Did official climatology know its predictions were nonsense?

Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In this series, we have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, that after correction of the giant error of physics by which official climatology defined feedbacks in such a way as to exclude or misallocate the large feedback response to emission temperature, global warming in response to doubled CO2 will not be 2-4.5 K with a mid-range estimate of 3.3 K, as the modelers would have us believe, but not much more than 1.2 K.

The question arises: did They know of Their grave error?

They were and are utterly unable to provide a convincing answer to the following question:

How do the inanimate water vapor, albedo and other feedback processes in the climate know that they must respond little, if at all, to the 255 K emission temperature, but that they must suddenly respond with as much as 22-24 K of feedback-driven warming triggered by the extra 9-11 K of temperature directly forced by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases?

Will official climatology now climb down and fess up? Will the IPCC, the UNFCCC, and the alphabet-soup of national, international and global profiteers of doom be shut up, shut out and shut down? Will the Paris climate treaty be torn up? Will the war on coal cease? Will the countryside no longer be trashed by bird-blending, bat-blatting windmills?

Windmills, for heaven’s sake – 14th-century technology to solve a 21st-century non-problem. Will the subsidies stop and power prices fall by two-thirds, as they should?

The answer, of course, is No. For They are in denial. They are the denialists now.

University of Untruthfulness

Some months ago, an outline of our result was sent – behind our backs – to a university long known for its unswerving adherence to the totalitarian Party Line on the climate question, and, indeed, on all questions. There is no Conservative Association on campus, not because there are no supporters of HM Government there, but because the “societies officer” at the students’ union has the right to decide what political societies may and may not be represented on campus, and he has deemed the nation’s governing party to be insufficiently totalitarian to provide a “safe space” for snowflake students. He has banned its supporters at the university from forming any association, holding meetings on or off campus or distributing party materials.

Freedom of speech, thought and political association, once guaranteed by Magna Carta, have been silently, stealthily taken away. How the snowflakes will blub when they learn of our result.

The vice-chancellor, on hearing of our result and on realizing that, when it is eventually published, it will cost the university hundreds of millions a year, summoned a meeting of the entire environmental-sciences faculty and yelled at them: “Monckton’s paper is a catastrophe for us.” He hollered at them that they should drop everything else they were doing and work full-time on trying to refute our result. Some weeks later, postgraduate students went on strike because the faculty were so busy trying to please the vice-chancellor by refuting the irrefutable that they were no longer providing the personal supervision that the postgrads were contractually entitled to expect.

One of those who heard the vice-chancellor feared that the university would expose itself to fraud charges if it failed to admit that the Party Line had been wrong all along and instead went on applying for hundreds of millions of dollars a year in taxpayer funding for research on global warming that its senior members knew was not and is not going to happen at anything like the predicted rate. He broke ranks. There is goodness even in the grim, concrete camps of the Forces of Darkness. That is how we learned of the vice-chancellor’s meeting.

We were also told that one of the faculty, furious that we had rather easily and rather completely demolished the nonsense he and his colleagues had been peddling for decades, decided to respond to our scientific argument in the fashion of totalitarian extremists everywhere. He stood outside his lecture-hall and handed out copies of a personal attack on me that had been published some years previously in a totalitarian daily propaganda-sheet in London. There was not a single scientific statement in the entire article. It was pure hate speech of the sort we are all used to. Its educational value to students of environmental sciences was nil.

On obtaining irrefutable evidence of the vice-chancellor’s remarks to the faculty, and of the lecturer’s consequent circulation of childish libels against me as though they constituted scientific evidence of anything, an overseas journalist telephoned the university’s head of publicity and asked for a comment. The head of publicity unwisely denied that the meeting of which we had received a direct report had taken place, and also denied that any lecturer had handed out propaganda to my detriment to his students.

However, the university’s website is notoriously insecure. We were able to download an image of the hate-speech document in question. We got it from the lecturer’s own area of the website, where he had prominently (if unwisely) displayed it. The university’s head of publicity had lied, and we were and are in a position to prove it, definitively.

The university now finds itself in a difficult position entirely of its own making. It now knows with a chilling certainty that manmade global warming will be small, slow, harmless and beneficial. Yet despite that knowledge – knowledge that we can prove the entire faculty of environmental sciences now possesses – it is continuing to preach the Party Line to its students.

And that constitutes fraud. It is fraud against the Government, which heavily subsidizes the university and expects it to produce sound science, not totalitarian propaganda. It is fraud against the students, who pay good money to be taught what is true and are now being lied to. It is fraud against every taxpayer and user of gasoline or electricity, for all of us pay through the nose to subsidize the deeply unpleasant coalition of canting vested interests profiteering from the climate scam at great and damaging expense to the general public.

It is, as Professor Nils-Axel Mörner has rightly said, the greatest lie ever told. When I recover from a recent illness, reports of the university’s frauds will be sent to the public authorities, which will at first try to get away with doing what they do best: nothing. However, Britain is still in one or two respects a free country. It is open to us, if we wish, to institute a private prosecution. In due course, not only the university but any public authority that should have acted upon being given evidence of its fraud but did not act will face prosecution.

How long has official climatology known of its grave error? In truth, the vast majority of the pietistic preachers of doom and gloom have never had the slightest idea what they were talking about. They can – and, in due course, will – plead ignorance. And they will find to their horror, as the cell door slams behind them, that, in English criminal law, to intend to profit by proclaiming that something false is true when one does not know whether it is true or false is no less a deception than to proclaim that something one knows to be false is true.

But the university, which, being unspeakable, shall be nameless (though you can have fun trying to work out which it is from the not particularly informative illustrations) can no longer plead ignorance. It knows the truth, and it knows we know it knows the truth. I wrote to the vice-chancellor, on hearing of the meeting at which he had summoned the entire faculty and had yelled at them, and suggested that he should let me present our scientific results at a faculty lecture. He was unwise enough not to reply.

The extraordinary reactions of the vice-chancellor and of the lecturer are evidence in themselves that those driving the global warming scam, as opposed to the army of useful idiots who unthinkingly and rebarbatively regurgitate the Party pabulum, have known for some time that the very high climate sensitivities they have been luridly predicting cannot and will not occur, and that the true rate of manmade warming will be far too small to matter.

There is plenty more evidence that the Forces of Darkness knew They were making stuff up. I shall now rather breathlessly summarize this series. It will become apparent to anyone with an open mind that the debate is now indeed over, and that the result is not at all what the usual suspects had expected, and that our result is so obvious that They – or the brighter ones among Them, at any rate – must have known the truth.

IPCC’s official definition of a “climate feedback” is as follows (with my italics):

“Climate feedback An interaction in which a perturbation in one climate quantity causes a change in a second, and the change in the second quantity ultimately leads to an additional change in the first. A negative feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is weakened by the changes it causes; a positive feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is enhanced. In this Assessment Report, a somewhat narrower definition is often used in which the climate quantity that is perturbed is the global mean surface temperature, which in turn causes changes in the global radiation budget. In either case, the initial perturbation can either be externally forced or arise as part of internal variability.”

This definition very deliberately excludes the feedback response to the input signal. I say “very deliberately” because the word “perturbation” or its variants appears five times. Whoever drafted it knew perfectly well that the large feedback response to the large emission temperature must be taken no less into account than the small feedback response to any small perturbation of it driven by a radiative forcing. But IPCC’s author was most energetic in trying to mislead readers into overlooking the feedback response to emission temperature and concentrating only on the perturbation.

The corrected definition is as follows:

“Climate feedback, external or inherent, modifies an output signal by returning part of it to the input. Negative feedback attenuates the output; positive feedback amplifies it. A temperature feedback, in W m–2 K–1 of the output (equilibrium temperature), induces a feedback response in Kelvin that modifies the output even where the input (emission temperature) was unamplified.”

IPCC’s definition is 114 words: mine is half that length. Unlike IPCC, I am not ducking and diving and circumnavigating the truth without ever landing upon it. The standard, textbook feedback loop diagram makes it quite clear that even an unamplified input signal, which in the absence of amplification is also the output signal before accounting for feedback, must induce a feedback response if a nonzero feedback process is present:

The feedback loop diagram for the standard zero-dimensional-model equation

Teq = Tref μ / (1 – μβ)

In this standard feedback loop (see Bode 1945, ch. 3), the reference system that will operate whether or not a feedback is present comprises the input signal Tref and the μ gain block. The β feedback loop returns some fraction of the output signal from node P2 to the input node P1.

The mathematics of feedback applies to every dynamical system (i.e., a system that changes its state over time) in which feedback processes are present. It is not optional. Therefore, it is blindingly obvious – once it is pointed out, at any rate – that IPCC’s official definition of a “climate feedback” is plumb wrong, and that even with a unit μ direct-gain or open-loop-gain factor, indicating no amplification at all from any forcing, any nonzero value of the feedback fraction β must induce a feedback response that modifies the output signal.

A remarkable benefit of using the correct definition of a “temperature feedback” is that it becomes possible, for the first time, to solve the biggest problem in climate-sensitivity studies, which is to discover how big (or, as we shall see, how small) the feedback fraction is.

This matters, because at present the official feedback fraction is little better than guesswork, and IPCC et hoc genus omne use feedbacks as the excuse to triple – and, in several extreme papers, to multiply up to tenfold – the small direct warming from doubled CO2. Without big feedbacks, there is no big warming.

We know that at today’s insolation and albedo the emission temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any forcing and before accounting for feedback is about 255 K. Actually it is probably 10-20 K higher than that, but that is a story for another time.

We know that the radiative forcing from the presence of the naturally-occurring CO2 in the air in 1850 was about 30 Watts per square meter, which, when multiplied by 0.3 to allow for the Planck parameter at that time, was 9 K of CO2-driven warming.

We know that IPCC currently imagines that the CO2-driven warming should be increased by 35% to allow for all other anthropogenic forcings, so that the directly-forced warming from all natural sources was about 12 K.

We know that the temperature in 1850, at the beginning of the global temperature record and before any appreciable anthropogenic influence, was about 287 K. And we know that that 287 K was an equilibrium, for we had not yet noticeably perturbed the climate.

Armed with just these three generally accepted round numbers – emission temperature 255 K, directly-forced natural greenhouse-gas warming 12 K and equilibrium temperature 287 K in 1850 – we can obtain the feedback fraction without further ado. It is 1 – (255 + 12) / 287, or 0.07. James Bond would be delighted.

We know that the CMIP5 models predict 1.1 K directly-forced warming from doubled CO2, and that their mid-range estimate of equilibrium sensitivity after accounting for feedback is 3.3 K. So official climatology imagines that the feedback fraction is 1 – 1.1 / 3.3, or 0.67. But our feedback fraction is a proven result. Official climatology’s feedback fraction is ten times too big. Corrected Charney sensitivity, which is equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 with all else held fixed, is then 1.1 / (1 – 0.07), which is not 3.3 K. It is 1.2 K. End of climate problem.

So, how much global warming do we say should have happened since 1850? IPCC says net anthropogenic forcing in the industrial era to 2011 was 2.3 Watts per square meter (IPCC 2013, fig. SMP.5, lower panel). Divide that by 3.2, today’s value of the Planck parameter, to get the equivalent directly-forced warming before accounting for feedback. It is 0.7 K.

So, using our feedback fraction 0.07, equilibrium warming since 1850 should have been 0.7 / (1 – 0.07), which is 0.75 K. And how much warming was measured, according to the HadCRUT4 dataset for 1850-2011? It was (wait for it) 0.75 K. Our result matches observed reality. Official climatology’s result, not so much: 0.7 / (1 – 0.67) = 2.1 K, almost three times observation.

But wait, say the naysayers. What about the Earth’s radiative imbalance of 0.6 Watts per square meter? This implies that anthropogenic warming has radiated 2.3 – 0.6 = 1.7 W m–2 to space. Accordingly, equilibrium warming attributable to the period from 1850-2011 may eventually prove to be 0.75 K x 2.3 / 1.7 = 1.0 K.

Right. Even after allowing for the energy imbalance, official climatology’s grossly excessive feedback fraction still gives a mid-range prediction more than twice the 1 K that may eventually be observed, whereas our result remains close to reality, Indeed, if just a quarter of the 1 K equilibrium warming from 1850- 2011 was natural, as it may well have been, for the official “consensus” proposition says no more than that recent warming was mostly manmade (and only 0.3% of published papers say even that much: Legates et al., 2013), our result remains bang on target.

But wait, say the naysayers. What about nonlinearity in feedbacks? The atmospheric burden of water vapor increases exponentially at around 7% per Kelvin of warming. Yes, it does, but the radiative feedback response to that additional water vapor is logarithmic, just like the direct forcing from CO2, so the overall effect of the water vapor feedback is linear. Other feedbacks are not as nonlinear as column water vapor, and are too small to make much difference.

Besides, the models assume only 1-2% growth in column water vapor per Kelvin, because the evaporative cooling from 7%-per-Kelvin exponential growth in water vapor would reduce Charney sensitivity to below 1 K per CO2 doubling (Kininmonth 2010). The formidable Professor Lindzen has made the same point.

Nevertheless, let us assume, just for the sake of accommodating the New Denialists, that the linear growth in the feedback fraction would give a value double the 0.07 we have calculated. Then Charney sensitivity would rise from 1.1 / (1 – 0.07) = 1.2 K to 1.1 / (1 – 0.14) = 1.3 K. At triple the real value, Charney sensitivity would be 1.1 / (1 – 0.21) = 1.4 K.

