleward heat transport does not directly imply polar amplification. UAH lower stratosphere shows the north pole region cooled Dec 1978 to Mar 1995. Why should something raises Earth’s mean surface temperature independently of an atmospheric greenhouse effect be off topic?

  47. Christopher Monckton is right and should be congratulated for his excellent work. The idea that only carbon dioxide is the change that forces feedback is ludicrous.

    Almost every location on the planet undergoes continuous changes in solar insolation due to seasonal, diurnal and cloud cover effects. At any point in time, the location will be affected by feedbacks which may involve water phase changes (freeze, thaw, evaporation, condensation) and their heating or cooling consequences. The microclimate will depend on the particular temperature driving the feedbacks at that time at that location.

    Note that none of this requires any involvement of carbon dioxide, which is just another minor variable. I am conscious that the dynamic nature of the situation I describe can be interpreted as a series of changes in temperature, suggesting that I agree that feedbacks require change to initiate them.

    It is the actual temperature that is important, not the change. A low temperature will cause less water evaporation than a high temperature. The concept of a global (average) temperature has been challenged by many people. To then believe that it has physical reality and treat it as somehow fixed or static is to take the concept to a ridiculous extent.

    The work discussed above really should be a game changer, though I suspect the climate community will receive it with resounding silence. There is still a mountain to climb.

    • Yes indeed, scraping the ice off your car windscreen(shield) after a clear night above freezing is a good moment to contemplate the universe and the little we know of it.

    • Schrodinger’s Cat is one among many who have been kind enough to say they consider the argument summarized in the head posting to be correct. For it is a simple argument. There is a belief, fostered by totalitarians, that all arguments to do with the climate must be complex. However, as William of Ockham used to say, “Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.” It is the simplicity of our discovery – provided that we are correct – that will eventually convince all but an immovable totalitarian few.

      • fantasy, cm.
        ask dan pearl how it works convincing a true believer.
        you’re the bull who will tear up that red cape is all.
        the game is about submission. debate is negotiation of terms.
        when you realize it’s strictly a ruse and focus on defending your rights, you may have a chance- but dan didn’t figure it out quickly enough and i have no reason to expect the rest of the angels.of.sweet.reason will figure it out either.
        the renaissance of your dreams happens rarely- and for a brief moment, the light of reason may illuminate the world.
        then the kids grow up savage and stupid again from excess of leisure combined with lack of responsibility.
        consequences are borne by the victims who endure, in vain hope that sweet reason may return as if by magic. because they also have grown to believe that it’s not up to them to do more than exhort the supernatural ‘others’ who will bring salvation to them.
        as long as people continue to pay for it, it will go on. debate prolongs the predator’s foreplay and they like it.
        they know you are already lost in the long game when you negotiate because if you were truly averse you would approach the topic of your submission rather differently.

      • Gnomish, like so many others here, despairs. However, I was brought up not to do that. If the truth is simple, as we say it is, then the totalitarians – like it or not – will have to come into line, and sooner rather than later.

      • In response to Gnomish, the tax on tea imposed by HM Government was at the bargain-basement rate of half a crown a pound. If the Colonies would like to rejoin the fold, we shall be happy to remit all other taxes, imposts and charges now inflicted by the grasping Infernal Revenue Service upon Her Majesty’s loyal and long-suffering colonial subjects, provided that in future those subjects remember to put the tea in the teapot rather than in the harbor. Tastes better that way.

      • gnomish April 1, 2018 at 6:19 am

        Even the British are no longer technically subjects of the Crown. They’re now officially “citizens” of the UK, although lacking many of the inherent rights of citizens.

      • Gnomish says Britons are no longer subjects of the Crown but mere “citizens”. In fact, a year from now we shall cease to be “citizens of the European Union” and become British subjects once more. God save the Queen!

      • it’s a good thing you didn’t have to tell that joke in german
        but if you fail to learn from history-
        when the globalists won’t let britain secede from the EU, you can’t fight them off with a sporks.

        debate is how you got ate.

  48. To avoid confusion, is this value of Charney sensitivity of 1.45K accepted as accurate, or is it another case of “bending the numbers”? If it is accepted, doesn’t that invalidate the original claim that the upper bound was 1.35K? Finally what is the confidence interval for the 1.45K figure?

    • Ah, perhaps a misstatement. Ever since Carney, yhe lower, not upper, bound was ~1.5. Thismis as a likely most probable at his,lower bound. Game over.

      • Monckton of Brenchley,

        Did I misunderstand? Your fisrt post said that Charney sensitivity was 1.2 ± 0.15 K, now you say Charney sensitivity 1.45K. Are you saying that in your first post you meant that it was transient sensitivity that was 1.2K?

      • Monckton of Brenchley,

        I was asking about your original post saying the Charney sensitivity was 1.2 ± 0.15K. Are you saying that should have been transient sensitivity?

      • “…I shall hope to demonstrate that there may not be much difference between transient and equilibrium sensitivity.”

        So why ask if I understood the difference?

        My original question still stands. Are you accepting that your figure for Charney sensitivity of 1.2 ± 0.15 K was wrong and a better value is 1.45K?

      • In reply to “Bellman”, it was made quite explicit in the discussion of transient and equilibrium sensitivity in the second piece in this series that I was bending over backwards to push the argument as far in the direction of the totalitarians as I could. This should not be taken as acceptance on my part that equilibrium sensitivity much exceeds 1.2 K.

      • Monckton of Brenchley

        “In reply to “Bellman”, it was made quite explicit in the discussion of transient and equilibrium sensitivity in the second piece in this series that I was bending over backwards to push the argument as far in the direction of the totalitarians as I could. This should not be taken as acceptance on my part that equilibrium sensitivity much exceeds 1.2 K.”

        Thanks for the eventual clarification. It wasn’t clear to me that these latest figures were part of the same “bending over backwards” process given that you started of by calling them the “corrected” figures, and ristvan seemed to think you were agreeing with his figures.

        Perhaps it would help in future, if you explicitly listed which arguments you are using that you think sets the value unrealistically high.

      • Bellman should read the head postings more carefully. I had stated in the second article that the climate sensitivities were being adjusted to push them as far towards the totalitarian position as possible. Even then, equilibrium sensitivity is less than half of the currently-advertised mid-range estimates.

      • Monckton of Brenchley,

        Bellman should read the head postings more carefully. I had stated in the second article that the climate sensitivities were being adjusted to push them as far towards the totalitarian position as possible.

        We were talking about this article. But even in your second post I don’t see where you made such a claim. All I see is you saying have made “generous allowance for the point raised by commentators.”. You make similar claims in the first post, and in this post you say you are accepting for arguments sake “that everything in official climatology is true except where we have discovered errors.”

        I don’t see anything in this post to suggest you think that the 1.55K sensitivity is less reliable than the 1.2 ±0.15K sensitivity. You don’t even mention the original figure or explain why the new figure is different or why it probably wrong. On the contrary, you seem to accept ristvan’s sensitivity of 1.45K as supporting your argument, and in the comments above, ristvan seems to think you had changed your mind:

        My critique expalined how and why. IMO any effort to prove an ECS below 1.2 is doomed (includind previous Monckton) simply because basic physics and the world say cannot be so. My own vote, is 1.5ish, though perfectly willing to go with Monckton at ‘my’ 1.45 or his 1.55. Too mich uncertainty. No matter which value, CAGW is thereby permanently cancelled.

        Finally, when I asked for clarification as to which sensitivity you thought was correct, rather than simply saying the 1.45K figure was an exaggeration, you pointed out there was a distinction between equilibrium and transitive sensitivities.

        So I’m sorry if I didn’t immediately realize which figure was the one you thought most likely, but I do think you might benefit from being just a little clearer in your writing.

      • The preachy Bellman asks me to be clearer in my writing. With respect, he should be more attentive to his reading skills. Several kindergartens offer remedial classes.

        Here is a quotation from my second article: “However, commenters have asserted that the equilibrium warming will be perhaps 40% greater than the 0.76 shown in the temperature record, because some of the warming will have gone into the ocean, and may return to warm the atmosphere in a few decades.
        In that event, our industrial-era feedback fraction becomes 1 – 0.72 / (0.76 x 1.4) = 0.32, or more than two and a half times the pre-industrial feedback fraction. That should handsomely allow for the nonlinearities in feedbacks whose omission from the original calculation several commenters complained of. In reality, the nonlinearity will be far less than this.”