So let us near-quadruple it to 1 – 0.75 / 1.00 = 0.25, the value that would obtain if one believed that the energy imbalance is as big as 0.6 W m–2 and if one believed that the net anthropogenic forcing (greatly diminished by the aerosol fudge-factor hastily introduced some years ago by IPCC when it realized that without the fudge-factor equilibrium sensitivity would necessarily be very low: you should just hear Dick Lindzen on that subject) is as little as 2.3 W m–2. Let’s pretend.

In that event, Charney sensitivity would still be less than 1.5 K and, therefore, below the lower bound of IPCC’s official 1.5-4.5 K range, and half a Kelvin below the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models’ 2 K minimum. To get to the models’ minimum, one would have to assume a feedback fraction almost seven times the 0.07 we have calculated.

Nonlinear? Schmoninear.

But, say the naysayers (now desperate), how do you know that the models don’t take the feedback response to emission temperature fully into account when deriving their value of the feedback fraction? It is questions like this that reveal that there are plenty of climate fanatics who know perfectly well that official climatology is fatally in error.

Look at it this way. The directly-forced warming from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases is about 12 K. The difference between equilibrium temperature in 1850 and emission temperature is 32 K. So, using official climatology’s method, carefully omitting the feedback response to emission temperature, its feedback fraction is 1 – 12 / 32, or 0.63. Actually, the CMIP5 models, like the CMIP3 models, assume 0.67, and Lacis (2010) assumes 0.75. So we know They are getting it wrong, and we know where and why They are getting it wrong, even without reading Their cheesily dishonest definition of a “climate feedback”.

What is more, Lacis says the pre-industrial and current values of the feedback fraction are the same: 0.75. Not much nonlinearity there, then.

If official climatology were using our method, it would have had to include the emission temperature in the calculation, thus: 1 – (255 + 12) / 287 = 0.07, or something pretty close to that.

Now you know why that hapless, red-faced, sweating vice-chancellor yelled at his faculty that our result is “a catastrophe” for the profiteers of doom. So it is.

Subscribe
Notify of
Gus

Your Highness, or however you are meant to be addressed in this strange British aristocratic system of yours, which we here in the US are bound (by law) to disrespect… I’d like to see your paper properly published. There are many journals, not necessarily American or British, that will accept the paper. Try Japanese or Chinese journals, for example, of physics journals, or geophysics journals.
There have been insightful papers published recently on related issues. For example, Lewis & Curry argue, based on the actual physical data, for much lower climate response values than the ones returned by CMIP5 models [1]. Christy et al., find that the warming trend is much lower than that simulated by CMIP5 models too [2], which suggests much lower sensitivity as well.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
[2] https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

Chimp

IMO Chris has already been published in a Chinese journal, or his team has submitted its work to the premier scientific periodical there.
As for terms of spoken address in the UK peerage, it goes like this (for Baronesses, etc, Lady instead of Lord):
Baron: My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord (Name)
Viscount: My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord (Monckton in Chris’ case)
Earl: My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord (Name)
Marquess: My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord (Name)
Royal Family Members: Your Royal Highness.

Tom Schaefer

There is simply something wrong with anyone who would not be embarrassed by being addressed in such a way. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Mr Schaefer, being a colonial, is not as steeped in a thousand years of history, as we are in the Old Country. We like a little of the old-fashioned ways. However, many of our friends do not even know that I am Lord Monckton, for it is traditional not to stand too heavily on ceremony, and it is not done to introduce oneself as “Lord Monckton”, merely as “Monckton of Brenchley”. So, if Mr Schaefer does not wish to bow and scrape, he does not need to do so.
If we get a Communist government at the next election – and that is now a real possibility, for only the second time – I expect that a lot of this colorful but harmless and inexpensive flim-flam will be swept away. Will Britain be better for its passing? Probably not.

Most grateful to Chimp for his answer to Gus. I am the Queen’s seventh cousin twice removed (on the wrong side of the blanket, on my mother’s father’s side, via the Second Duke of Portland). So I am about 18 millionth in line to the Throne.
And yes, we are working on publication. There have been two previous papers working towards our current idea. The first was published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; the second was published in Energy & Environment. In due course we hope to get our result published in a leading journal of climatology. We do not underestimate the difficulties in overthrowing the Party Line by drawing attention to a very large error of physics, but we shall keep plugging away at it until either we are published or we are given good reason to apprehend that we are wrong.

Gus

I think, the party line is beginning to crumble already. Papers critical of it, in various ways, are being published even in Nature, Scientific Reports (a Nature publication), and Journal of Climate, the veritable party strongholds heretofore. On the other hand, geophysics and physics journals have always been more flexible here and have a history of publishing papers that openly pointed at errors in the party line, see, e.g., the two classic papers by Gerlich and Tscheuschner published in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
Regarding your idea of how to handle feedbacks, I recall a gentleman from Western Australia who worked on and published something quite similar a couple of years back. Also, there are papers by Ferenc M. Miskolczi, who analysed greenhouse in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres [1] that are well worth perusing.
[1] See, e.g., his paper on this in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January-March 2007, pp. 1-40.

Gus makes a very good point about the trend in equilibrium-sensitivity estimates in the learned journals. It is generally downward, and seems to be bottoming out at around 1 to 1.2 K per CO2 doubling.
However, I should be cautious before accepting the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, which contains many errors and was published after inadequate review in a vanity-publishing predatory journal.
Miiskolczi’s paper is of more interest, but is just sufficiently complicated to have made very little general impression.
In my submission, our demonstration of a large, simple error – if no genuine fault is found with it – will have a more decisive effect in bringing official climatology to heel and moderating its current extravagant predictions.

Are we talking sensitivity to climate or titles?

HotScot

Gus
your attempt at sarcasm by referring to Mr. Monckton as “Your Highness” is rude and disrespectful. Your constitution may be bound to disrespect the Aristocracy, but there is no need to wallow in your own righteousness.
I am a Brit, I respect the work Queen Elizabeth has done over the decades, through changing times, but I think the Royal family should be wound up and titles disposed of now. That does not mean I consider it clever to be spiteful.
So I refer to Mr. Monckton as, variously, Mr. Monckton, Christopher, or Chris.
Irrespective of how I refer to him, possibly much to his chagrin, I respect his decades long efforts to challenge alarmist science in it’s futile attempt to demonstrate that the future holds little but dystopia for us all.
If we were all as positive about the future as Chris Monckton, the world would be a better place. Fortunately he has the intelligence and education to present the science, to demonstrate that, logically.
He also has the courage to risk his reputation to do so.
I believe, that as a Scot, I am entitled to resent the Aristocracy at least as much as any other country in the world. It doesn’t, however, entitle me to be rude.

Most grateful to HotScot for his kind words. Of course he can call me “Mr Monckton” if he wants. That is a lot more polite than the epithets directed in my direction by the usual suspects. And of course HotScot does not really resent me, because it is not my fault I was born the grandson of a future Peer of the Realm.
But he has understood that we have proven that official climatology has been gravely in error for a century, and that after correction of that error it is not possible to make a credible case any longer for attempting to mitigate global warming, There will not be enough warming to matter.

HotScot

Chris
“And of course HotScot does not really resent me, because it is not my fault I was born the grandson of a future Peer of the Realm.”
Quite true.
You long ago absolved yourself of that burden by your scientific endeavour.
🙂

Chimp

I’m OK with granting titles in recognition of accomplishments, but agree that the coming Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg dynasty is likely to be dreadful, starting with that irredeemable, insufferable twit Jug Ears. So retain titles but lose the reigning royal family.
Alfred the Great saw off the Danes from Wessex, but now a whole new Great Heathen Army threatens the realm. At least Elizabeth is half British and her Germanic dad was a loyal Briton, unlike his Teutonophilic older brother.
I’m not however a thorough-going republican. The UK could still be technically a monarchy rather than a presidential republic. Just extend the merit principle from Life Peers to the monarch. Let Parliament elect the most distinguished Briton of his or her generation (and who wants the job) to a lifetime tenure as king or queen and head of state of many Commonwealth nations, if they still want to go that route. Australia might finally balk at having Chuck the Cluck as its head of state.
Since most Britons are descended from Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, why not open up the position to talent rather than primogeniture?

HotScot

Chimp
Sounds reasonable, but I maintain that any type of Monarchy in the UK is followed slavishly, and incorrectly, by despots across the globe announcing themselves King/Queen, dressing up in royal regalia and ‘ruling’ their countries as they imagine cartoon representations of our royal family do, by subjugation.
And now the ‘environmentalist’ and ‘architect’ Charles is being lined up as next king.
God help us, it’ll be wind turbines adorned with royal regalia next.

Chimp

HotScot,
There really aren’t too many monarchies left, and many if not most of those have their own traditions, independent from Britain, the oldest being Japan’s.

HotScot

Chimp
despots don’t do official monarchies, they just dress up, hold parades and beat people.
Is Kim Jong whatsit a monarchy? No, but the little despot dresses up (albeit in black) holds parades and beats people.
I could cite more starting with, perhaps, Idi Amine, the last king of Scotland. He dressed up, held parades and beat people.
That’s the perception of our royal family in some places, wrong of course. but it suites their purposes.

Chimp

It has been a while since the British or English royal family behaved like Idi Amin, although conspiracy theorists think they bumped off Princess Diana.
But the family, if that it be, does have a long, sad, sorry, brutal history of treason, tyranny, greed, idiocy and lunacy, only partly redeemed by its few standouts. A chocking number of British monarchs couldn’t speak English. I don’t have enough time or space to say bad things about the Normans and Plantagenets. The Tudors were all terrible. police statists, except for the boy who died too young to burn his religious opponents alive, as he surely would have done. Three of the Stuarts were traitors. Charles I’s sons should both have been beheaded, too. The German-speaking Hanoverians depopulated the Highlands of your country.
I don’t think that even Edward I, Hammer of the Welsh and Scots, possibly the most competent English monarch after the House of Wessex, however was a cannibal.

MarkW

Chimp, the problem there is that you might be condemning the country’s most talented mind to a ceremonial position with no real influence on anything.

Chimp

Mark,
It would be a retirement job.
Somebody like BG Tony Wilson, CO of 5th Infantry Brigade in the Falklands War. He’s now 82, but would have been available at a younger, sprier age. He mostly did volunteer work after retirement.
His Royal Marines comrade MG Julian Thompson (3 Commando Brigade) is still writing at 83, however.

Chimp

PS: The monarch is not totally without influence under the British constitution.

eddie willers

Being an American I don’t really understand any of this Royalty biz, but I must say the current princess is popping out the cutest babies in Christendom.

Chimp

Eddie,
The dynasty has belatedly awoken to the fact that they need to quit marrying inbred German aristos and strengthen the bloodline with common Brits.
Elizabeth by pure chance had a Scottish mum, because her dad wasn’t expected to be king. But his brother, the N@zi eldest son of a German dad, George V, and German mom, May of Teck, not surprisingly was pro-German rather than pro-British.

George Lawson

Chimp
. “Let Parliament elect the most distinguished Briton of his or her generation.to a lifetime tenure of king or queen”
So you think a political appointment would be better than what we have now? I can’t think of anything worse. While the current succession principal might leave a lot to be desired, a political appointment with multiple nominees and split votes in parliament just would not work, or have any purpose whatsoever. A political appointment would not be recognised by countries across the World as our current head of state does, and could quite easily result in the break up of the Commonwealth leading to unknown consequences, whereas our current system of a non-political royal head of state has served the country well over the years, and continues to attract respect and admiration from millions of supporters from across the World. It also attracts tens of millions of tourists to Britain to witness our royal pageantry, earning the country £billions to help our economy. Do you think someone like Branson or Lord Sugar, or some university boffin would do a better Job if they were elected? So don’t let short sighted ideals replace a system, which, for all its faults, has served us well as a nation state for many years..

HotScot

George
I don’t imagine for a moment the Commonwealth is held together by the royal family. It’s held together by trade.
And if the royal family is such a successful tourist attraction, make them a business and have them pay their own way. Of course, some competition might be healthy, but no doubt that would ruin the image of a royal head of the country, with unlimited wealth, paid by her vassals for her benevolence.
They might also want to hand back all the land and properties they earn income from, largely taken by force in the dim and distant past, whilst contributing their fair share of their tourism profits to the Treasury by conventional taxation.

Gus

Sorry, no sarcasm was intended. I genuinely didn’t know how to refer to Mr Monckton, knowing only that it’s quite complicated and varies depending on the title. Many thanks to Mr Chimp for the clarification. And, yes, there are constitutional provisions in the US about these things [1], though a particular 1810 amendment that threatened to strip Americans of their US citizenship if they dared accept a title of nobility from a foreign government has never been ratified and… is still pending, since no time limit for its ratification was ever set.
Nobody would remember about it, and nobody would care nowadays, were it not for the issue of emoluments that is tied to the same Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, and that has been dug out from the grave recently by some US politicians wishing to entangle President Trump in it.
[1] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

Chimp

George Lawson April 25, 2018 at 1:29 am
An elected monarch would still allow all the pomp and ceremony which currently attracts tourists.
However it’s not clear to me that whatever revenue the monarchy generates covers the costs to the taxpayers of supporting this dysfunctional, often treasonous family.