        In the very next sentence, I confirm the point by saying that the feedback fraction 0.32 is “probably much inflated”.

        This seems clear enough to me. But Bellman is really only going on and on about this to try – vainly – to distract attention away from the fact that, once due allowance is made for the feedback response to emission temperature, and once that large response is no longer erroneously added to the feedback response to the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, the feedback fraction – whichever way one slices it – is very substantially below the 0.67-0.75 currently imagined by official climatology on the basis of its error. Take away the error and the rate of global warming will be altogether insufficient to cause net harm worldwide.

      • “Here is a quotation from my second article”

        As I’ve said before, my question was not about your second article but the third one. I accept you made it clear that you did not agree with the 1.6K sensitivity value stated in the second article (though I think it would have been clearer if you had explicitly stated this at the start), hence my initial confusion at this third article which seems to be accepting a value of 1.55K even if for the sake of argument.

        I can find nothing in this article to indicate that you think the 1.55K value is too high, and lots to suggest you were accepting it. As previously mentioned, Rud Istvan, who you quote in support explicitly describes your 1.2K figure as probably being too low, and you said nothing to correct him.

        Therefore I felt it worth asking for clarification. You could have ended this pointless discussion straight away by saying, “no we don’t accept the 1.45K figure”, instead you asked me to consider the distinction between transient and equilibrium sensitivities. Either a non sequitur or possibly implying that the 1.2K value was for transient sensitivity.

  49. There is only one way that temperature can increase and that is for the translation velocity of the molecules to increase. It can not be shown that the IR absorbed by a CO2 molecule is sufficient to do that. The mass of CO2 molecule is too high.

    Anthony already demonstrated if given the same Q that CO2 has a lower temperature. See his video on CO2 in a glass jar.

    It takes 1.3 kJ to increase a cubic meter of air one degree C. There is not enough energy in the IR at 15 micro to do it. Dr. Christy pointed this out years ago.

    • MKelly, please stop tarnishing solid gold skeptic arguments with such rubbish. To issue a more specific challenge, you assert WUWT already published a CO2 in a glass jar AGW disproof.
      What Anthony did was prove the Bill Nye ‘experiment’ was bogus. I think you miscomprehend AGW. Go look again, then get back.

      • Ristvan, sorry you disagree but using standard Q = Cp* m * dT it is easily shown that the jar with CO2 could not attain the same temperature, given same Q, as the jar with air. The mass of CO2 is too high.

        Anthony demonstrated just that.

        According to theory the CO2 jar should have had an extra 75 W available and cooled slower. That did not happen.

        Dr. Strangelove below shows that a photon of 15 micro can only impart 1.32 e-20 J to a CO2 molecule. Now that energy is supposed to increase the translation of the CO2 molecule which then causes other molecules via collision to increase translation there by raising temperature. That input is too small to make a measurable difference.

        Dr. Christy years ago used the example of how much Q is necessary to raise 1 cubic meter air a degree and ask his students to try and show if that could be done using IPCC forcing. (If I remember correctly). It takes 1300 kJ to do that. I have never been able to get the math to work.

        You may not like the conclusion I come to but it is all based on standard physics. I am certainly willing to be corrected but your “rubbish” comment shows me you may not not be as willing or as congenial.

        If I am incorrect about the relationship between translation and temperature, or the specific heat formula, or which theory of AGW I used please let me know.

      • Anthony’s rebuttal was heroic and showed just what he said it did – the Bill Nye presentation was bogus.

        Now – does anyone remember the physics paper that said that even if it had not been faked, whatever came out could not be the result of CO2? I think it blamed “enthalpy”. Sent me in search of my thermo text. Can’t relocate the paper. Thanks for any pointing.

    • “There is only one way that temperature can increase and that is for the translation velocity of the molecules to increase. It can not be shown that the IR absorbed by a CO2 molecule is sufficient to do that. The mass of CO2 molecule is too high.”

      This is wrong. IR can easily increase gas temperature.
      Energy of 15 um IR photon from Planck’s law:
      E = h c/w = 1.32 e-20 J
      where E is energy, h is Planck’s constant, c is speed of light, w is wavelength
      Kinetic energy of CO2 molecule:
      E = KE = 1/2 m v^2
      m = M/N
      where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass of molecule, v is velocity of molecule, M is molar mass of CO2 = 44 g/mol, N is Avogadro’s number
      Solving for v^2
      v^2 = 2 E/m = 3.6 e5
      Mean kinetic temperature of gas from kinetic molecular theory:
      T = v^2 M /(3 R)
      where T is mean kinetic temperature, R is ideal gas constant
      T = 635 K

      You see there’s enough energy in IR to increase gas temperature. CO2 is only a trace gas in the air that’s why we don’t get this high temperature

      • Whilst I do not disagree with the entirety of your comment, I would point out that CO2 is not a trace gas on Mars, and Mars does not get that high temperature.

        It is a question how everything plays out in the complex and dynamic atmosphere that our planet has where IR (other than at TOA) is only a bit player.

      • “CO2 is not a trace gas on Mars, and Mars does not get that high temperature”

        Kinetic temperature is not equal to thermometer temperature. Thermometer approximates kinetic temperature when gas density is high. For example, kinetic temperature in the thermosphere is 1,000 C but it’s cold there due to low gas density. Mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s

      • Dr. Strangelove March 30, 2018 at 11:00 pm
        “There is only one way that temperature can increase and that is for the translation velocity of the molecules to increase. It can not be shown that the IR absorbed by a CO2 molecule is sufficient to do that. The mass of CO2 molecule is too high.”

        This is wrong. IR can easily increase gas temperature.
        ………

        You see there’s enough energy in IR to increase gas temperature. CO2 is only a trace gas in the air that’s why we don’t get this high temperature

        Yes as I recall when I last worked this calculation there’s about enough energy in a single 15 micron photon to raise the temperature of ~600 air molecules by 1ºC, when thermalized via a CO2 molecule.

      • Dr. Strangelove March 31, 2018 at 3:46 am
        “CO2 is not a trace gas on Mars, and Mars does not get that high temperature”

        Kinetic temperature is not equal to thermometer temperature. Thermometer approximates kinetic temperature when gas density is high. For example, kinetic temperature in the thermosphere is 1,000 C but it’s cold there due to low gas density. Mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s

        Under Martian conditions the excited CO2 molecule is more likely to lose its energy by rereadiation rather than thermalizing with the surrounding atmosphere (unlike earth).

      • “T=635C”

        What did you figure out there?
        The internal energy of co2 converted to macroscopic energy?

        15 micron peak radiation is equivalent to a ~200K blackbody. Gases absorb much weaker than a blackbody, so it’s way less than 200K.

      • >>
        Dr. Strangelove
        March 30, 2018 at 11:00 pm

        Mean kinetic temperature of gas from kinetic molecular theory:
        T = v^2 M /(3 R)
        where T is mean kinetic temperature, R is ideal gas constant
        T = 635 K
        <<

        Your calculation is slightly wrong. The kinetic molecular theory equation is using only three degrees of freedom. Three degrees of freedom would be for a monatomic gas such as helium or neon (the noble gases). Generally (for normal temperatures), diatomic gases use five degrees of freedom (they can go up to seven). CO2 is neither of these. CO2 has nine degrees of freedom (3 translational, 2 rotational, 4 vibrational). So your temperature should be something like 212K.

        Jim

      • Jim Masterson April 3, 2018 at 6:41 am
        >>
        Dr. Strangelove
        March 30, 2018 at 11:00 pm

        Mean kinetic temperature of gas from kinetic molecular theory:
        T = v^2 M /(3 R)
        where T is mean kinetic temperature, R is ideal gas constant
        T = 635 K
        <<

        Your calculation is slightly wrong. The kinetic molecular theory equation is using only three degrees of freedom.
        Which is correct, the kinetic energy of translational motion only three dof.

        Three degrees of freedom would be for a monatomic gas such as helium or neon (the noble gases). Generally (for normal temperatures), diatomic gases use five degrees of freedom (they can go up to seven). CO2 is neither of these. CO2 has nine degrees of freedom (3 translational, 2 rotational, 4 vibrational). So your temperature should be something like 212K.

        The internal degrees of freedom come into play when determining heat capacity, around room temperature the vibrational modes are largely ‘frozen out’, in CO2 there is some contribution of vibration but not the full amount.

  50. Rather than continue the nonsense of reducing CO2 can we use these models constructively. If mankind can push CO2 to 800ppm over the next 200 years, will temperatures and precipitation rise enough to help the ecosystem use the CO2 effectively to increase agricultural production and improve the lot of man.

    • Unfortunately, 800 ppm of plant food in the air is probably not possible. The most we can possibly boost this essential trace gas is likely about another 200 ppm.

      More’s the pity. Let alone the 1200 ppm which would be ideal for life on our CO2-starved planet.

      • Beng,

        Thanks!

        Various authors have attempted to calculate just how much plant food we might be able to add to the air over the next, say, 168 years. Allegedly we’ve enriched the atmosphere by some 120 ppm since AD 1850. Population growth will slow over the coming century, but standard of living will likely increase. So too however will the efficiency of fossil fuel use. Hence, IMO, even another 120 ppm might be pushing it, depending upon nuclear fraction. Forget about so-called renewables. They’ll never be significant.

        But I’ve read credible suggestions of 600 ppm, perhaps over a slightly longer interval. But that assumes a maximal amount of fossil fuel use.

    • LearDog well appreciates the totalitarian mindset when he says that our argument may be rejected because I do not possess any piece of paper to say that I have received appropriate Socialist training in climatology. However, our argument is sufficiently simple to be accessible to any open mind with high-school mathematics. In the end, just as the truth is rapidly gaining ground here, so it will come to be known more widely, until the present absurd overestimates of transient and equilibrium sensitivities are overthrown, and the climate scam with them.

  51. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

    Green, and Wolf, have the most significant critiques of your efforts. Verney supported me but not much else. Ristvan is wise, good elsewhere, but not much on this thread.

    I have been composing this for three days. Mechanical Engineers go quite in depth with heat, radiation, energy, flux, heat capacity, Specific Heat which means Heat Capacity per unit mass, absorbance/emissivity, and the properties of ice/water/steam, as that is where money is spent. I did not go to the Number One ME school in the world, MIT, where my dad went, I went to the second one, University of Michigan, on an academic scholarship by the way.

    241 W/M2 destroys their argument, and yours as well. Feedback based on CO2 Increase leading to a Temperature Increase leading to a Water Vapor Increase leading to more Temperature Increase, (note how I have highlighted the key words by Capitalization) is completely unproven, particularly by no records showing any increase in RH or AH.

    The concept that 255 K is the max that the Sun could make the temperature of the Earth is absurd, implying that an atmosphere cannot insulate, which by the way means “Retard Heat Transfer Away From,” this surface. Of course it can, with or without molecules with three or more atoms. Wolf demonstrated this well. One thing that nobody on here seems to understand is that Every Molecule in the Atmosphere Radiates All The Time at its own Temperature.

    So-called “Climate Scientists” ignore the Laws of Physics in an attempt to game the Press, leftists, who want to gain political power by claiming to be protecting the Natural Earth. The Universities have become cesspools of Mendacity, done, hard to undo.

    Wolf mentioned not to engage them in their own “Sandbox,” correct, please do not.

    241 W/M2 comes from an absurd and arithmetically invalid idea that the Flux, note not Flux Density just Flux, can be averaged over the surface of the Spherical Rotating Earth and then back-run through the S-B Law to find an average surface temp. Dividing two quantities, both of which are taken to the Fourth Power, and then dividing by Four, and taking the Fourth Root, ignores the simplest arithmetic. And, the idea that we know the actual Albedo of the Earth from satellites that cannot see the entire surface, and know what it is every year/month/day/hour, even more absurd.

    And, notwithstanding the different properties of Albedo/Specific Heat of every square meter of the surface of Mother Earth, we also ignore the 23 degree inclination of Her orbit, leaving large surfaces completely without Insolation for months on end.

    Do you know understand what I meant by Vast Over-Simplification???

    To close, what is the exact Average Surface Temperature of the Moon, which of course experiences the same Solar Flux as the Earth? There are caverns adjacent to the craters where Solar Flux never reaches, which approach absolute Zero as their averaged temperature.

    You have jumped into deep water with both feet. I will help you to correct all this, for free, could you trouble yourself to ask. Things are going well for me now…

    • Michael Moon: Wolf mentioned not to engage them in their own “Sandbox,” correct, please do not.

      I think it is worthwhile to point out the inconsistencies in the. shall I say “standard” view. A complete and accurate alternative does not look to me to be achievable in under 3 more decades. It’s as if to say, I don’t know the right place to construct a bridge across the river, but in the meantime let’s not build it upon sand.

    • “what is the exact Average Surface Temperature of the Moon, which of course experiences the same Solar Flux as the Earth?”

      Ok let’s use the moon as proxy for Earth without atmosphere
      Minimum moon temperature T1 = 100 K
      Maximum moon temperature T2 = 373 K
      Moon’s albedo = 0.12
      Emissivity e = 1 – 0.12 = 0.88

      Stefan-Boltzmann law in differential form:
      dJ = e o dT^4
      Integrating the differential equation:
      J = e o T^5 /5
      Summation from T1 to T2:
      sum J = e o/5 (T2^5 – T1^5)
      Average flux:
      Ja = sum J /(T2 – T1) = 264 W/m^2
      Average temperature:
      Ta = (Ja/(e o))^0.25 = 270 K

      Now that’s warmer than 255 K of standard climatology

      • Albedo is misused here. It determines the amount of sunlight that is absorbed and has to be emitted as IR. It doesn’t determine the IR emissivity.

      • Dr. Strangelove March 31, 2018 at 2:02 am
        Emissivity and Stefan-Boltzmann constant cancel out in the calculation. They don’t affect the average temperature.

        They don’t cancel out because the value calculated from the albedo is due to the range of wavelengths emitted by the sun whereas the value used in the S-B equation will refer to the wavelengths over which the IR is emitted.
        In the case of the Earth 0.61 and ~0.98.

      • In the moon calculation, e is IR emissivity and it cancels out. Disregard the albedo. Even if e is unknown, it still cancels out. Clouds are part of the atmosphere and they reflect sunlight. So disregard albedo in a model without atmosphere.

      • Strangelove,

        What do you say of this?
        “It is important to note that the average kinetic energy used here is limited to the translational kinetic energy of the molecules. That is, they are treated as point masses and no account is made of internal degrees of freedom such as molecular rotation and vibration. This distinction becomes quite important when you deal with subjects like the specific heats of gases. When you try to assess specific heat, you must account for all the energy possessed by the molecules, and the temperature as ordinarily measured does not account for molecular rotation and vibration.”
        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html Geoff

      • I say translational kinetic energy is useful for study of heat transfer in fluids. Molecular rotational and vibration must be considered for heat transfer in solids, latent heat and entropy.

      • Dr. Strangelove March 31, 2018 at 7:05 pm
        In the moon calculation, e is IR emissivity and it cancels out. Disregard the albedo. Even if e is unknown, it still cancels out. Clouds are part of the atmosphere and they reflect sunlight. So disregard albedo in a model without atmosphere.

        In your calculation for the moon you used the Bond albedo so the e used is for all wavelengths, not IR only. The e used in the S-B equation will be the IR value which is not the same.

    • Mr Moon finds the premises of official climatology incorrect. Perhaps so, perhaps not: but the approach we have sternly adopted in the head posting is to accept all of official climatology except what we can demonstrate to be false. If Mr Moon wishes to write a paper finding other errors, the world of scientific publishing is open to him: but, if we are right, there will be no need for him to do so: for the scare is over.

      • CMofB,

        We cannot eliminate a scare by contradicting false premises. Whether these false premises are well-accepted or not, the only True Path is to demonstrate the actual physical truths. Maybe this seems too much for you.

        I am independently wealthy, about to increase my fortune substantially, and find myself with time on my hands.

        Let’s go

      • Michael

        What a wonderful offer you made to Christopher. You suggest he will lead us doing some actual research? I also have some time on my hands. But I have no money….