Trevor

Och Aye !
James the 6th of Scotland became James ( the first ) of Great Britain ( England , Ireland and Scotland ).
So……………wi’ oot the Scots ( Stuarts ) there would nae ha been the Union !
So the Scots should show deference to what is the continuation of THEIR MONARCHY after all !
Anyway , that’s my story and I’m sticking to it !

M Courtney

I fear this is the inverse of Exxon Knew.
Of course the evidence has been there all along. Every university has to teach that CO2 cannot cause a runaway feedback or it would have done with the first forest fire.
But that doesn’t mean they have to emphasise that commonly known fact. New calculations or not.

John Harmsworth

Yes!
Clime-con knew?

Alan Tomalty

It has been pointed out before that 97% of Antarctica never sees a positive temperature above freezing. In that 97%, there are 10 weather stations that have never seen any warming in their ~60 year history. Any greenie I ask How could Antarctica ever melt from global warming if the temperature never has gotten above freezing in 97% of the land mass? The other 3% is actually an island because the West Antarctica peninsula is actually an island. So mainland Antactica itself has never seen above freezing temperatures since Antarctica moved to the South Pole in the continental drift that took 100’s of millions of years. A secondary fact is that someone calculated in a WUWT article that it would take 105000 years to melt all the ice even if you had automated blowtorches. The greenies have no answer to this.

thomasjk
kim

Yup, else why the narrative, the ’cause’.
=====================

Amber

Thank you Mr. Monckton ! The “Exxon knew” .. slight of hand is a amateur distraction tactic to avoid exactly what you have outlined but there is no hiding any longer . Using and creating false information to defraud tax payers and other members of society is a crime long overdue to be prosecuted .
Tens of thousands of premature deaths from fuel poverty and $trillions blown on the biggest fraud in history . Justice will be served . I agree with Amber. Mr Courtney, who says the CO2 cannot cause a runaway feedback, is addressing a point other than our point, which is that the non-runaway feedback imagined by official climatology is an order of magnitude too large, and we say we have proved that. If we have, then climate sensitivity cannot by any stretch of the most fevered totalitarian imagination exceed about 1.5 K, and is more likely to be around 1.2 K. The university in question now knows that this is true, but is continuing to gather grants on the basis of hoping that our result can be hushed up. Well, in the long run it can’t. Thanks to WattsUpWithThat, the truth is now available, and is slowly but surely making its way through the climatological community. M Courtney Yes. I acknowledge that the point I raise is not the point that you raise. But the implication is the same. Therefore the response would be the same. Thus the precedent has been set. They need to acknowledge the inconvenient facts (yours and those already known). But they don’t need to emphasise those facts. They have the right to say that some things are more important than other things. Even if we disagree. In reply to Mr Courtney, the university in question is entitled to its own opinions, but it is not entitled to its own facts. We say we have proven that official climatology has been overstating the feedback factor by an order of magnitude. If we have proven that, then it will no longer be open to any university to continue preaching the global warming nonsense, any more than it would be open to any university to preach that on the Euclidean or on the hyperbolic plane the square on the hypotenuse is not equal to the sum of the squares on the two catheti. Recall also that a jury, looking at the university’s conduct, would in my submission be readily satisfied of two facts: first, that the university knew perfectly well that we are right but chose to try to continue the scam; and secondly, that in practicing what it now knows to be a deception it is intending to enrich itself through hundreds of millions of dollars a year in global-warming funding, and to impoverish users of gasoline and electrical power through crippling taxation. The double-intent test having been satisfied, the jury would send the relevant personnel to the calabozo. It may yet come to that. Craig Serious question, are you concerned about these people coming after you physically? Do you have a security detail, body guards to protect against the threat of harm to you? Take this to it’s logical conclusion, you are threatening to bring down an industry worth trillions of dollars. Alan Tomalty Because there is so much money involved no one can trust any government agency on this. It has already been proven that GISS and NOAA have fudged and faked the data. I wonder why those agencies cant be prosecuted. We are living in a world of OZ. Craig asks whether I am worried for my personal safety. No, for two reasons. First, thanks to WattsUpWithThat and its genial host and its competent mods I have now given enough detail about our result to ensure that, even if I were made a martyr for light and truth, the genie cannot now be forced back into the bottle. Secondly, though most climate fanatics know remarkably little science and are mere drones faithfully shrieking out the Party Line, the few who are driving this scam are cynical and experienced propagandists. They know that it is in their interest to keep me alive, for the danger in making martyrs is that it is usually the martyrs’ cause that prevails. Their answer, of course, is that I’m not a real Lord, I’m not a real scientist, I’m not a serious contributor to the debate, there’s no debate anyway, the science is settled, so I don’t matter, so why should they waste a bullet? Y. Knott Take this to it’s logical conclusion, you are threatening to bring down an industry worth trillions of dollars. Yes – delightful isn’t it, especially when the dollars in question come out of our pockets at gunpoint? And the value to humanity of the “industry” being negative – Bastiat’s candlemakers’ petition illustrating – we the outsiders are all the better-off therefore, I hope. It’s not like there aren’t many other ‘interested motives’ tugging-at the pursestrings, or won’t be lots more after this one, or that the Gummint will responsibly use any savings that result… Sometimes I despair of our Race. Well Done, Lord Monckton! – and if you’re in my neck o’ the woods and need a bit o’ muscle at your back, I imagine I could rustle-up a friend or two to help keep the forces of darkness at bay… { – and yes Craig, I know you meant it positively! – } Many thanks to Mr Knott for his kind words. It is people like him, who are generous enough to let me know they are grateful, who help to offset the rancorous poison of the climate fanatics. Roger I’ve read several of these feedback posts from Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and still lack any real understanding of what is being said. I am not an electrical engineer (Chem Eng) and am unfamiliar with electrical engineering feedback. Maybe that is my problem. But my understanding of feedback in the climate models is that they postulate that the initial CO2 caused increase in temperature increases the water vapor which further increases the temperature. Missing hot spot says this is debatable. But is this the same feedback that Christopher is talking about where the feed back response is directly caused by the input variable (Temp) and not by a follow on effect? Latitude woops…….. What matters is absolute humidity. According to NASA/RSS satellite measurements, global average WV has been increasing 1.5% per decade for at least as long as it has been measured (since Jan 1988). Rational extrapolation indicates 8% since 1960. Both WV and UAH temperature are now (thru Mar 2018) below their trend lines. D. J. Hawkins The proper measure is absolute humidity. If I have a parcel of air at 70F and 50% relative humidity and raise the temperature to 85F with 45% relative humidity, the line between those points for RH will show a negative slope. However, the actual water content for the former is 55.7 grains of H2O per pound of dry air and the later will be 82.8 grains per pound. The total water content of the air has increased. It may come to the same thing in the end, depending on the actual temperatures at those elevations for the period of interest, but we should always be careful to talk about what really matters. Latitude how about specific humidity….. Josh C Ah…. IIRC, what matters is humidity at the 300mb level, where the increased CO2 is supposed to ‘gather’ and retain the most heat? If there is to be a ‘Santer’ style fingerprint, it would be an increase of Water Vapor at 300mb, increasing the CO2 forcing. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Latitude how about specific humidity at 300mb……………..grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!! Latitude Latitude Alan Tomalty Mr Pangburn where do you get that water vapour info. That is completely false. NASA had a project to measure it for 20 years and couldnt prove any increase so Hansen shut the project down in 2009. Alan Tomalty The following is from an article by Ken Gregory that was published on WUWT “NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor Guest Blogger / March 6, 2013 Global water vapor Global water vapor (Photo credit: oakridgelabnews) Guest post submitted by Ken Gregory, Friends of Science.org An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001. The world has spent over$ 1 trillion on climate change mitigation based on climate models that don’t work. They are notoriously poor at simulating the 20th century warming because they do not include natural causes of climate change – mainly due to the changing sun – and they grossly exaggerate the feedback effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
Most scientists agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which takes about 150 years, would theoretically warm the earth by one degree Celsius if there were no change in evaporation, the amount or distribution of water vapor and clouds. Climate models amplify the initial CO2 effect by a factor of three by assuming positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, for which there is little direct evidence. Most of the amplification by the climate models is due to an increase in upper atmosphere water vapor.
The Satellite Data
The NASA water vapor project (NVAP) uses multiple satellite sensors to create a standard climate dataset to measure long-term variability of global water vapor.
NASA recently released the Heritage NVAP data which gives water vapor measurement from 1988 to 2001 on a 1 degree by 1 degree grid, in three vertical layers.1 The NVAP-M project, which is not yet available, extends the analysis to 2009 and gives five vertical layers.
From the NVAP project page:
The NASA MEaSUREs program began in 2008 and has the goal of creating stable, community accepted Earth System Data Records (ESDRs) for a variety of geophysical time series. A reanalysis and extension of the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP), called NVAP-M is being performed as part of this program. When processing is complete, NVAP-M will span 1987-2010. Read about changes in the new version.
Water vapor content of an atmospheric layer is represented by the height in millimeters (mm) that would result from precipitating all the water vapor in a vertical column to liquid water. The near-surface layer is from the surface to where the atmospheric pressure is 700 millibar (mb), or about 3 km altitude. The middle layer is from 700 mb to 500 mb air pressure, or from 3 km to 6 km attitude. The upper layer is from 500 mb to 300 mb air pressure, or from 6 km to 10 km altitude.
The global annual average precipitable water vapor by atmospheric layer and by hemisphere from 1988 to 2001 is shown in Figure 1.
The graph is presented on a logarithmic scale so the vertical change of the curves approximately represents the forcing effect of the change. For a steady earth temperature, the amount of incoming solar energy absorbed by the climate system must be balanced by an equal amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere. An increase of water vapor in the upper atmosphere would temporarily reduce the OLR, creating a forcing of more incoming than outgoing energy, which raises the temperature of the atmosphere until the balance is restored.
NVAP_pwv
Figure 1. Precipitable water vapor by layer, global and by hemisphere.
The graph shows a significant percentage decline in upper and middle layer water vapor from 1995 to 2001. The near-surface layer shows a smaller percentage increase, but a larger absolute increase in water vapor than the other layers. The upper and middle layer water vapor decreases are greater in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere.”
The graphs didnt show up but you can read the article here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

I am most grateful to Latitude for his series of water vapor plots, and to Mr Tomalty for pointing out that the upper troposphere, where 90% of the feedback-amplifying effect of water vapor is supposed to occur, is not showing any increase in specific humidity – one important reason to suspect that the water vapor feedback has been overvalued by official climatology.

AT – Numerical data of the NASA/RSS satellite measurements is reported at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201803.time_series.txt
The data is graphed at Figure 3 in my blog/analysis.

AT – On reading your longer post above, I see we are very much on the ‘same page’. Because most of the WV is below about 10 km (above 265 mb) where TPW is increasing perhaps these two NASA reports are not in significant disagreement.
I differ with your (and IPCC) assumption that CO2 has a significant influence on temperature; especially the assumption that warming was initiated by CO2. I list at least six examples of compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on temperature (or any other aspect of climate). My assessment is that warming was initiated by solar change and the change is signaled by the proxy of sunspot numbers.
I would like to pursue this further but a cursory search revealed nothing on NVAP after 2009. Do you have a link to anything more recent? The NASA/RSS data is current.

Gary Pearse

It’s both the input and the add on. By ignoring the former (The big one: 255K (what we would have with no GHG) ), the total feedback is attributed only to the GHG giving rise to the 288C present global average T. Therefore climate folks are attributing a value 10x too large to increasing CO2’s effect on temperature.

ggm

I’m struggling to follow this. Is my simple explanation below accurate :
The Earth would be -18 degrees C (255 K) if it had no atmosphere. But Earth’s atmosphere raises the temperature to +15 degrees C (288 K) average via the natural greenhouse effect. This 33 degree C/K increase is why Earth isn’t frozen solid.
NOW we have AGW theory which says that increasing CO2 will cause a 1 degree increase in temperate from the CO2. This 1 degree increase will cause a massive feedback with water vapor which will then add another 4+ degrees for every degree of CO2 warming.
If this feedback were true, then the same feedback MUST exist with the original 33 degree increase – in which case the world would be 132 degrees warmer than it is. The “feedback” does not have intelligence to know that it should only happen for human produced CO2 – it’s either a real physical process, or it’s not.
The fact that the Earth is not boiling, means there is no massive H2O feedback.
The fact that these crooks knowingly ONLY apply this feedback to the CO2 warming, but NOT to the original 33 degree warming means that they KNOW they are committing fraud (or that they are incredibly incompetent)
Did I get that right ?

ggm…”did I get that right?”
I hope you got it right because that is also my understanding. If increased water vapor is linearly proportional to increased temperature, it matters not what caused the increase in temperature (e.g. Milankovitch cycle). Although the above analysis began at the end of the little ice age in the mid 1800s, the analysis could have begun at the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago and the result would be similar although CO2 would not be significantly involved.

Gary Pearse has got it right, but ggm not quite. The argument is that if 12 K of warming induces a feedback response, then the original 255.4 K emission temperature must also induce a feedback response. Thus, official climatology says that the feedback fraction is 1 – 12 / 32 = 0.63, while we say, in line with established control theory, that 1 – (255.4 +12) / 287.5 = 0.07. The emission temperature is the input temperature in the feedback circuit, and, even if there were no mu amplification to allow for the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, there would be a feedback response to emission temperature, so that the output signal – i.e., equilibrium temperature, would be higher than the emission temperature.
And nobody here need apologize for finding all of this is hard to follow. Feedback math is notoriously counter-intuitive, which is one reason why official climatology’s grave error of physics has gone undetected until now.

Since natural variability is poorly understood, many things can and do effect equilibrium temperature, and CO2 is nowhere to be found in the loop equation, how do we know that CO2 is causing temperature and not just correlating with temperature. I keep running into the problem that all the proxy data I have seen shows temperature leading CO2 or they are uncorrolated ( example). Couldn’t you run the same analysis using albedo for example.

ggm

Another thing to note is that in Earth’s geologic history, temperatures have never correlated with CO2 levels.
For example :
Cretaceous : 145–66 million years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
CO2 = 1700ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Temperature = 18C (4 degrees above today)
Jurassic : 201.3–145 million years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic
CO2 = 1950ppm (7 times pre-industrial level)
Temperature = 16.5C (3 degrees above today)
Permian : 298.9–251.902 million years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian
CO2 = 900ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Temperature = 16C (2 degrees above today)
Carboniferous : 358.9–298.9 million years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
CO2 = 800ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Temperature = 14C (0 degrees above today)
Silurian : 443.8–419.2 million years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian
CO2 = 4500ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Temperature = 17C (3 degrees above today)

Chimp

Cambrian: over 17 times present level, but only seven degrees warmer (maybe a lot less on average).
Ordovician: 10.5 times current CO2, but at most only 2 °C above modern temperature on average. But it ended with an ice age.

mynaturaldiary

In reply to ggm and his excellent points, I would recommend if you have a spare 45 mins (sic) you watch this episode ‘The Big Freeze’ from the ‘Earth Story – Aubrey Manning’ series on geology.
This details climate change over geological time, and includes the effects of tectonic drift, the long term carbon cycle and Milankovic cycles and their separate effects.
The program ends with the statement that ‘climate change is an inevitable consequence of the way the Earth works. The climate has been changing one way or another throughout the history of the planet, and will continue to do so.’
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1d52hx

WXcycles

@ Chimp
Such comparisions will be highly altered by geodynamic ocean and land geography configurations, plus by high mountain ranges affecting both moisture and global circulation.
.

In reply to Roger, the models indeed assume that the non-condensing greenhouse gases induce a warming that in turn induces a feedback response. However, the models have not been trained to take account of the fact that the pre-existing emssion temperature also induces a feedback response, via just the same feedback processes as drive the feedback response to the small warming caused by the non-condensing greenhouse gases. And what that means is that the feedback factor is an order of magnitude smaller than official climatology thinks. And what that means is that doubling CO2 will cause about 1.2 K warming – at most around 1.5 K. Not the 3.3 K that is the models’ current central estimate. Certainly not the 10 or 11 K on the basis of which scientifically illiterate governments currently make climate policies.

HotScot

Chris
in my utter ignorance, as a layman, all I know is that CO2 has risen from an almost catastrophically low 180ppm some time ago (about 30ppm away from the extinction of meaningful life) to 400pp now.
I find it astonishing that sometime during that period, mankind happened along, discovered fire, then the means to extract and utilise fossil fuels (which were naturally, but accidentally sequestered) which in turn, gradually helped to restore the atmospheric balance to something approaching normal, and coincidentally, helped mankind progress to the point that we can tap on our computers and communicate almost instantly across the globe.
That’s a miracle by any standards, not that I’m religious.
Personally, I would like to see CO2 levels at around 1,500ppm, allowing us a little wriggle room. If that has the consequence of raising temperatures, perhaps it might liberate the billions of acres of unusable land lost to permafrost across Siberia and Canada.
As it is, NASA tells us that the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% in 30 years, including equatorial deserts.
Sorry if this is cutting across you Chris, but I’m a layman, and I like things presented in practical terms, as valuable as your science is.
My belief is also that you and your fellow academic colleagues could do well by transmitting the practical benefits of increased CO2 in layman’s terms. There’s a lot more of us ignorant prole’s out there with votes than there are scientists with votes.
Thank you for your work. It’s much appreciated by this prole.

Most grateful to HotScot for his further thoughtful reply. I agree that the oil, coal and gas corporations ought to have found the courage to point out the benefits of their product. The greening of the planet, as seen from space, is quite spectacular.
However, our approach in the present study is to demonstrate conclusively that the entire concern about runaway, catastrophic global warming was based on a fundamental error of physics and that, when the error is corrected, the global warming problem vanishes.
The value of this approach is that, once our paper is published, official climatology will be compelled to respond. It will not be able to ignore our result. IPCC will have to take account of it in its next assessment report. And that, really, will be the end of the scare.
Our program of study thus concentrates not on propaganda for CO2 – that is the business of the oil, coal and gas corporations, though they have been shockingly lackadaisical about it – but on nailing down the science so that there is absolutely no wriggle-room for the Forces of Darkness. We are close to achieving that objective. If we succeed, the news of our result will have a far more powerful effect than any mere propaganda campaign.

The IPCC included the emission temperature feedback (Planck feedback it is described as) as one of the feedbacks in its latest report.
But it is NOT included in the theory or the climate models.
Just show the page where this is shown and ask climate scientists how it changes the math and why it cannot possibly be included.

mynaturaldiary

Monckton of Brenchley – as a fellow Brit, you may be interested in this – a rigorous multiple regression model for the Central England Temperature, which looks at a number of factors.
https://mynaturaldiary.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/whither-the-weather-2/
This would suggest that a CO2 rise of 285ppm would give 1.71 K temperature rise, which again is far less than formal climate science is predicting.
The model presented suggests unsurprisingly that the monthly CET depends mostly on last month’s solar insolation, followed by influences on the Jet Stream and it’s position over the UK as influenced by teleconnections such as the Arctic Oscillation etc, and finally by a faint CO2 trend.
I am also very happy to swear allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and descendants.

In reply to Mynaturaldiary, it is interesting that most empirical derivations of equilibrium sensitivity find it to be of order 1.5 K, so the 1.7 K result is in line with these derivations. Unfortunately, there are a lot of uncertainties in the empirical approach, which is why we have taken a theoretical approach, proving that climate sensitivity is low. The Central England temperature record is particularly prone to uncertainty, particularly before 1950.

mynaturaldiary

Monckton of Brenchley – The monthly model presented only uses the data from 1950 onwards for the reasons you highlighted. I agree empirical regression models have a limit, but they contain all the data. As more becomes available, the process is simply repeated to confirm the trends highlighted. repeating this approach at points around the earth where robust data is available would serve to act a bit like thermocouples inside a chemical reactor – point source measurements that any global theoretical model must explain.
A robust theoretical scientific model is of course gold standard, but as you have highlighted, the current ‘gold standard models’ have a fatal flaw in them. It remains to be seen whether the scientific community accept your argument and then incorporates it into its own models. It strikes me we are at a stage of Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions viz.
‘Normal scientific progress can be viewed as “development-by-accumulation” of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science, leading to new paradigms.’
So your work may lead to a new paradigm. I expect that it would take the incorporation of your work into a climate science model, and ten extra years of observation to confirm to begin to change the minds of the scientific-political machine in motion.
I personally agree whether by regression or climate feedback there is less to worry about than the current ‘gold standard models’ suggest. In answer to your question ‘Did official climatology know its predictions were nonsense?’ if it didn’t before, it does now.

Kristi Silber

HotScot,
“As it is, NASA tells us that the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% in 30 years, including equatorial deserts.
Do they?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

lewispbuckingham

For my non mathematical mind, the ‘fixed’ amount of heat, which delivers a temperature before anthropogenic CO2 is added, is of itself, the product of feed back, so, therefore also itself varies, dampening increase in temperature negative feedback , as further CO2 is added to the atmosphere .

Lewis Buckingham is right. The emission temperature of 255.4 K is dependent only upon insolation and albedo, so it has been affected by the melting of the great ice sheets, which is of course a feedback process. But once the temperature reaches 255.4 K, even if there are no non-condensing greenhouse gases it continues to be affected by the water vapor feedback, which is currently thought to be the largest of all the feedbacks.

jorgekafkazar

My understanding has been that the trougherati assume that there is no global warming from water vapor until CO2 is accounted for, that water vapor heating is then solely the result of CO2.

jorgekafkazar is correct: official climatology imagines, in effect, that there was no water vapor in the atmosphere and no ice to melt in the oceans until CO2 came along. That’s why it has ignored the actually quite large feedback response to emission temperature.

jhborn

official climatology imagines, in effect, that there was no water vapor in the atmosphere and no ice to melt in the oceans until CO2 came along.

Imagine the mental contortions in which one has to engage in to draw such an inference from mainstream statements like the following 2010 Lacis et al. paper’s comment about the effect that the loss of noncondensing greenhouse gases:

A direct consequence of this combination of
feedback by the condensable and forcing by the
noncondensable constituents of the atmospheric
greenhouse is that the terrestrial greenhouse effect
would collapse were it not for the presence of
these noncondensing GHGs. If the global atmospheric
temperatures were to fall to as low as TS =
TE, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation would imply
that the sustainable amount of atmospheric water
vapor would become less than 10% of the current
atmospheric value. This would result in (radiative)
forcing reduced by ~30W/m2, causing much
of the remaining water vapor to precipitate, thus
enhancing the snow/ice albedo to further diminish
the absorbed solar radiation. Such a condition
would inevitably lead to runaway glaciation,
producing an ice ball Earth.

The Born Liar, in his desperation to land a blow on our result regardless of considerations such as the mere objective truth, purports to jib at my statement that official climatology imagines, in effect, that there was no water vapor in the atmosphere and no ice to melt in the oceans until CO2 came along. The ineluctable consequence of official climatology’s definition of a “climate feedback” as a response only to a perturbation in global temperature is that its models take insufficient (or, in many instances, no) account of the feedback response to emission temperature. That refusal to take due account of that large feedback response is tantamount to a declaration that the feedback processes – notably the water vapor feedback – do not exist in the absence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Do the math.

jhborn

The ineluctable consequence of official climatology’s definition of a “climate feedback” as a response only to a perturbation in global temperature is that its models take insufficient (or, in many instances, no) account of the feedback response to emission temperature.

Note that Lord Monckton has again trimmed his sails; he now allows that models may actually have taken feedback to emission temperature into account; he merely thinks their doing so was “insufficient” in his view. But how would he know?
Also, Lord Monckton continues to conflate small-signal quantities with large-signal ones. He refers to definitions that deal with linearized, small-signal quantities and thinks the modelers apply them to (highly nonlinear) large-signal behavior.
When the literature speaks of “perturbations,” it’s referring to small departures from a nearby reference state. Lord Monckton has produced no evidence for the proposition that the reference state was arrived at by ignoring feedback to the reference-state temperature. For all he knows, in fact, the reference-state values may have been obtained by observation of actual-climate-system-results at which the Great Modeler arrived by including such feedback in His calculations.

The Born Liar continues to snipe spitefully, and to disregard the truth, which is that right from the start I cited Lacis (2010), who, without specifically mentioning the feedback response to emission temperature, nevertheless seemed to allowed for an unrealistically small one.
It is, however, quite clear that the definition of a “climate feedback” given by official climatology excludes the possibility of any feedback response to emission temperature. It is still clearer from our calibration of the zero-dimensional-model equation that one can reproduce official climatology’s interval of Charney sensitivities solely by assuming a feedback fraction that takes no account whatsoever of the feedback response to emission temperature. That is one of the reasons why we carried out the calibration: precisely to discover to what extent, if any, allowance had been made for the feedback response to emission temperature.
And we know from the university’s consternation on first hearing of our result that it is by no means as easy to dismiss as the Born Liar so dearly wishes.

From Lacis 2010:
” Thus, while the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect, it is these non-condensing GHGs that actually control the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapor and cloud feedback contributions are not self-sustaining and as such, only provide amplification.”
“only provide amplification”
I’m sorry, this is just plain wrong. Photons travel at the speed of light, and they just don’t care whether they come from a “fast acting” condensing gas or a (by implication) slower acting noncondensing gas. Water in the atmosphere is not solely dependent on CO2 back radiation.
Thank you Mr.Born for bringing up Lacis 2010, so as to remind us that the objection raised by Monckton is by no means the ONLY failing of the models. Treatment of atmospheric water as feedback only, failure to account for the low emissivity of CO2, et al mean that the true sensitivity to doubling is much closer to 1 degree, and values below 1 degree can not be ruled out.

Sweet Old Bob

Time for more e-mails to fly ….
and to be released ……. 8>))

Tom Halla

I conclude that the estimates of ECS are a worst case model, as it assumes the sole influence on temperature are greenhouse gases. If there is some other factor influencing historic temperature changes, the sensitivity to changes in CO2 would be less to the degree those other factors have an influence.
As variations in CO2 did not correlate to the LIA, or the 1945-1975 dip in temperature, there is some other factor in play. The problem is determining what those other phenomena are.

In reply to Mr Halla, official climatology’s estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity cover a wide interval, and are designed to represent all possibilities, not just the extreme case. We have demonstrated that the two-thirds to nine-tenths of the officially estimated equilibrium sensitivities that are supposedly accounted for by feedback processes have been very greatly exaggerated. So there will not be up to 11 K warming per doubling of CO2: there will be about 1.2 K.

Interesting. The illustrations are Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry in Berlin and Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang 😉

So what was the uni’s technical result of so much professorial work the grad students went on strike? If your leak is as good as it appears, you should be able to get it. Unless you have been set up …….