      • Michael Moon
        your comment gave me an idea.
        Must say that we have not moved much in the discussion on whether there really is a warming effect from the increase [of 0.01%] CO2 in the atmosphere that happened during the past 40 years, since the past 10 years that I started looking at the problem…
        I have done my own empirical experiment, others have done some calculations, like LordM, that convinced them either way, and most, like Nick& his friends here still believe in the scare mongers like Gore, Hansen and Mann. I think it is because nobody really could or wanted to or have the means and money to check the truth by experiment.
        It is not so difficult for me to think of a large scale closed box experiment to check the warming effect of an increase of 0.01, 0.02 or 0.03 % of CO2 in the atmosphere. Would not cost much either. We could use some of the big green houses in Holland where they already add CO2 to get bigger tomatoes. However, that would only settle the OGLWR.
        The ICSWR is where the problem lies. Up until recently I had no idea how we could measure this. However, there are now satellites measuring T (e.g. UAH and RSS) and most recently there is now also a satellite measuring CO2. If somehow we could co-ordinate some of these satellites’ measurements we could possibly have a link that measures CO2 and T at the same time at the same place. Given enough measurements, we could then possibly get a correlation between decreasing T and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. [e.g. above volcanos CO2 would be higher than anywhere else next to the volcano; the more such opposing measurements, the merrier]
        Note that I am here just throwing some ideas up in the air and see what falls down.
        I am not sure exactly what is or will be possible with regard to the ICSWR to quantify the cooling effect of the CO2.

        And that brought me to my point: How about it if you offer a certain prize to anyone coming up with the experiments that would prove without any doubt what the net effect is of more CO2 in the atmosphere in the relevant amounts, i.e. + 0.01-0.02%?

        ps. just put me on the judges’ panel!

    • Michael Moon March 30, 2018 at 10:43 pm
      The concept that 255 K is the max that the Sun could make the temperature of the Earth is absurd, implying that an atmosphere cannot insulate, which by the way means “Retard Heat Transfer Away From,” this surface. Of course it can, with or without molecules with three or more atoms. Wolf demonstrated this well. One thing that nobody on here seems to understand is that Every Molecule in the Atmosphere Radiates All The Time at its own Temperature.

      Which if you’d attended some Physical Chemistry classes at your esteemed university you would have found out isn’t true!
      The ‘three atom’ concept mentioned by Monckton is an oversimplification, heteronuclear diatomic molecules can also emit/absorb radiation, however the vast majority of the atmosphere is comprised of homonuclear diatomics or monatomics so it’s OK (OH and NO notwithstanding).

      • What? Phil, you have contributed nothing except to embarrass yourself. All matter above Absolute Zero radiates all the time. If you do not understand this, avoid further shame by silence.

      • Michael Moon April 1, 2018 at 8:30 pm
        What? Phil, you have contributed nothing except to embarrass yourself. All matter above Absolute Zero radiates all the time. If you do not understand this, avoid further shame by silence.

        You’re the one who should be embarrassed, clearly you don’t understand the interaction of light with gases.

  52. I asked Kristi
    You need to give me a report that quantifies both the cooling and warming effect. [of the CO2]”

    Kristi said
    Have you ever looked? Who needs to give you a report? You are the one that doesn’t trust, and yet you don’t even know if your distrust is appropriate because you don’t have and won’t seek the knowledge. The theory is 150 years old. Why wouldn’t lab experiments pick up cooling? It doesn’t matter – there is NO cooling effect of CO2. The fact that this is a GHG is so well-established that you really should just accept it, and if not it’s on YOU to show why that’s wrong.

    Henry says
    eissh
    I looked for that report for the past 9 or 10 years. Could not find it. The people you trust did experiments so many years ago, I am afraid that in those days they did not even know how the mechanism of the GH effect works. Come to think of: you don’t know understand it either. Pity. I try and explain it to you, OK? There is only one main absorption of the CO2 in the IR where the earth emits, namely between 14-15 um. So when emission of this wavelength from earth goes up, it bounces against the CO2 molecule and is returned, 62.5% in the direction where it came from. So that effect is sort of like making the OGLW radiation (heat) to dissipate slower away to space.
    OTOH, we have 1 or 2 absorptions bands of the CO2 in the UV [which is how we identify it on other planets], there are about 3 or 4 absorptions between 1-2 um which btw has also been proposed as a way to determine if planets are habitable – you can follow the green line fig 6 bottom:
    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

    it all comes back to earth in fig.7, if I remember correctly.

    !Just imagine: we can see that radiation specific to the CO2 coming back to earth after it was bounced off from the moon…so it went from the sun=>earth (CO2 atmosphere) =>moon=>earth
    Lastly, we have very large absorption of CO2 between 4 and 5 um, which is also still in the emission spectrum of the sun.
    So we have the cooling effect of the CO2 by deflection of certain incoming radiation from the sun back to space, also 62,5% in the direction where it came from, i.e. the sun, 12 hours per day. And we have the entrapment of earthshine, as already explained, 24 hours per day.
    [the 62,5 % comes from assuming that each molecule is like a perfect sphere ]

    Now, what I need to see in the report that would prove to me that AGW due to more CO2 is correct, is
    1) quantification of both the cooling and warming effect,
    2) the change that 0.01% CO2 does have on both the cooling and warming effect

    as that might give us an indication whether the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming rather than that of cooling.

    My best guess is that the two effects cancel each other out, more or less. At any rate, from my results, i.e.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/30/game-over/comment-page-1/#comment-2778501

    as reported earlier, it does not look that there is a net cooling or warming effect from more CO2 in the air or it so small that I simply cannot measure it..

    Hope that helps you to get some perspective!

    • HenryP March 31, 2018 at 3:38 am
      I looked for that report for the past 9 or 10 years. Could not find it. The people you trust did experiments so many years ago, I am afraid that in those days they did not even know how the mechanism of the GH effect works. Come to think of: you don’t know understand it either. Pity. I try and explain it to you, OK? There is only one main absorption of the CO2 in the IR where the earth emits, namely between 14-15 um. So when emission of this wavelength from earth goes up, it bounces against the CO2 molecule and is returned, 62.5% in the direction where it came from. So that effect is sort of like making the OGLW radiation (heat) to dissipate slower away to space.

      A completely erroneous explanation of the interaction of a CO2 molecule with an incident photon.
      What happens is that the incident photon transfers its energy to the internal modes of the molecule and induces a vibration/rotation of the molecule. Eventually the molecule loses that energy and returns to its ground state. The time taken on average for an excited CO2 molecule to radiate that energy away is rather long (see A21 Einstein coefficient) so in the lower atmosphere it is more likely to give up that energy to surrounding molecules by collisions (about ten times per nano sec). In the event that the molecule does emit a photon, its direction will be random compared to the direction of the incoming photon (so ~50/50 up/down not 62.5% back scatter)

      • Whew! Thank you, Phil, for explaining that. I didn’t want to be the one. As I understand it, the transfer of kinetic energy to surrounding molecules is quite important in the scheme of things, and it’s not often mentioned.

        It seems to me the heat relationships within the atmosphere must be pretty important – where the energy of different origins goes, and how the gradients affect the overall energy balance. BWDIK? Wish my physics were better.

        I contribute this, some graphs and tables of absorption and transmission spectra.
        http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

      • PS, Henry- I suspect you are thinking of the reflection of CO2 in the atmosphere of other planets. This is why Venus looks blue.

        At this point the evidence is there for the

      • Kristi

        it appears to me that you still do not understand how the anti GH effect works.
        The atmosphere largely consists of molecules that are permeable to all radiation from the sun. However, there are some gases, namely GH gases, that have absorptions in the 0-5 um where the sun emits. These gases will reradiate when it is bombarded with that certain radiation [of the absorption region] , as I said, IMO 62.5% in the direction where that radiation came from. This radiation is deflected off to space. Hence we are able to measure and identify CO2 on other planets – if it is there – as well as that which is coming off from our own planet…..[see paper quoted earlier]
        This back radiation from the GH gases to space is part of earth’s albedo. Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if there are natural or man made processes on the earth that increase certain GH gases that have strong absorption in the 0-5 um region, it would increase earth’s albedo turning away more radiation to space and allowing less inside. That means there is a cooling effect, especially of those gases that have strong absorptions in the 0-5 um. {Think of certain sulfurous gases that are very well known because of their threat of cooling the earth]
        The educational paper you quoted clearly shows the absorptions of CO2 in the 0-5 um and the big one in earth’s spectrum at 14-15. Good for you. At this stage you must realize that the energy 0-5 um being deflected away from earth is many times larger then that which is trapped on earth, i.e. the 14-15 um.
        So. Now I ask you again: where is the report that shows me the quantification of the cooling and warming properties of each GHG?
        Do you understand now why the closed box experiment won’t work? Yes, we all feel the cold after stepping out the shower cubicle long after the water was switched off. But that only applies to the re-radiated heat 5-15 um from the water vapor. What about the 0-5 microns that is being deflected away from earth that forms part of earth’s albedo?