In reply to Mr Proctor, the university is still scratching its collective noddle.

HotScot

Chris
that’s incredibly polite of you. I imagine their scratching is about a meter lower than their noddle.

“How long has official climatology known of its grave error? In truth, the vast majority of the pietistic preachers of doom and gloom have never had the slightest idea what they were talking about.”
It is interesting that on the same day, WUWT publishes this rant and a much more scientific (and published) analysis by Nic Lewis, who takes no notice of this claim of “grave error”.
[Well Nick, see here’s the thing. We don’t care what you think is “interesting” -Anthony]

J

While they don’t mention the “grave error” their published results based on data agree with the message from Lord Monckton, the climate sensitivity is lower than the alarmists of IPCC have promulgated.

“While they don’t mention the “grave error””
The “grave error” is presumably not including a feedback to emission temperature. They don’t do that. So it isn’t just that they don’t mention it. They “commit” it.
But of course, L&C are not in “grave error”. They just do sensible energy budget study, get a result at the low end of the IPCC range, but with big error ranges (which is the cost of the budget approach).

Latitude

“The “grave error” is presumably not including a feedback to emission temperature.”
Then what is it Nick?

kim

I would celebrate the day Nick Stokes accepts a non-alarmist value for sensitivity.
==================================

By now Mr Stokes knows full well that official climatology, on which he has hitherto hung his hat, has perpetrated a grave error, and that without that error there would not be enough globakl warming to be worth worrying about. But he is, of course, right that the very large uncertainties inherent in any attempt to derive equilibrium sensitivities empirically will result in absurdly wide error margins unless one does what Lewis & Curry have not done and derives equilibrium sensitivity theoretically from three less uncertain numbers: the emission temperature 255.4 K, the directly-forced warming of about 12 K from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, and the natural surface temperature of 287.5 K in 1850. The feedback factor is then 1 – (255.4 + 12) / 287.5, or about 0.07. Even if it were four times that, Charney sensitivity would be only 1.4 K.

Serge Wright

The Lewis paper is only concerned with plotting temperature and CO2 changes since 1850 and calculating an ECS derived from observations. Their much lower ECS compared to that provided by the IPCC is not considered in their paper. Some grave error must exist to explain this large disrepancy.

Mr Wright is right. It has become increasingly difficult to justify IPCC’s high-sensitivity case as evidence of the continuing failure of the world to warm at anything like the predicted rate. But what we submit we have done is to find the central reason for the models’ extravagant over-predictions: namely, the elementary error of physics by which the feedback response to emission temperature has been overlooked and undervalued.

“The Lewis paper is only concerned with plotting temperature and CO2 changes since 1850 and calculating an ECS derived from observations. Their much lower ECS compared to that provided by the IPCC is not considered in their paper. “
They use the full range of radiative forcings. Their abstract begins
“Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5).”
But critically, they include an estimate for heat flux into the ocean, which gives them an effective sensitivity.
Their ECS is not “much lower” than that provided by the IPCC. The AR5 range was from 1.5 to 4.5 °C/doubling. They get 1.5, 1.66 or 1.76, depending on dataset used and allowance for varying feedback. But even the lowest estimate has 2.45 as the upper end of its uncertainty range.
The key thing is that they do not use the “emissivity temperature” feedback, which Lord M says it is a grave error to omit.

As Mr Stokes will recall from earlier threads in this series, one can derive estimates of equilibrium sensitivity empirically without knowing what the feedback sum is. So Lewis & Curry, taking an empirical approach, committed no error in neglecting the feedback response to emission temperature. Their mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity does not differ greatly from ours, but their upper bound of 2.45 K, considerably below the 9.2 K in their earlier paper, is an important new constraint. I am looking forward to studying their paper to learn more.

HotScot

Nick
how about, Chris Monckton speaks his mind.

Gerald Machnee

Stokes:
**WUWT publishes this rant**
What is a rant, Nick?

Nick would know – he is an expert ranter.

A rant is most closely aligned to what I typically post. Nick on the other hand just babbles sciencey sounding nonsense not founded in reality

commieBob

This looks like it could eclipse climagegate.
As Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart and others discovered, the punishment for trying to cover something up is much greater than the punishment for the original incident.
I’m putting in a supply of popcorn and beverages. This could be highly entertaining.

Hurrah for Commiebob. This is indeed going to be worth watching. At the moment, we are taking the cautious approach of checking everything many times. But once we are sure we are right we shall publish, and once we have published there will no longer subsist even the vestige of a pretext for suggesting that global warming will be a global crisis. If we’re right, it’s all over bar the shouting. There will be quite a lot of that, as the totalitarians come to terms with the magnitude of the error of physics right at the heart of their case. But the word is already inexorably spreading. The end is in sight.

Chimp

While awaiting publication and appearances on Fox News and coverage from Breitbart, how about preparing a YouTube video for mass consumption, explaining your discovery simply and graphically?

commieBob

Godspeed.

Dear Mr. Monckton,
I want to address you as Lord, as that was my initial knowledge, yet I still don’t understand why that is no longer applicable. Regardless, thank you.
I have a question regarding your certainty that this curtain will fall, most specifically because of the worldwide push for collectivism, totalitarianism, cessation of free speech and thought, etc. This is the foundation these new high priests set up to control the population though energy, especially the internet of things and how that interacts with smart technology, and how that is the foundation of agenda 21/ 2030.
I mention this context because the very loud, very red suspects (slate, guardian, intercept, CNN, MSNBC, VOx, BBC, etc) have been very effective with the propaganda. The universities, doing their part have crippled the minds of the youth. While I appreciate your positive assurances, I’m left wondering what can someone like myself do, or those of us also not suffering from group think… What can we do to actually combat this and ensure you are correct?
I’ve seen only sparsely populated efforts from anyone left of center to break away from said group think, topically at great cost to those livelihood. If what you say is indeed true and this will crumble, what measures can be taken to ensure you are correct?
I talk about this with everyone. I’m that guy. I mention this topic daily to strangers, to get a pulse, and what I see is blind Faith based on ignorance that rivals even the best ancient religions.
Additionally, facts don’t matter to neo-Marxist part modernist acolytes. A personal acquaintance after been thoroughly educated about the lack of truth regarding CO2 then moved the goal post saying “why should I care? I agree with all the measures they want to implement.”
This isn’t atypical behavior; this is the standard.
Granted, I won’t be there least surprised if you respond with dismissal assuming I’m just a negative cynic (which, admittedly, I sway greatly to that mentality), but I should also say I’m genuinely continuing to hold out hope in these dark times and want to actively assist in breaking down these inhuman falsehoods. I’m currently at a loss as to how or whether my efforts actually contribute.
I welcome criticism and suggestions

Alan Tomalty

Chris Could you please explain this sentence.
“We know that IPCC currently imagines that the CO2-driven warming should be increased by 35% to allow for all other anthropogenic forcings, so that the directly-forced warming from all natural sources was about 12 K.”
I was following your analysis up to there but got lost at this point. In that sentence arent you still talking about 1850? As another aside could you please add (CO2….etc) at the end of the words “non condensing greenhouse gases” wherever they may appear in any future report.

I should certainly not dismiss honestliberty as a cynic. It is realistic to expect that the usual suspects will snap and snarl and wriggle and duck and dive. But what we have found is a formal demonstration that official climatology has been in error for more than a century; that the error is elementary and grave; and that after correction no one would worry about dangerous manmade global warming. If we are wrong, then our paper will vanish or, if published, be trumped by later papers. If we are right, however, then official climatology is going to have to change its view. It cannot deliberately pretend that it can get away without taking due account of the feedback response to emission temperature once the world knows that in fact it must take due account of it. That is the value of a mathematical demonstration. No one would now dare to argue that on the Euclidean or on the hyperbolic plane the square on the hypotenuse of a right triangle is not equal to the sum of the squares on the two catheti.

Mr Tomalty asks the sensible question how I arrived at the notion that official climatology currently imagines that the CO2 forcing should be uplifted by about 35% to account for the forcing from the other non-condensing greenhouse gases (notably methane). IPCC (2013, fig. SPM.5) shows that the mid-range estimate of the CO2 forcing to 2011 was 1.68 W/m^2, while the mid-range estimate for the net anthropogenic forcing from all sources was 2.29 W/m^2, and 2.29 is about 36% greater than 1.68. And he makes a fair point that I should explain which the non-condensers are.

TRM

Love it. Thank you for your continued efforts. The information war is being won.
Not that I suspect lord Monckton has a mischievous “Calvin & Hobbes” side to his personality but could he have been the one who “leaked” it to them just for kicks and giggles? My mind works that way 🙂

TRM credits me with a Machiavellian cunning that I, a simple bumpkin, do not possess. Somehow a copy of our result found its way to the university, whose vice-chancellor’s panicky, hysterical reaction, followed by his refusal to let me face his faculty to defend our result and his head of publicity’s lies to a foreign journalist, tells any disinterested observer that They know the game is up.

TRM

You are many things sir but a “simple bumpkin” you assuredly are not. Cheers and keep up the great work.

richard

UEA

You might think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

timbrom

Bwahaha!

jorgekafkazar

Quite so.

richard

hmm, that is along the lines of ” i saw all the planes take off and I saw all the planes return”

Steve Ta

Can’t be UEA – which does have a Conservative Association on campus

richard

UAE

Geoff Sherrington

united arab emirates?

richard

oops thought it didn’t go through and then letters went haywire.

Chimp

Dunno if that’s UEA or not, but the bottom image is of Kim Il Sung Square, Pyongyang.

commieBob

Bingo. link The caption provided by CM was: “Not a blade of grass to gladden the students’ eyes in the eco-fraudsters’ paradise” Okay then …

You can have fun trying to work out what the first of the two illustrations is.

Chimp

Looks to me like the German Ministry of Finance building, except for the grass and trees. But maybe they’re on the side away from the street.
It doesn’t look anything at all like most UEA structures, which are ziggurat-like stepped semi-pyramids of a type usually found in urban seaside resorts, like those above Playa Larga in Reñaca, Chile, between Viña del Mar and Concón.

It’s not UEA. Seven storey ashlar building? not too many of those on UK campuses. And I don’t think anything in the UK was designed by Albert Speer either 🙂

Chimp

Here’s an overhead shot, which makes me think even more that it’s the German Finance Ministry building, a relic of N@zi architecture (but not Speer’s), originally the Third Reich’s Air Ministry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus
If I’m right, then Chris has connected National Socialist with monarchical Communist architecture, hence with CACA totalitarian ideals.

Chimp

PS: Also East German, since the DDR Commies used it.

The first picture is Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry

Chimp

Kevin,
OK. Similar architectural style.

ggm

Wrong. It isn’t the building in Germany. Just do a google for “Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus” and go to the Google Maps street view of the building, and you will see that this is definitely not the German building.

Chimp

Ggm,
If it were the German finance ministry building, the view posted by Chris would be of an interior courtyard, not the street level view.

Nigel S

The courtyard in the centre of the picture matches pretty well, including the narrow windows each side.

“A temperature feedback, in W m–2 K–1 of the output (equilibrium temperature), induces a feedback response in Kelvin that modifies the output even where the input (emission temperature) was unamplified.”
This is totally inconsistent with the diagram below it, which shows nothing marked in Wm⁻². It’s all T. The feedback shown is β Teq, where β is dimensionless.
But the last caveat “even where the input (emission temperature) was unamplified” makes no sense. The device has an amplifier which applies a gain to the inout. Feedback modifies the input to the amplifier, applying a gain to the modification too. If the input is unchanged (emission temperature), there is no change it can apply that gain too. So no feedback loop.

In reply to Mr Stokes, official climatology defines a temperature feedback as a temperature-dependent forcing denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. Taking the product of the feedback sum and the Planck parameter gives the unitless feedback factor, represented by mu * beta in the diagram. The feedback response beta * equilibrium temperature is of course in Kelvin, because, though beta is unitless, the equilibrium temperature is in Kelvin.
Mr Stokes appears unfamiliar with the scientific method. If one wants to establish whether the input signal in a feedback amplifier circuit is itself responsible for engendering a feedback response in the presence of a non-zero feedback fraction beta, a powerful method is to set the direct-gain or open-loop gain factor mu to unity (i.e., no amplification), and then to run the circuit. If the output signal differs from the input signal, then even the unamplified input signal is generating a feedback response.
We built not one but two test rigs, both of which – as one of the many tests we ran – were set to have an input signal and a nonzero feedback fraction. And both of them produced output signals greater than the input signal, just as theory would lead us to expect. One realizes that feedback theory is notoriously counter-intuitive, which is why we built test rigs and played with them till we gained some feel for how feedback works.

Serge Wright

LM, I’ve been following your posts and can see that many people are not realising that 255K is an output driven by an input that is part of the same feedback loop equation. To clarify your point, would it be fair to suggest that the current IPCC inteprepation of the feedback loop equation would only hold true at 0K, where no output signal exists ?.

In response to Mr Wright, the 255.4 K emission temperature is the input signal. In the absence of any mu amplification or beta feedback fraction it would also be the output temperature: in other words, with no non-condensing greenhouse gases and no feedback processes (such as the ice-albedo and water-vapor feedbacks) the Earth’s surface temperature would be 255.4 K. Now, set the beta feedback fraction to 0.07. Then, even with no mu amplification (i.e., with mu := 1), the output signal would be 274.6 K, an increase of 19.2 K. Now add 12 K warming by putting in the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. Now the mu amplification factor becomes 1 + 12 / 255.4 = 1.047, and the output becomes 255.4 x 1.047 / (1 – 0.07) = 287.5 K, from which one can deduce that the feedback response to the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases is not about 20 K, as the current erroneous method suggests, but just 0.9 K.

“official climatology defines a temperature feedback as a temperature-dependent forcing denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin”
It certainly doesn’t define feedback as a forcing. It takes great pains to distinguish between forcing and feedback. But yes, it can make sense to treat the feedback as a temperature dependent flux. It makes more sense than your treatment of the “standard zero-dimensional-model equation” in the figure, which shows no fluxes (Wm⁻²) at all. But it requires that the input is a flux, and “emission temperature” does not qualify.
This is why it is useless making these airy statements about “official climatology” without quoting what they actually say. Not only do you get it wrong, but it is hopelessly inconsistent.

Mr Stokes continues to have difficulty with elementary concepts in control theory as applied to the climate. Ordinary radiative forcings are denominated in Watts per square meter. Feedback forcings are radiative forcings denominated in Watts per square meter of the temperature to which they induce a response. The distinction between the two types of forcing is that the amplitude of the feedback forcing is temperature-dependent.
Contrary to Mr Stokes’ assertion that I have not cited my sources, in previous postings I have listed the climate-relevant feedbacks, denominated – whether he likes it or not – in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, and I have stated that my source (admittedly not peer-reviewed in any recognizable sense) is IPCC. Since the feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, they are responding to temperature and temperature change in Kelvin, and not directly to a radiative flux.
Mr Stokes would perhaps gain a better understanding of these elementary concepts if he were to read a pedagogical paper such as Roe (2009). Roe, of course, perpetrates the same error as the rest of official climatology, but at least he explains that feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin.
Let me again recapitulate the terminology I am using. There seems to be no standard terminology, so I take a “temperature feedback” or “feedback” or “feedback forcing” to be denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin; I take the “feedback fraction” beta to be the unitless fraction of the output signal returned from the output node via the feedback loop to the input node; I take the “feedback factor”, f in official climatology, mu x beta in control theory, to be the product of the mu direct-gain or open-loop gain factor and the beta feedback fraction; and I take the “feedback response” to be the temperature response in Kelvin to a temperature feedback.
Mr Stokes says he would prefer the feedback loop to be denominated in Watts per square meter (which he calls a “flux”, though one supposes he means a “flux density”). Well, the point is that feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature to which they respond. Therefore, it makes sense to do what official climatology usually (though not always) does and denominate the input and output temperatures in Kelvin.
Mr Stokes wonders where the feedbacks in Watts per square meter per Kelvin are in the feedback loop. As I have already explained, if one takes the product of the feedback sum in Watts per Kelvin and the Planck reference-sensitivity parameter in Kelvin per Watt per square meter one obtains the feedback factor mu x beta, which is official climatology’s f. In earlier pieces in this series, this was made plain in the table of feedbacks.
Therefore, our approach is rigorously consistent with that of official climatology, except where we have demonstrated that official climatology is in error.

“Contrary to Mr Stokes’ assertion that I have not cited my sources”
No, I said you have not quoted what they say. You never do. We only hear your version.

Mr Stokes says I have not cited the sources I have mentioned, in particular on the question whether official climatology denominates temperature feedbacks in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. In not one but two earlier postings, I reproduced IPCC’s own table of temperature feedbacks thus denominated, and I explained exactly where in the Fifth Assessment Report that table appeared.

“Mr Stokes says I have not cited the sources I have mentioned”
Wearily, again, no, I said you don’t quote them. And this is typical
“In not one but two earlier postings, I reproduced IPCC’s own table of temperature feedbacks thus denominated”
No, you didn’t reproduce their table. You put together this table
That is not a reproduction. It does incorporate the totals and ranges of feedbacks from the AR5 table. That table did not have the timescale descriptors. But more importantly, you have added the feedbacks and their bound limits. The AR5 did not do that.
Now adding the mean values is reasonable. But adding the bounds is certainly not. The upper bound of cloud, say, is 1.0 Wm⁻²/K (you said 1.1). That means there is a 95% chance that the true value is less than 1.0. And so for the bounds of wv, etc. But for the sum to be less than the sum of the bounds, each would have to be in the high end of the range, and the chance of that is far less than 5%.
And then you criticised them for the excesses of the range. In fact, if the uncertainties are independent, the uncertainties should be added in quadrature.
OK, that’s just an error. But it isn’t the AR5’s error, and we have no way of knowing that. The reason is that you don’t quote what they say.
And so it is with this “grave error”. You never say who is actually making it in estimating ECS. You say that Nic Lewis’ result is immune. So what about all the other studies?

Mr Stokes now concedes, in effect, that contrary to his earlier assertion I had indeed cited IPCC as my source for the denomination of feedbacks in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. But he complains that I have displayed the stated bounds explicitly. That is purely a matter of layout. He also complains that I have added the IPCC’s timescales for each feedback. So what? Finally, he complains that one should not simply add the upper bounds to obtain an upper bound for the feedback sum and for the feedback fraction. Let him tell that to the climate fanatics who have been doing just that, and have been telling us that, therefore, runaway feedback is possible.

“Let him tell that to the climate fanatics who have been doing just that”
And yet again, no quotes. Scientists do not add error bounds to get the error bound of a summed quantity. That is an elementary error. A Monckton special.

Let us look at some of the errors perpetrated by the determinedly ignorant Mr Stokes in this thread alone:
Item: Mr Stokes says that the mid-range estimate of 1.5-1.76 K Charney sensitivity in Lewis & Curry (2018) is not much lower than that of IPCC. Actually, IPCC made no mid-range estimate in its Fifth Assessment Report, but previous reports had found the mid-range estimate to be 2.5-3.5 K, and the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models take a mid-range estimate of 3.3 K.
Item: Mr Stokes says that the feedback response shown in the circuit diagram in the head posting is in Kelvin, while feedback processes are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. He is unaware that the feedback factor mu x beta is also the unitless product of the Planck parameter (denominated in Kelvin per Watt per square meter) and the feedback sum (denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin). As Mr Stokes so often and so unpleasantly does, he alleged that I had erred and, in doing so, merely exposed the depth and breadth of his own ignorance.
Item: Mr Stokes says Watts per square meter do not appear anywhere in the feedback loop diagram. Of course they don’t, because temperature feedbacks are – er – feedbacks responding to temperature, not to fluxes. That is why official climatology denominates feedbacks not in Watts per square meter per Watt per square meter but in Watts per square meter per Kelvin.
Item: Mr Stokes says there is no feedback loop if there is no mu amplification. There is. We tested it. It is inherent in the correct form of the zero-dimensional-model equation.
Item: Mr Stokes imagines that if the emission temperature, the input signal to the feedback loop, is unchanged there is no feedback response. There is. We tested it. It is inherent in the correct form of the zero-dimensional-model equation.
Item: Mr Stokes says official climatology does not define feedback as a forcing. Yet it does: it is a forcing denominated not in Watts per square meter, as direct forcing are, but in Watts per square meter of the temperature that induces it.
Item: Mr Stokes whines that I had not cited my source for the fact that feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. When I pointed out that I had done so, and that it was IPCC, he protested that IPCC’s table does not have timescales mentioned on it. But IPCC had given timescales for the feedbacks in a separate table, and I had combined the two.
Item: Mr Stokes did not like my summing the upper bounds of IPCC’s estimates of the principal climate-relevant feedbacks to show that they summed to unity, which would imply runaway feedback. When I said that climate fanatics frequently say that runaway feedback will arise, he said I had not cited any climate fanatics. Let him do a little work of his own, for a change, instead of trying to be pathetically negative. Let him look up “runaway climate feedback” on the internet and he will see just how often this absurd notion is stated by climate fanatics.
Item: Mr Stokes cited IPCC on the supposed “consistently important feedback” from water vapor, but without mentioning that nine-tenths of the water-vapor feedback in the models is supposed to occur in the mid to upper troposphere, where nearly all datasets, both satellite and radiosonde, do not show the repeatedly model-predicted doubling or tripling in the tropical mid-troposphere of the surface warming rate.
Item: Mr Stokes says it does not make sense to speak of feedback to an unchanging property (in the climate, that is emission temperature, which is not quite an umchanging property, but never mind). Like it or not, feedback response to emission temperature can and does occur, but is largely – if not entirely – overlooked by official climatology.
And the accident-prone Mr Stokes whines that I have made an “error”. Bah! Pshaw!

“Item: Mr Stokes says that the mid-range estimate of 1.5-1.76 K Charney sensitivity in Lewis & Curry (2018) is not much lower than that of IPCC.”
Aha! A quote. Well, almost, but lacking quotes. What I said was
“Their ECS is not “much lower” than that provided by the IPCC. The AR5 range was from 1.5 to 4.5 °C/doubling. They get 1.5, 1.66 or 1.76…”
Clearly true. L&C are within the IPCC range.
“Item: Mr Stokes says that the feedback response shown in the circuit diagram in the head posting is in Kelvin, while feedback processes are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin.”
Yes. And it’s true! And I noted that the diagram immediately followed Lord M’s definition that said it should be so. There is no mention of any flux-denominated quantity in the diagram. The definition of μ as 1+ΔTref/Tref is clearly unitless, and β likewise.
“Item: Mr Stokes says Watts per square meter do not appear anywhere in the feedback loop diagram.”
Indeed so.
“Item: Mr Stokes says there is no feedback loop if there is no mu amplification. “
Again, quote needed. I did not say that. I said that an essential requirement of a feedback loop is that the output can modify the input. Which it can’t if the input quantity is unchanging.
“Item: Mr Stokes says official climatology does not define feedback as a forcing. “
I pointed out (with quote) that OC takes pains to distinguish between forcing and feedback. To refute that, a quote of OC actually defining feedback as a forcing is needed. Having units of Wm⁻² does not make something a forcing.
Speeding up a bit, I’ll just say that “runaway feedback” is in no way equivalent to adding bounds; the issue of whether specific humidity is rising is contentious, but in no way contradicts the proposition that wv is a “consistently important feedback” ; and the last is just relitigating the posts.

Mr Stokes wriggles, but unavailingly. His errors are errors, and some of them are strikingly elementary.
Item: As other commenters here have pointed out, if Lewis & Curry are right that the mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity is of order 1.5 K, then the models’ current mid-range sensitivity of 3.3 K is very much too high. Of course Lewis & Curry’s mid-range estimate is lower than that of IPCC. To point out that it is still (just) within IPCC’s interval of possible sensitivities is a mark of desperation.
Item: Mr Stokes now knows perfectly well that the feedback factor f in official climatology (like mu x beta in all other dynamical systems) is the product of the Planck parameter, denominated in Kelvin per Watt per square meter, and the feedback sum, denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. It is, therefore, perfectly viable to do the entire calculation based on the unitless feedback fraction, without having to convert it to a feedback sum. Mr Stokes errs by quibbling pointlessly.
Item: Mr Stokes says Watts per square meter do not appear anywhere in the feedback loop diagram, implying that this is somehow reprehensible. Well, it isn’t. Official climatology’s version of the zero-dimensional-model equation uses temperature changes in Kelvin as as its input and output, because feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. Since the produce of the feedback sum thus denominated and the Planck parameter in Kelvin per Watt per square meter is unitless, the equation does not require any of its quantities to be denominated in Watts per square meter or Watts per square meter per Kelvin. And Mr Stokes knows this perfectly well. This is one of many instances of wilful but unsuccessful misdirection on his part.
Item: Mr Stokes says that an essential requirement of a feedback loop is that the output can modify the input, which it cannot if the input quantity is unchanging. Dear, oh dear. If a mu amplification amplifies the input, the input is unchanged but the output differs from the input. If a beta feedback fraction modifies the output, the modified output is fed back to the input node, thence via the mu gain block to the output node. But, when we talk of a mu amplification or a beta feedback fraction modifying the input, the modification is manifested as a change not in the input but in the output. Follow the direction of the arrows.
Item: Mr Stokes says official climatology does not define feedback as a forcing. Let him look up the definition of a radiative forcing. It is an exogenous change in the net down-minus-up radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. It is denominated in Watts per square meter. Let him look up the definition of a temperature feedback. It is denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. It is thus a forcing: just like a direct forcing, it is an exogenous change in the net down-minus-up radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. But, unlike a direct forcing, it is scaled to the temperature that induced it. Don’t be silly.
Item: Mr Stokes says the issue of whether specific humidity is rising is contentious but in no way contradicts the proposition that water vapor is a “consistently important feedback”. Again, don’t be silly. Nine-tenths of the water vapor feedback is supposed to arise in the mid- to upper troposphere, where, particularly in the tropics, the resultant warming is supposed to be twice or thrice the surface warming. Yet NOAA’s specific humidity record, like nearly all such records, shows no increase in specific humidity in the upper or mid-troposphere. On this evidence, nine-tenths of the imagined water-vapor feedback is non-existent, making it an unimportant feedback

hunter

When is the study expected to be published?

How long is a piece of string? We are expecting a very great deal of scrutiny, and probably a lot of sneering from official climatology. But we shall pay no attention to that. Instead, we shall look very carefully at any points that the reviewers make, and we shall respond constructively. If the reviewers discover a fatal flaw in our result, then that will be that. If not, then in due course we hope that one or other of the major climate journals will have the courage and intellectual honesty to publish our paper.