        Perhaps some of you here will now understand how ridiculous it to discuss the issue here at hand in such great detail without first having that report showing both the warming and cooling effect of each GHG…..in the correct dimensions……
        [you guessed it: I think the net effect of more CO2 could be cooling rather than warming]

      • These quantum realities make me wonder why we assume that measurable warming happens at all. The higher concentration of CO2 results in the thermalization of OGLW in say 5 meters on average as opposed to 10 meters. CO2 does not “add” heat, it distributes it, in all directions. Is it not reasonable that the surrounding water vapor merely ascends slightly more rapidly, or earlier in the day? If the hydrology cycle advances by 5 minutes each day, where is it measured? It is not. We measure min/max temperatures, not the time profile of the earths heat output.

        Our data is simply not fit for purpose to separate out anthropogenic change from natural change. Meanwhile, lets go back to challenging feedback assumptions in our modelling of the climate….

      • sailboarder April 1, 2018 at 3:55 am
        These quantum realities make me wonder why we assume that measurable warming happens at all. The higher concentration of CO2 results in the thermalization of OGLW in say 5 meters on average as opposed to 10 meters. CO2 does not “add” heat, it distributes it, in all directions.

        If that CO2 was not in the atmosphere the radiation that it absorbs would have been radiated to space. So the CO2 has ‘added’ heat that otherwise not be there.

      • henryp April 1, 2018 at 11:22 am
        Kristi

        it appears to me that you still do not understand how the anti GH effect works.
        The atmosphere largely consists of molecules that are permeable to all radiation from the sun. However, there are some gases, namely GH gases, that have absorptions in the 0-5 um where the sun emits. These gases will reradiate when it is bombarded with that certain radiation [of the absorption region] , as I said, IMO 62.5% in the direction where that radiation came from.

        You can say it as often as you like, there is no merit in that 62.5% value

      • Phil.
        I made it clear previously that the 62,5% comes from the assumption that the molecule looks like a sphere. Can you figure that one out? If it looks more like a flying saucer, which is possible, I have to admit that you might get a different value.

        Overall, you know that my tests show there is no AGW, which is why you always want to argue with me?

        Never mind all of that, I must tell you, that you, Phil. , have the habit of nit picking on one point in my comments, that somehow you could not find in your books (62.5%!!!) , and that would serve as some kind of devious motive:

        “if you are wrong on this one point, we can throw away the rest of your argument”

        which is why I do not like to argue with you anymore.

        Sorry.

        You could apologize for that and figure some way of working with me on this?
        {see my most recent argument to Michael Moon}

      • henryp April 2, 2018 at 7:50 am
        Phil.
        I made it clear previously that the 62,5% comes from the assumption that the molecule looks like a sphere. Can you figure that one out? If it looks more like a flying saucer, which is possible, I have to admit that you might get a different value.

        No I can’t ‘figure that out’,because it just doesn’t happen that way as I explained above, I have no idea where you dreamt it up from.

        Never mind all of that, I must tell you, that you, Phil. , have the habit of nit picking on one point in my comments, that somehow you could not find in your books (62.5%!!!) , and that would serve as some kind of devious motive:

        “if you are wrong on this one point, we can throw away the rest of your argument”

        which is why I do not like to argue with you anymore.

        You make a completely false statement that a spherical molecule will back-scatter 62.5% of the light incident on it and then complain that I object to it. Try reading on the subject, Rayleigh scattering would give 50% back scatter, but absorption of an IR photon by a molecule of CO2 is not elastic scattering!

        You could apologize for that and figure some way of working with me on this?
        {see my most recent argument to Michael Moon}

        I’m not going to apologize for pointing out your erroneous statements.

      • >>
        You can say it as often as you like, there is no merit in that 62.5% value
        <<

        It’s interesting that in Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 they show the atmosphere radiating 195 W/m^2 towards space and 324 W/m^2 towards the surface. That gives (324 W/m^2)/(195 W/m^2 + 324 W/m^2) = 62.4%.

        The CO2 molecule radiates in a random direction (when it radiates), but the atmosphere as a whole radiates more towards the surface than towards space–roughly 60/40.

        Jim

      • A spherical radiation pattern, at say 10k ft, over a spherical surface would have less than 50% of the lower half of the radiating sphere striking the spherical target.
        Not sure of the required height, but it’d be still well inside the atm me thinks to get your 62% figure.

        That’s why they pay me the big bucks boys. Lol

      • >>
        That’s why they pay me the big bucks boys.
        <<

        If that’s the best you can do, Micro, they are paying you too much.

      • >>
        What, was spherical to big a word for you?
        <<

        You’re right, Micro, sometimes “spherical” is too big a word for me.

        Modeling the atmosphere as one spherical object probably won’t give you a very accurate result. I’ve done it with multiple layers, and the result is closer to 60/40–as I said previously. Unfortunately, they don’t pay me the big bucks.

        Jim

  53. Friends, just a few final comments,
    namely on the three factors that I have identified as being the main sources for the warming of earth
    1)
    my results of the 54 weather stations on Tmax showed that the output from the sun, i.e. the energy that is allowed through the atmosphere, came to neutral point around 1995. In other words, the average of all stations showed that Tmax started declining from that point. Now, I did figure that there is still a lot of energy stored in the oceans that is coming out that gives a delay in a lower Tmean but there is little doubt that eventually a lower Tmean is inevitable. I am telling you: winter is coming. Remember that a cooling world is perhaps not such a pleasant world as it will stunt growth and crops.
    2)
    the most puzzling of my results were those found in my own backyard. It showed continuous cooling, but on a curve. So there was still the solar warming [of the previous two Hale cycles, 1951-1995] coming through in the curve. How was this possible? How could it be cooling in my own country? (South Africa) On a near perfect curve?
    I remembered the sweat on my face and body going 1 km down in a gold mine here. There is the elephant? Again, I was not able to find any real research finding out how big that elephant really is. But I did find out that the magnetic north pole has been moving north east. Fast; its movement the last century has been much faster than the previous century. To me, the movement of earth’s inner core is the only one that explains why here it actually cooling whilst at the north pole it is getting warmer.
    3)
    My results also showed that in the places where a lot of greening took place minimum temperatures are rising. It clearly shows that more vegetation traps more warmth. More vegetation comes from more CO2. To starve ourselves from CO2 is really the dumbest thing we can do to combat ‘climate change’…..

    • You are certainly correct on your first point. From the UN Food and Agricultural Organization: between 1961 and 2014, arable land increased from 1.39 billion hectares to 1.59 billion hectares (numbers rounded) or an approximate 14.4% increase. From the UN Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: during the same time period, world population increased from 3.1 billion to 7.3 billion (numbers rounded) or an approximate 235% increase.

      Any return to less arable land caused by a shorter growing season would have to be offset by improved plant varieties and farming technology to keep our ever-expanding population fed. Failure to do so could be catastrophic.

      The Russians know winter. They say, “Winter is coming”, as well.

      • JRF
        Thanks for your comment. You mentioned Russia and I thought of Alaska. One of the first stations of the 54 that I looked at was in Alaska and here I was lucky to find a station with good data going back to the 1940s. Note that this was quite some time ago, in 2013. Especially when you look at Tmax there is not much that can go wrong: the thermometer gets stuck at a place and is read once a day; supposedly there is always one person available at this military station to do a reading. True: it was not until the 1950s that the mercury thermometers were even re-calibrated (!!!!) every year as it was found that the oxidation does cause an appreciable deviation. That is why I always laugh at people who truly ‘believe’ in T data from more than 70 years ago…. comparing todays’ measurements with then is like comparing apples with pears.
        I remembered thinking about this issue when I started with this station here in Alaska and the way I got around the problem was by always looking at the rate of change in K or C/annum, i.e, using derivative of the least square equations after the relevant linear regressions over a number of period of time.
        Let me show you my results of my analysis of the data of this station:

        True enough, I made a small mistake on the wavelength. After some more appreciable research I realized the wavelength should have been 86.5 years, not 88 years. That changes a few of the turning points on the sine wave. However, it did not really change much in the turning point for the decline in Tmax – 1995 – that I mentioned before.