NorwegianSceptic

” If the reviewers discover a fatal flaw in our result, then that will be that.”
And You call this ‘Climate Science’?! 😉
As a layman I will not pretend to understand all the underlying physics in the article, but i gives me a better hope of exposing the AGW sc@m.
All the best m’lud !

Roger Knights

CMoB: “in due course we hope that one or other of the major climate journals will have the courage and intellectual honesty to publish our paper.”
If one of them doesn’t, that would look bad. It would retroactively taint all of “settled science.”
I suspect what they’ll do is line up several “refutation” papers to be published in the same issue. If they don’t they’ll be badly berated by the establishment’s mind guards.

In response to Mr Knights, we already know that the dirty-tricks department is at work, because a copy of our paper found its way to the university whose Vice-Chancellor, instead of asking the question, “Is this true?”, instead ordered his entire enviromental-sciences faculty to refute it, for our result, he said, was “a catastrophe”. And so it will prove to be, for that university is one of many that receives huge subsidies from various sources for researching what the vice-chancellor and his faculty now know full well is a non-problem.
You can bet that the midnight oil is being burned as the Forces of Darkness try to find a strategy for containing what, to the rest of the world, is excellent news, but what, to them, is, as the vice-chancellor said it was, a catastrophe for the unholy coalescence of financial vested interests that has profiteered for decades by peddling this pointless scam.
But the truth is now public, thanks to our kind host here, and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. We have revealed enough of our result to allow any honest enquirer to see what we have done and to understand why and how we have done it. The truth can initially be denied: but, in the long run, it cannot be prevented. Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Jeff Cagle

@ Nick, anyone with specific EE experience.
The issue as I understand it is this. Any positive feedback in an audio amplifier (my frame of reference for these things) very quickly causes squeals. That’s because positive feedback is modeled by diffEQ whose eigenvalues have positive real parts, and are thus unstable. The slightest noise leads to asymptotic growth in output.
Now, if the climate system has positive feedback in the same sense as an audio amplifier (and here, I plead ignorance), then we would already be living on Venus II. The slightest temp rise should lead to ever-greater temps, leading to exponential temp growth.
The fact that this does not happen leads inevitably to the conclusion that our climate system is modeled by diffEQ whose eigenvalues have nonpositive real parts.
But my reasoning may be faulty because I might be misunderstanding positive feedback in this context. Correction is welcome.

“Any positive feedback in an audio amplifier … very quickly causes squeals.”
No, you need enough positive feedback. There is a threshold, depending on gain. Any PA system has positive feedback at some frequency ranges (speaker to microphone), but it can function quite well. It’s only when you turn up the gain beyond a certain level that you get squeals.

commieBob

True. It’s very common to do some kind of stability analysis on systems that have feedback. An example is root locus analysis for control systems. A similar analysis is done for high frequency amplifiers where the feedback path is an unavoidable result of device parameters.
It is possible to design a system to deliberately use positive feedback. eg. regenerative receiver The thing is that electronic circuits can have carefully controlled parameters. The climate … not so much. If positive feedback actually existed in the climate system, as proposed by Hansen et al, it is inevitable that the parameters would, from time to time, line up in such a manner as to induce instability. We would notice that.
It has been my observation that folks experienced in working with practical feedback systems usually find Hansen’s analysis objectionable. CM’s brilliant coup is to accept, assuming arguendo, the analysis as given and demonstrate its fatal flaw.

Most grateful to Commiebob for his exceptionally kind comment. We have indeed accepted the case advanced by the Forces of Darkness ad argumentum, and have then pointed out a startling illogicality in it. One cannot lpgically get away with assuming that 255.4 K of emission temperature induces no feedback, but that a mere 12 K of additional temperature suddenly induces a very large feedback.

In reply to Mr Cagle, process engineers designing electronic feedback-amplifier circuits to avoid runaway feedback in the presence of componentry of variable quality and uncertain operating conditions will often try to ensure that the feedback fraction is <0.1, and often less than 0.01.
The feedback fraction assumed by official climatology is of order 0.67-0.76. This is far too high a value to guarantee stability, because at that region of the rectangular-hyperbolic response curve the temperature rapidly heads in the direction of infinity. It was that observation that first led me to look at how official climatology was handling feedbacks.
The value of the feedback fraction that we have deduced – around 0.07 – has a much better chance of allowing relatively stable conditions to continue, and it removes the supposed risk of reaching a "tipping point" in global temperature.

In response to Jeff Cagle, process engineers designing feedback amplifier circuits to operate stably with componentry of variable quality and in uncertain operating conditions will often design in a feedback fraction of not exceeding 0.1, or even 0.01 if they can manage that, precisely to avoid problems of instability arising from runaway feedback. Sure enough, the Great Designer has built the world on similar lines, with a natural feedback factor of 0.07.

jhborn

Nonpositive real eigenvalues are not inconsistent with positive feedback in this case. We have inner and outer loops
The inner loop is like this:
$C\dot{y}=x-y/\lambda_0,$
whose eigenvalue is obviously nonpositive for $\lambda_0>0$. But we’re dealing with equilibrium conditions, for which $\dot{y}=0$, so $y=\lambda_0x$ in the inner loop. Then we add an outer loop resulting in $y=\lambda_0(x+fy)$ for the equilibrium equation. Even if feedback is positive, i.e., even if $f>0$, the system is stable so long as $1-\lambda_0f$ is positive.

Alan Tomalty

If y dot = 0 then x-y = lambda * 0 Therefore x = y in your inner loop. I stopped reading at that point.

jhborn

If y dot = 0 then x-y = lambda * 0 Therefore x = y in your inner loop.

$\dot{y}=0$ implies $0=x-y/\lambda_0$
Adding $y/\lambda_0$ to both sides gives you:
$y/\lambda_0= x$
Now here’s the tricky part. You have to multiply both sides by $\lambda_0$. That’s what results in:
$y=\lambda_0x$
Sorry if I was obscure. I know math isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.

If the product of the Planck parameter 0.3125 Kelvin per Watt per square meter and the feedback sum 3.2 Watts per square meter per Kelvin is unity, the system will be very unstable. If the feedback sum approaches 3.2, or if the feedback factor approaches unity, transient instabilities could fling the system into disorder. However, our result indicates that feedback factors anything like as high as the 0.75 imagined in Lacis (2010), or the 0.67 implicit in the CMIP5 models’ mid-range estimate of 3.3 K Charney sensitivity, are not going to arise.

s-t

I was quite convinced by the “science” of climate (as in, I don’t have time to recheck it, I don’t go to the restaurant to cock myself) … and then I became aware that they used a big positive feedback in their model.
It isn’t something they used to advertise a lot 15 years ago.

s-t

@mod
You can remove this one!

s-t

I was quite convinced by the “science” of climate (as in, I don’t have time to recheck it, I don’t go to the restaurant to cook myself) … and then I became aware that they used a big positive feedback in their model.
It isn’t something they used to advertise a lot 15 years ago.

They don’t “use” a big positive feedback in their model. GCMs solve the system of flow and heat transfer. You can interpret what that produces as a positive feedback, but that is an outcome, not an input.
As to what they said 15 years ago, here is the AR3, 2001, 7.2.1.1:
“Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. “

Alan Tomalty

Well Nick it had better result in a huge positive feedback in the models or else you couldnt get enough of a temperature increase from increased CO2 alone. Dont forget the man made industrial change in net CO2 is only 410ppm-300ppm(the year 1950 amount) = 110ppm Even if all of that 110 ppm was dumped in the atmosphere at once it all wouldnt stay as witnessed by since 1980 fossil fuels have increased 75% and net CO2 in atmosphere has increased only 21 %. This is assuming of course that the infrared way of calculating average CO2 is correct versus the original wet chemical technique which all chemists say is superior to the infrared method used at Mauna Loa. So indeed hidden in every computer climate model code is a sensitivity fudge that does model runs based on CO2 doubling. They didnt have that fudge code in the early days but they soon discovered that they couldnt either hindcast or forward cast and get results that were not meaningless. Every modeller will tell you that their code is based on Navier- Stokes flow dynamics but you also need radiative heat transfer equations to solve it, Because their cloud modelling is so useless they dont even try to use radiative heat transfer equations but just use fudge factors. A good thing too because even if they were able to model clouds perfectly the radiative heat transfer equations are even more complicated than the Navier Stokes equations. I will quote from the world’s authority on Radiative heat transfer Michael Modest. In the following quote he is is only talking about 1 aspect ie; emissivity.
” It is apparent that the calculation of total emissivities is far from an exact science and carries a good deal of uncertainty. The reader should understand that accurate emissivity values are difficult to measure and that too many parameters are involved …….”
In the case of considering collisions of gaseous molecules one is led to the Voight profile equation on page 319 of Modest’s book. In it he states “No closed form solution exists for the Voight profile.
So Nick the models are left with having to fudge.
And we base the taxation of CO2 on this????????????

Alan Tomalty

It seems the 1950 figure for CO2 is 310ppm.

“So indeed hidden in every computer climate model code is a sensitivity fudge that does model runs based on CO2 doubling.”
There is nothing hidden in the code. Many of them are available to see and download. Here is CAM. You can register, download, compile and run it, as many have. For GISS Model E, no registration is needed, and they will even give you today’s version.
“Every modeller will tell you that their code is based on Navier- Stokes flow dynamics but you also need radiative heat transfer equations to solve it, Because their cloud modelling is so useless they dont even try to use radiative heat transfer equations but just use fudge factors.”
No, they solve radiative transfer (they have to). Here is the CAM 3.0 documentation of how it is done.

Mr Tomalty is, of course, correct. Neither the Lorentzian nor the Voigt partial-differential equation has a closed-form solution. Both equations are notoriously intractable: and yet they are simplifications, assuming as they do that collisions between photons and molecules occur instantaneously, when in truth there is a detectable delay, which – in the opinion of Professor Happer – is insufficiently accounted for by modelers, leading to a 40% overstatement of the CO2 forcing.
Though Mr Stokes is correct that models do not explicitly incorporate the Bode feedback formulism, it is used in official climatology to derive the equilibrium sensitivities that models might be expected to predict. Our calibration of the zero-dimensional model, which is an attempt to embody that formulism, shows that it does indeed reproduce faithfully the official interval of Charney sensitivities provided that it is informed with the official values of the reference sensitivity and the feedback fraction that are derived from the models in, for instance, Vial et al. (2013). It is clear from that and many suchlike papers that the processes in the models have the effect of implying a feedback fraction that is about an order of magnitude larger than it would be if proper account had been taken of the feedback response to emission temperature.

bit chilly

if that is the case nick ,where is the hot spot in the troposphere ?

Roger Knights

I was quite convinced by the “science” of climate … and then I became aware that they used a big positive feedback in their model.
It isn’t something they used to advertise a lot 15 years ago.

“the supposed positive feedback from water vapor [is] a weak link in their chain of evidence ….” IOW, it’s the key to the whole climate controversy:

2/20/13, David Evans 12 minute video: “The skeptics’ case”— 484,000 views.
https://youtu.be/0gDErDwXqhc
“Every serious skeptical climate scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. … The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of tt CO2, but rarely tell us that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
…………….
“The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks.”
Bill Gray argues similarly:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/18/flaws-in-applying-greenhouse-warming-to-climate-variability-a-post-mortem-paper-by-dr-bill-gray/
As does Willis Eschenbach:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/05/a-hard-rains-gonna-chill/

Kristi Silber says:

Probably no discussion of the amount of carbon dioxide contributed to the atmosphere from the burning of Amazonian rainforest, …

OTC, that’s just the sort of alarmist sideshow that they might well include.

Mr Knights makes an excellent point. it is the supposedly large water vapor feedback that official climatology uses as its chief pretext for two-thirds to nine-tenths of the equilibrium sensitivity that models predict. There is little theoretical justification and no empirical justification for a water vapor feedback as large as that which official climatology imagines, and I am reasonably confident that there would have been no attempt to put forward so large a water vapor feedback if official climatology had not been misled by its elementary error of physics.

Geo

Not tooting my own horn here, but I did a much more primitive version of this calculation back in 2012. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since 1950 from 270 ppm to 400 ppm, or 130 ppm, which is a 48% of the first doubling. Ergo, assuming everything is proportional, the temperature increase to date should be 48%*1.3 degrees = 0.62 degrees. Using the positive feedback loops proposed by climate scientists this should be 1.25 to 3.72 degrees.
Okay, so how much actual warming had we observed since 1950? 0.50 degrees. This is actually indicates there are no multiplier effects occurring, at least no positive effects (there may even be a weak negative multiplier). Thinking a bit more about this – it seems unlikely that the earth, which has been around for a long time, and habitable by plants and animals, is dominated by a positive climate feedback. Systems dominated by positive feedback don’t tend to be very stable for long periods of time.
So based on just that simple math, I decided to stop worrying about climate change.

Geo’s reasoning is sound. Jouzel et al. (2007) found that, after allowing for polar amplification, global mean surface temperature has varied by only 3 degrees above or below the 810,000-year mean. That is a powerful indication that feedback is small.

Bellman

Geo,
“Okay, so how much actual warming had we observed since 1950? 0.50 degrees.”
Where do you get the 0.5°C warming since 1950. Monckton’s original article pointed out the rate of warming has been 1.2°C / century. Over 68 years that would mean 0.82°C warming.
“Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since 1950 from 270 ppm to 400 ppm, or 130 ppm, which is a 48% of the first doubling.”
CO2 was not 270 ppm in 1950 it was 311. The rise in CO2 since 1950 has been more like 30%, or slightly less than 40% of a doubling when taking logarithms into account.