  54. This discussion did not touch upon the question of the physical justification of the theory of the greenhouse effect, although it seems to me that not everything is obvious here.
    “Greenhouse gases possess at least three atoms in their molecules, and are thus capable of possessing or, under appropriate conditions, acquiring a dipole moment that causes them to oscillate in one of their vibrational modes and thus to emit heat”.
    Actually, the molecules of some important greenhouse gases are nonpolar: besides CO2, also CH4, CCl4, and SF6 have dipole moment of 0, and dipole moments of N2O and CO are relatively small: 0.17 and 0.11 debyes. At the same time, gases containing polar molecules, for example, SO2 and NH3, are not included in the IPCC list.
    Under «appropriate conditions”, in which the molecule acquires a dipole moment, it is assumed, perhaps, the absorption of infrared radiation. I have not found confirmation of this in the physical literature.
    “When a greenhouse gas meets a photon of the right wavelength, it is turned on like a radiator, whereupon some warming must by definition occur”.
    Absorption of IR-radiation by the molecule changes its rotational and vibrational energy. May the emission of this energy increase temperature (produce warming)?
    It’s not so obviously, especially taking in account that the magnitude of this energy is unknown. At the same time, it is known that the temperature change is directly related to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules, and applies to all gases, regardless of their ability to absorb IR-radiation. Finally, this description as well as comparison of IR-spectra does not explain why various greenhouse gases are attributed to the “warming potentials” that vary hundreds or thousands times.
    About “non-condensing greenhouse gases”. Even at a temperature of 288K and a relative humidity of 50%, the amount of water vapor significantly exceeds amount of CO2, however H2O is not included to IPCC list. Nevertheless, CCl4 (b.p. ~350K) and CCl3F (b.p.~ 297 K) are there. So, what does “non-condensing” mean?

    • aleks, CO2 has no dipole when stretching symmetrically (O-C-O)or asymmetrically because it is linear. The asymmetric stretching O-CO and OC-O cancel each other out. However the bending vibration does have a dipole because the linearity is lost when the oxygens move out of line with each other.

      Ammonia is polar, has a dipole and is a GHG. I expect the IPCC is concerned with gases commonly found in the atmosphere.

      I take it that condensing gases are ones that undergo phase changes within the climatic temperature range. Water, of course, is the best example. The phase changes involve energy being released or consumed.

      Electromagnetic radiation in the form of IR is adsorbed at the appropriate, characteristic wavelength by these molecules and the the molecules vibrate more vigorously than before. The energy is now in the form of kinetic energy. That extra energy is then lost as a photon is emitted. Don’t forget that electromagnetic energy exists as a particle or a wave.

      • Schrodinger’s Cat, thanks for reply. I’ll try to clarify my view on the polarity of molecules and their ability to absorb IR-radiation in a different way. IR-spectra of CO2 were recorded many times in different laboratories, and these spectra were always identical. Origin of CO2 does not matter. Also the dipole moment of CO2 was measured many times, and in all cases it was found the same (zero). I hope you will not assert that when measuring the dipole moment another CO2 (“prior to absorption of IR-radiation”) was used. The molecules of CO2 oscillate, i.e. each molecule absorbs and emits radiation. So, it’s impossible to find the difference between molecules “before” and “after” absorption.
        About NH3. Sorry, but if you or me suppose that NH3 is a greenhouse gas, it doesn’t matter. It’s important that official science (IPCC and so on) does not consider it as a greenhouse gas and, therefore, does not take it into account in determining radiative forcing and in math models for climate description and prediction.
        Sincerely, aleks

    • Alex wonders whether there is really a greenhouse effect, and whether we can quantify it. We know from experiment, confirmed by quantum theory, that some warming will result from adding molecules such as CO2 to the atmosphere. The question is not whether there is a greenhouse effect. There is. The question is how much warming it will cause.

      The approach we have taken in the head posting is to assume for the purpose of argument that everything in official climatology, including the greenhouse effect, is true except where we can prove that official climatology is in error.

      • Lord Moncton, thank you for reply.
        This is not about my personal opinion about the greenhouse effect theory. The question is whether this theory is physically justified. The absence of relation between polarity of molecules and their ability to absorb IR-radiation is only one example of the fact that this theory can not be considered established and indisputable.
        Sincerely, aleks

      • In reply to Aleks, it may or not be the case that CO2 causes warming. We think it does, for experiment has established that and theory, down even to the quantum level, has established the mechanism. In any event, this thread is not the place to argue otherwise, since we have made it plain we are accepting, for the sake of argument, everything in official climatology that we cannot prove to be erroneous.

  55. Thank you Lord Monckton for all your good-humoured clarifications and explanations throughout this discussion and for staying with it to the end. We can only hope that, in time, it will bring to an end to this sad period of our history.

  56. Dear Lord Monckton
    I want to thank you again for this post. Of course you know that I don’t believe in any AGW = simply because I could not measure it = but I do always love to peep in and see what is shaking your mind and that of others on same subject. You wisely always ignore my comments, maybe you already know that it would be fruitless to argue with a scientist that does not believe in what the books are telling unless he can test it or experience it himself.
    Looking at the number of visits and comments I can see that your posts are generally the most popular! You are the greatest sceptic. For sure: one day soon the headline will be: “We won’
    I am so sorry to hear about your ill health. Note that I will remember you in my prayers and I wish you a speedily recovery. I feel that it is appropriate to say that whatever happens [to us], be assured that Jesus is the Truth [note his discussion about that with Pilate] and that in the end the Truth will win. The tomb is empty.
    http://breadonthewater.co.za/2017/02/20/if-god-exists-why-cannot-we-see-him/

    I wish you and all my friends here a blessed Easter and a blessed Passover.

  57. “Equilibrium sensitivity, . . .and after all temperature feedbacks of sub-decadal duration have aced, may be somewhat larger than . . . .” “acted”, not “aced” ?

  58. Summary
    I’ll try a summary of where we get to in these three posts. There is the refrain of feedback, and how climatologists are omitting the feedback to the “emission temperature”, which is simply the solution of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a black body receiving about 240 W/m2, which is TSI less albedo. That of course is an unchanging number. I contend that feedback only makes sense in the context of changes, and asked, many times, the question – for that black-body snowball Earth at 255 K, what is the feedback to that emission temperature? What could it even mean? No answer.

    So then to the computations of Charney Sensitivity (CS) in each of the three posts. I showed that the computation of CS in each case did not actually use the feedback calculation. Instead it was just
    CS = 3.5*ΔT*M/ΔF
    where M is what I called Lord M’s fudge factor. ΔT is the warming over some period, and ΔF is the change in forcing. The fact that it reduces to this seems to be conceded.

    In the first post, titled
    “Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare”
    we had M=1. That is just the most primitive calculation, warming/forcing, and it way underestimates CS because of time scale effects.

    That was conceded, so the second post
    “Judge in #ExxonKnew case accepts amicus brief exposing climatology’s grave error”
    raised M to 1.4. The calculation was otherwise the same. The factor 1.4 came from published ratios of ECS to TCR. Rud preferred 1.25 on the same basis.

    But despite what many think, TCR is not just a response ΔT at any time to any history of varying ΔF. It is specific: ΔF increases by a constant factor each year for 70 years, at which time it has doubled. ΔT is taken at the end of that 70 years. The actual record of ΔF used here is nothing like that, which makes nonsense of that basis for M. So some time in that thread, the basis of M was changed to M=ΔF/(ΔF-ΔQ), where Q is flux into the ocean. ΔQ was given various values, but in the third thread
    “Game over”
    it had the value 0.59 vs ΔF=2.29 (both W/m2). That makes M=1.347, and CS=1.55 K.

    But as I noted, this then made CS = 3.5*ΔT*M/ΔF = 3.5*ΔT*ΔF/(ΔF-ΔQ)/ΔF = 3.5*ΔT/(ΔF-ΔQ)
    and this is exactly the formula used by Lewis and Curry. It is just reproducing that calculation (with slightly different ΔF and ΔQ). And like L&C, it is then subject to the very great uncertainties that they found (Lord M gives no uncertainties).

    So it isn’t game over. It isn’t even a new shot. They are conventional calculations, and more significantly in this context, are totally uninfluenced by any newly found “grave error”.

    • In short Nick ….

      Here we have Lord Christopher Monckton (Wiki) …

      Education MA in classics, 1974; diploma in journalism studies
      Alma mater Churchill College, Cambridge
      University College, Cardiff
      Occupation Politician, journalist

      Presenting an exercise in Climate mathematics that is “Game Over” in exposing the incompetence of the world’s climate experts (sarc).

      On the other hand we have that obvious oxymoron and Nick Stokes who patiently exposes the logical errors in his world-beating climate maths and removes his screen of sciency credibility – so reducing it back to simplicity and thereby showing that his “constraints of climate feedback not done by L&C”, are nothing of the sort and merely a trick of the “snake-oil salesman” for the gullible. (By the way are we to believe that climate feedback can be constrained with current knowledge – is that not what this site is all about?).

      “Our method is not a “rehash” of Lewis & Curry 2014: it identifies climatology’s failure to take due account of the feedback response to emission temperature in deriving its feedback fractions. ”

      Pray tell how one gets a feedback when the system temp is unchanging.
      The def of feedback is something that occurs in response to a change.

      So well done CM, you have at least included some sort of allowance for the Q being absorbed by oceans ….. which is progress of sorts I suppose since a few “Game-overs” ago when I last commented, that you needed to do.

      Oh and we had to have the classic Monckton arrogant sarcy slur didn’t we ….
      “Mr Stokes’ increasingly bitter contributions do not do him credit.”

      No, your intransigent arrogance from a position of inexpert articulation that exploits your prominence in the field of scepticism “does you no credit” and on the contrary Nick’s unfailingly polite and patient take-down of your (intended or not …. though you are obviously intelligent – so one does wonder) repeated “Game-over” attempts gains him massive credit.

      • Pray tell how one gets a feedback when the system temp is unchanging.

        Hey tone, I get that you might not have noticed, but the temp changes every 24 hours.

      • Toneb: Not everyone stops learning when they leave university. No mention of the qualifications of the co-authors, any reason for that?

      • “Nick’s unfailingly polite and patient take-down”
        For many years we’ve read Mr. Stokes all around the blogosphere and one would never question his sincerity to the cause of CAGW but the polite part is a fairly new tactic on his part.
        Ask Steve M. at Climate Audit about the unfailing politeness of Mr. Stokes.

      • “Hey tone, I get that you might not have noticed, but the temp changes every 24 hours.”
        That, I take it, was a joke micro.

        Because you realise that the world’s average temperature does not change “every 24 hours” as there is always one half sunlit and one not.
        DeltaT is caused by DeltaF and FB comes from that.
        255K is the unchanging response to 240W/m2 and cannot have feedback.
        But congrats for being one of Moncktons “gullibles”.

        That one my learn beyond university is obviously true, however only in the world of climate scepticism does one get revered for it and, what’s more, it count for more.
        As I said, the man is a snake-oil salesman.
        And it is “trivially true” (LOL) that those people prosper.

        Now if the Lord were able to debate the “science” with any sort of honesty and good-will (as does Nick Stokes) then this sort of post would be redundent and indeed counter productive.
        But he doesn’t …. not interested.
        We get double-down.
        Yet magically the next “game-over” turns up with “modifications”, that lend just a tad more credibility to it.
        As has been done since I pointed out his omission of ocean Q storage.
        But still we have peeps here buying the “oil”.

      • Which is wrong tone, they are not symmetrical in warming and cooling rates, the cooling is nonlinear, that’s a big reason the models are junk, if that’s the way they operate. You will never be able to get a valid CS in that manner. Never. No wonder it’s so absurdly high.

      • Toneb:

        you realise that the world’s average temperature does not change “every 24 hours” as there is always one half sunlit and one not.

        You never defined “average temperature”. Also: average atmospheric surface temperature varies over a year by about 4C. From a low in January to a high in July. Earth’s “average temperature”, therefore, varies daily.

    • Mr Stokes continues to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that emission temperature induces a feedback response. Even Lacis (2010) showed that, though their value for it was unduly minuscule. He then repeats what he has already repeated many times before, and rather pointlessly: that we have used a standard method of providing an empirical confirmation that our theoretically-obtained result is in the right ballpark. So what?

      As for the deplorable Mr Banton (a.k.a. the furtively but uselessly pseudonymous “Toneb”), as usual he contributes nothing but personalities to the discussion and has nothing of any scientific significance or novelty to offer.

      For Anthony Banton and all other totalitarians who consider that only those with a certificate of appropriate Socialist training are allowed to raise questions about the Party Line, and who are therefore impressed by such certificates, my co-authors include 5 PhDs, three of whom are Professors (one emeritus, one tenured, one about to be tenured), as well as a brace of engineers and an expert in the worldwide electrical power industry.

      Offical climatology, in our opinion, has made a bad mistake. After correction of that mistake, global warming ceases to be a problem. Game over.

    • As a further reply to the always unpleasant “Toneb” (a.k.a. Anthony Banton and who knows how many further aliases), if he thinks Mr Stokes has been “polite” he may care to look at the following, taken just from Mr Stokes’ comments on the present thread:

      “The effect of all this rigmarole about feedback is a fantasy.”
      “Lord M’s final step is to multiply by a fudge factor”.
      “The quantities juggled here”.
      “It is a rehash.”
      “an arbitrary fudge factor”.
      “this silly business of building electronic circuits”.

      This type of lofty, sneering approach is typical of Mr Stokes, who, like so many who share his beliefs, is insufficiently confident in them to express himself civilly. Now and again I take him task for his impoliteness, and – compared with some of his earlier vileness – he is improving. But it is very clear that he still has at least as much to learn about manners as he has to learn about climatology.

    • “I contend that feedback only makes sense in the context of changes”. The disappointment here is that from your FEA background you know that to be pure sophistry. Feedback by definition causes a change to the input forcing effect. A radiative input causes an initial temperature estimate and a feedback temperature change but since the initial forcing depended on temperature therefore the right hand side (answer) affects the left hand side (input) and in FEA it is an iterative procedure. What you should have written is that ‘assuming that feedback only applies to the change makes the arithmetic a lot easier’.

      • Well, I’ve asked over and over, with no answer. For snowball earth; a black body at 255K, with emission temperature 255K. What is the feedback to that emission temperature?

      • Mr Stokes is confused. A snowball Earth would have albedo 0.6 (Pierrehumbert 2011). A waterbelt Earth, according to Lacis (2010), would have albedo 0.418, implying emission temperature 243.3 K. Today’s Earth, with albedo 0.293, has emission temperature 255.4 K. All of these values are known in the climate-sensitivity trade as “reference” temperatures, before accounting for any feedback response. Feedback responses are as mentioned in the head posting,.

      • Ice-covered Jovian moon Europa’s albedo is about 0.64.

        Saturnian moon “Enceladus has the highest albedo of any known object in the Solar System. It reflects almost 100% of the sunlight it receives. This high reflectivity is caused by a very smooth surface of fresh water ice. Since Enceladus reflects so much of the sunlight it receives, its surface temperature is a chilling -330° F (-201° C).”

        http://www.seasky.org/solar-system/saturn-enceladus.html

        There are three scenarios for “Snowball Earth”, ie Iceball Earth, standard Snowball Earth and Slushball Earth (eg, Walterbelt Earth). Happily, our planet has probably never formed an ice ball, a la these two gas giant moons.

      • “A snowball Earth would have albedo 0.6 (Pierrehumbert 2011). A waterbelt Earth, according to Lacis (2010), would have albedo 0.418, implying emission temperature 243.3 K. Today’s Earth, with albedo 0.293, has emission temperature 255.4 K.”
        This is just dodging the question. Albedo just changes the solar input that is balanced. OK, if albedo is 0.6, the emission temperature would be 221 K. So what is the feedback to that, and how does it affect the actual temperature? What would it be?

      • Mr Stokes asks (a few entries above this one) what would be the feedback fraction in response to a snowball-earth blackbody with emission temperature 255 K. I might just as well ask him how many skerfuffles there are in a Dilbert, and go on and on and on asking him that same meaningless question, and waxing lyrical with feigned impatience when I didn’t get an answer.

        If the Earth were a snowball Earth, it would not be a blackbody. If it were a snowball Earth it would not have emission temperature 255 K. If it were a blackbody it would not have emission temperature 255 K. Mr Stokes’ question is, therefore, meaningless. I had tried to point this out in the gentlest possible way by showing what the emission temperatures would be at snowball albedo 0.6 and waterbelt albedo 0.418 as well as today’s albedo 0.293, but it seems I had not been blunt enough.

        In the original article, I showed that for an Earth with emission temperature 255 K, to which about another 9 K is added by way of directly-forced warming from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, will have a feedback fraction 1 – (255 + 9) / 287 = 0.08 or thereby.

        Mr Stokes asks (shortly above this comment) what the feedback fraction would be for a snowball Earth with albedo 0.6. Once again we shall assume, with Lacis (2010), that 9 K of warming from the rpesence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases should be added to the emission temperature, here 221 K. In that event, the feedback fraction would be 1 – (221 + 9) / 287 = 0.20.

        So, snowball Earth feedback fraction 0.20; waterbelt Earth feedback fraction 1 – (243 + 9) / 287 = 0.12; today’s Earth feedback fraction 0.08. Conclusion: as the vast ice-sheets have melted away, the feedback fraction has declined. Of course, it remains possible that from here on the feedback fraction may increase above 0.08 owing to the near-exponential increase in total column water vapor that models predict. I shall deal with that possibility in more detail in a future posting.

      • “I showed that for an Earth with emission temperature 255 K, to which about another 9 K is added by way of directly-forced warming from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases”
        I assume that you mean condensing. But that isn’t feedback to the emission temperature of 255 K. It is warming caused by the introduction (or presence) of water vapour. And there is no feedback loop. The emission temperature doesn’t respond to the introduction of water vapour. The temperature would, but that is just normal wv feedback, ordinarilyly calculated to the wv amount.
        That loop is what makes feedback feedback. If you warm the air (in our world) it makes more wv, which causes more warming, which makes more wv, etc. So there is a loop, and wv is a feedback. But warming doesn’t make more emission temperature, which makes more warming, which makes more emission temperature etc. That is why it makes no sense to speak of something that is fixed as a feedback.

  59. If radiation was the only heat transfer mechanism in the atmosphere and if heat was additive, these calculation might make sense.

    Tropo means “turning” in Greek. The troposphere is dominated by convection mediated conduction. One must account for ALL heat transfer mechanisms. This is not done here. Arrhenius’ mistake is taken as gospel.

    To find out co2’s addition to atmospheric temperature one can approximate by taking co2’s MASS and comparing to the rest of the atmosphere.

    This works out to ~0.00063. You’re welcome.

    It should be obvious that radiating co2 with infrared will transfer energy from co2 to its surrounding environment, while decreasing it in co2.

    CO2 would need to be IR heated to ~1587K to transfer 1K to its proportional surroundings.

    The problem with climate junk science is false assumptions and abuse of the mathematical mapping function.

    Please, boys, correct your mistake!

    The co2-fills-a-false-gap theory must go.

    • If Ms Phin would like to write a paper correcting what she conceives to be an error in official climatology, she is of course free to do so. However, as we have repeatedly stated, not least in the head posting, we are here accepting all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false. We have some reason to doubt whether the direct forcing from CO2 is as big as is currently imagined, but we cannot prove it (though Professors Harde and Happer perhaps can). So, for the sake of argument, we have accepted official climatology’s current estimate of 3.5 Watts per square meter per CO2 doubling.

      • Thank you for the compliment Lord Monckton, but it’s Mrs.

        Let’s see co2 gain 3 W/m^2 in a lab. We can harness this extra energy from co2 IR absorption via thermocouplers. Why aren’t climate scientists happy about their energy discovery? Why aren’t they making money from their 3/240=1.25% energy boost?

        I don’t need to write a paper. I have already presented canonized science. It’s not possible to refute other people’s wishful thinking – to THEM. They will not accept it.

        I’m trying to do physics, while climate scientists are trying

        1) affirming the consequent
        2) improperly applying mapping function to assign blame

        We know cookies absorb IR, as do cakes. We know temperature increased while sweets increased. We can figure out how much temperature increase can be attributed to cookies. Same garbage with co2. We can do this for anything, really. It’s junk science, and should not be taken seriously. You can find a mistake in the cookies/cakes model, but you’d be conceding too much to the cookies-temperature hoax.

      • Zoe, thanks.
        I am happy to see some people are understanding what we are saying.
        It is better to ignore phil. as he is only interested in his own agenda, i.e. AGW.
        The atmosphere is really completely insignificant in terms of energy for earth, as there is no mass. The oceans are the carriers of the warmth and most of that heat is coming from the UV.Study what varies the UV and you will find the clues.
        {hint: most anti GH gases that are formed by the most energetic particles coming from the sun [to protect us] have strong absorption 0- 0.5 um}

      • Zoe, thanks for your enlightened comment. It is convection that moves heat away from the surface, not radiation, which consists of a bunch of photons buzzing around aimlessly and getting nowhere.

      • . It is convection that moves heat away from the surface, not radiation, which consists of a bunch of photons buzzing around aimlessly and getting nowhere.

        Maybe during the day, but on clear calm nights it cools by radiation, not aimlessly, going to space.

    • Zoe Phin April 1, 2018 at 8:27 am
      If radiation was the only heat transfer mechanism in the atmosphere and if heat was additive, these calculation might make sense.

      Tropo means “turning” in Greek. The troposphere is dominated by convection mediated conduction. One must account for ALL heat transfer mechanisms. This is not done here. Arrhenius’ mistake is taken as gospel.

      Radiation is the only mechanism by which the planet can lose heat.

      To find out co2’s addition to atmospheric temperature one can approximate by taking co2’s MASS and comparing to the rest of the atmosphere.

      This works out to ~0.00063. You’re welcome.

      It should be obvious that radiating co2 with infrared will transfer energy from co2 to its surrounding environment, while decreasing it in co2.

      CO2 would need to be IR heated to ~1587K to transfer 1K to its proportional surroundings.

      So in order to do that it would need to absorb about 3 photons, what’s your problem with that?

      • “Radiation is the only mechanism by which the planet can lose heat.”

        We’re interested in temperature in the troposphere. Not what the upper atnosphere emits to space. Gas matter in the troposphere “traps heat”.

        “So in order to do that it would need to absorb about 3 photons”

        That’s completely wrong.

      • Zoe Phin April 2, 2018 at 6:07 am
        “Radiation is the only mechanism by which the planet can lose heat.”

        We’re interested in temperature in the troposphere. Not what the upper atnosphere emits to space. Gas matter in the troposphere “traps heat”.

        “So in order to do that it would need to absorb about 3 photons”

        That’s completely wrong.

        I suggest you do the math, just share out the energy from 3 15micron photons among the appropriate number of air molecules.

      • Zoe Phin April 1, 2018 at 8:27 am
        CO2 would need to be IR heated to ~1587K to transfer 1K to its proportional surroundings.

        Energy of 15 um IR photon from Planck’s law:
        E = h c/w = 1.32 e-20 J

        Kinetic energy of an air molecule at 300K = 0.621×10^-20J
        Kinetic energy of an air molecule at 301K = 0.623×10^-20J
        So a single 15 micron photon is able to heat 660 neighboring air molecules from 300 to 301K

      • Phil, your math is based on wrong physics for problem. You are determining internal energy, not macroscopic temperature. According to your math, 3*1587 photons would make o2 and n2 be 1587K. Also, since o2 and n2 have absorption bands around 2 microns, 3 photons of that, according to you, would make them hotter than co2, and therefore contradict your co2 warms its surroundings theory. Colder molecules do not transfer energy to warmer molecules. You end up debunking your own inapproriate physics.

      • “Energy of 15 um IR photon from Planck’s law:
        E = h c/w = 1.32 e-20 J

        Kinetic energy of an air molecule at 300K = 0.621×10^-20J
        Kinetic energy of an air molecule at 301K = 0.623×10^-20J
        So a single 15 micron photon is able to heat 660 neighboring air molecules from 300 to 301K”

        Where’d you get 660?

        co2 is surrounded by ~2499 molecules (400ppm)

        You are comparing internal energy to kinetic energy. That’s inappropriate.

        Using your false physics, we would conclude that the sun’s peak radiation of 500 nanometers produces:

        http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/converters/e_of_photon

        3.97e-19J

        which equals

        https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/energy/1-65/joule-kelvin/

        28755K !

        Now we know co2 can’t heat beyond that ! And it’s absurd anyway.

        Thanks for showing yourself to be some sort of crackpot.

      • Zoe Phin April 2, 2018 at 12:02 pm
        Phil, your math is based on wrong physics for problem. You are determining internal energy, not macroscopic temperature.

        Exactly that’s what happens in the real physics, the CO2 molecule absorbs the photon and its rotational/vibrational energy increases by the appropriate amount. Because the Einstein coefficient A21 means that the mean time for emission is very large that energy is shared via collisional deactivation with the surrounding molecules (10 collisions/nsec) until the molecule returns to the ground vibrational state.

        According to your math, 3*1587 photons would make o2 and n2 be 1587K. Also, since o2 and n2 have absorption bands around 2 microns, 3 photons of that, according to you, would make them hotter than co2, and therefore contradict your c