Bellman

This reminds me, I’m not sure if Monckton of Brenchley ever justified his Test 3 from the original article, where he claimed a rate of warming of 1.2°C / century since 1950 verified the sensitivity value of 1.2K.

In response to Bellman, IPCC originally predicted warming at a rate of 3.3 K/century, and the CMIP5 models predict warming of 3.3 K in response to doubled CO2. Many other such examples could be cited.

Bellman

“In response to Bellman, IPCC originally predicted warming at a rate of 3.3 K/century…”
But that’s over the 21st century. CO2 did not double over the 20th century – it has only increased by ~ 30% in the 68 years since 1950. How could that lead to a warming rate equal to climate sensitivity over a century?

In response to Bellman, IPCC predicted, on p. xxiv of the 1990 report, that there would be 1.8 K warming by 2030, compared with pre-industrial. From 1850-1990 there was 0.45 K warming. So IPCC was predicting warming over the medium term would be 1.35 K over four decades, or 3.3 K per century equivalent. The CMIP3 and CMIP5 models predict 3.3 K warming per CO2 doubling.
How does this approximate equivalence arise? CO2 is expected to reach about 620 ppmv in 2100 compared with the 368 ppmv in 2000: thus, the radiative forcing from CO2 this century will be 2.6 Watts per square meter. Increase this by 229/168, the ratio of net anthropogenic forcing from all sources to the forcing from CO2 up to 2011 (IPCC, 2013, Fig. SPM.5) and one gets 3.5 Watts per square meter, which is the current models’ estimate of the radiative forcing response to doubled CO2.

Bellman

In response to Bellman, IPCC predicted, on p. xxiv of the 1990 report, that there would be 1.8 K warming by 2030, compared with pre-industrial. From 1850-1990 there was 0.45 K warming. So IPCC was predicting warming over the medium term would be 1.35 K over four decades, or 3.3 K per century equivalent. The CMIP3 and CMIP5 models predict 3.3 K warming per CO2 doubling.

I’ll repeat what I’ve already said, the first IPCC report did not predict a medium term warming rate of 3.3 °C / century. You said only a couple of years ago that they predicted “2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century” up to 2025.
You quote the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models predicting 3.3 K sensitivity, but as you’ve previously pointed out the second IPCC models predicted sensitivity of 3.8°C.
To me it seems like you are just plucking out any figure that can be used to get this coincidence of centennial warming rate and sensitivity.

How does this approximate equivalence arise? CO2 is expected to reach about 620 ppmv in 2100 compared with the 368 ppmv in 2000: thus, the radiative forcing from CO2 this century will be 2.6 Watts per square meter. Increase this by 229/168, the ratio of net anthropogenic forcing from all sources to the forcing from CO2 up to 2011 (IPCC, 2013, Fig. SPM.5) and one gets 3.5 Watts per square meter, which is the current models’ estimate of the radiative forcing response to doubled CO2.

I don’t have time at the moment to look at this in more detail, but as I understand it you are saying you need to increase any warming from CO2 increases by around 1.36 to allow for non-CO2 increased forcings. But the way you are doing it seems too simplistic to be realistic. Surely the ratio will change over time, and if you are right about halving the sensitivity, the ratio will have to increase.C.

In response to Bellman, the first IPCC report predicted 1 K warming by 2025, but it separately predicted 1.8 K by 2030, compared with pre-industrial. I provided Bellman with the reference: p. xxiv of IPCC (1990). Warming from pre-industrial to 1990 was 0.45 K: therefore, IPCC was predicting warming of 1.35 K over 40 years, or about 3.3 K as a centennial equivalent.
However, Bellman does not seem to appreciate that our result does not depend upon any empirical calculations. We performed those merely to make sure that our quite robust theoretically-derived result was reasonable. Our theoretically-derived result depends upon only three quantities upon which all or almost all are ready to agree: the emission temperature of 255 K, the warming from the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases, which is about 12 K, and the equilibrium temperature in 1850, before any significant anthropogenic perturbation, which was 287 K. From these three quite well constrained quantities, one can derive the feedback factor 1 – (255 + 12) / 287, or 0.07. That value, however, assumes that the feedback factor is constant, when it in fact rises near-linearly and rather slowly with temperature. Accordingly, one can try various higher values of the feedback factor. Even if, per impossibile, one imagined that the feedback factor was four times 0.07, the Charney sensitivity would be only 1.5 K.
The question of the approximate equivalence of the 21st-century anthropogenic forcing and the CO2 forcing is not, therefore, in any way essential to our argument. It is a convenient approximation and no more.

Bellman

“The question of the approximate equivalence of the 21st-century anthropogenic forcing and the CO2 forcing is not, therefore, in any way essential to our argument. It is a convenient approximation and no more.”
I find this argument contrasts with what you said in the original article and brief. There you said:
“They verified it by obtaining near-identical results via two empirical methods, and compared these results with the centennial-equivalent global warming rates measured from 1950-2017 and from 2001-2017.”
It’s difficult to reconcile “verified” and “near-identical” with “convenient approximation”.

It is very difficult trying to communicate uncertainties to non-scientists such as “Bellman”. As has been made repeatedly clear in this series, our argument depends crucially on the position before any appreciable anthropogenic influence was detectable. There, the relevant quantities – the emission temperature at today’s insolation and albedo, the warming caused by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases, and the surface temperature at the 1850 equilibrium, are reasonably well established and generally agreed numbers. There is little uncertainty in them. From these, we can derive theoretically a definitive value 0.07 for the feedback factor, under the assumption that it is constant. It is not constant, so one might double it or even quadruple it to allow over-generously for the rate at which it might increase with temperature: but that still gives an equilibrium sensitivity of only 1.5 K at most.
We then verified this theoretically-obtained result by numerous empirical methods. These verifications were intended not as primary calculations of Charney sensitivity, for there are far too many uncertainties in the underlying quantities. We do not know how much net anthropogenic forcing there has been; we do not know how much global warming there has been; we do not know what fraction of global warming was anthropogenic; we do not know what the planetary imbalance is. All of these quantities are subject to wide error margins. The best we can do, therefore, is take mid-range estimates. And that is where the approximate equivalence of the 21st-century anthropogenic forcing and the CO2 forcing comes in. It is based on mid-range estimates, and it gives a respectable idea of what is going on.
And if Bellman cannot detect any similarity between “near-identical” and “approximation”, then let him take a course in elementary mathematics, with particular reference to the handling of uncertainties, error margins and confidence intervals.

Bellman

Lord Monckton, you are correct I am not a scientist, but I do have experience in testing, and no the meaning of the word verification.
“These verifications were intended not as primary calculations of Charney sensitivity, for there are far too many uncertainties in the underlying quantities. We do not know how much net anthropogenic forcing there has been; we do not know how much global warming there has been; we do not know what fraction of global warming was anthropogenic; we do not know what the planetary imbalance is. All of these quantities are subject to wide error margins.”
Yet you used them to verify a theoretical sensitivity given to within 0.15°C. In your brief you said they all cohered in finding sensitivity to be between 1.2 and 1.3 K, and said there was an equivalence between sensitivity and a warming rate per century. Now you are saying there are too many uncertainties to know if the rate of change is equivalent to Charney sensitivity. This implies to me that any similarity between the rate of change over carefully selected time periods and your theoretical result could just be coincidence. How big a difference would you have to see before your test failed?
“And if Bellman cannot detect any similarity between “near-identical” and “approximation”, then let him take a course in elementary mathematics…”
Thanks for the advice, but I do have some elementary mathematical education, and I didn’t say there were no similarities in between the words, I said it was difficult to reconcile the concepts. However re-reading the relevant section it seems I owe you an apology. The word “near-identical” was not referring to the observational tests, but to two other empirical methods. The results from global temperatures were only described as cohering to the theoretical result.

Bellman continues to have grave difficulty in elementary comprehension. Our derivation of the corrected feedback factor does not, repeat not, repeat not, repeat not depend upon empirical methods. It is a theoretical derivation, based on the known temperature equilibrium in 1850, before Man significantly perturbed the climate. The uncertainty in that derivation is very small.
The uncertainties in any empirical attempt to derive equilibrium sensitivities are far larger, for the reason i have explained. Yet, on the assumptions stated in the head postings, even the empirical uncertainty is small. Other assumptions might be adopted: see e.g. Lewis & Curry, 2018, who have managed to bring down the upper bound of Charney sensitivity from 9 K to 2.4 K. With us, even if one used absurdly extreme values, the upper bound is 1.5 K; but, on any realistic values, the upper bound is not much above 1.3 K.

Bellman

“Bellman continues to have grave difficulty in elementary comprehension. Our derivation of the corrected feedback factor does not, repeat not, repeat not, repeat not depend upon empirical methods.”
Bellman completely understands that. That’s why Bellman repeated you claims that the empirical methods were being used for verification.
“It is a theoretical derivation, based on the known temperature equilibrium in 1850, before Man significantly perturbed the climate. The uncertainty in that derivation is very small. ”
Yet you said you thought the actual sensitivity was less than half of your theoretically derived value, that’s not a small uncertainty.

Bellman continues to be ever more hopelessly confused. One hopes the confusion is not deliberate.
For the nth time, for the sake of argument we have adopted all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false. Therefore, for the sake of argument we have accepted, inter alia, that reference sensitivity is 1.1 K before taking any account of feedback, and that the net effect of feedbacks is to increase that sensitivity. Our best estimate of equilibrium sensitivity is 1.2 K, based on the feedback factor 0.07 we have derived from the temperature equilibrium in 1850 before any significant anthropogenic perturbation.
We have shown in the head posting that, if one makes allowance for the Earth’s energy imbalance, the implication of our result when applied to observed warming since 1850 is that about a quarter of that warming was natural. This conclusion is, of course, consistent with the supposed (but not real) “consensus” position that recent warming was mostly anthropogenic.
However, we have pushed the argument as far towards official climatology’ position as we can. We have borne in mind what would be the case if all of the warming since 1850 was anthropogenic. In that event, the implicit value of the feedback factor would be about 0.3, which would imply a Charney sensitivity of 1.55, not the 1.2 that we had earlier derived. With the best will in the world, one cannot plausibly allege, as the mathematically-challenged Bellman is trying to allege, that 1.55 K is twice 1.2 K.
Going in the other direction, it is possible to allow for the results of Happer (2015) and Harde (2015). Using different and non-overlapping methods, they determined that reference sensitivity had been overstated by 40% and 30% respectively, or 82% combined. In that event, reference sensitivity would be 1.1 / 1.82, or 0.6 K, and equilibrium sensitivity, for f = 0.07, would be 0.6 / (1 – 0.07), or 0.65 K.
However, we cannot prove that Happer and Harde are correct. Therefore, our best estimate is that Charney sensitivity, theoretically derived from the position at the pre-anthropogenic temperature equilibrium in 1850, is 1.2 K, and our empirical verification in the industrial era demonstrates that this result is consistent with the assumptions a) that global warming of 0.76 K occurred from 1850-2011; b) that there was 2.3 Watts per square meter net anthropogenic forcing over the same period; c) that there was a radiative imbalance of 0.6 Watts per square meter to 2010; and d) that three-quarters of the equilibrium warming from 1850-2011, after taking account of the energy imbalance, was anthropogenic.

Bellman

“With the best will in the world, one cannot plausibly allege, as the mathematically-challenged Bellman is trying to allege, that 1.55 K is twice 1.2 K.”
I was alluding to you previous statement that “I suspect that Charney sensitivity is not much above 0.5 K”, when I said that your 1.2 K figure could be out by a factor of 2.
Yes, you have said repeatedly that all you calculations are based on the assumption that everything you cannot prove to be false is true, but when you first introduced your new result you presented it with a high degree of confidence, 1.2 ± 0.15 K, and that this value was “verify by multiple empirical methods”.
Since then we’ve been going round in circles trying to decide if this value is true in the real world, or just a hypothetical figure based on what you cannot prove to be false. I would assume the former if you accept the “numerous” tests, all cohering to the same value. But then, when questioned about one of these tests you describe it as a “convenient approximation and no more”.
You claim at the start was that in order to refute 1.2 sensitivity value, people would have to demonstrate why the rate of warming since 1950 was irrelevant. Now you are arguing that it is irrelevant.

Bellman

Increase this by 229/168, the ratio of net anthropogenic forcing from all sources to the forcing from CO2 up to 2011 (IPCC, 2013, Fig. SPM.5)

I think there may be a mistake in that ratio. IPCC give forcing from emitted CO2 as 1.68, compared with all anthropogenic forcing of 2.29. But that doesn’t include CO2 produced from CH4 etc. The IPCC state that the forcing from all anthropogenic CO2 as 1.82. Therefore the ratio should be 229/182 = 1.26, and not 1.36.
Of course this ignores the huge uncertainties int he IPCC report. Total anthropogenic forcing go from [1.13 to 3.33], CO [1.46 to 2.18].

Bellman is becoming more than a little tedious. I repeat that our result was obtained by theoretical means and then verified by empirical means. The theoretical result is subject to very few of the uncertainties that attend any attempt at empirical verification. It depends on the emission temperature 255 K, the 8-12 K contribution from non-condensing greenhouse gases and the equilibrium surface temperature of 287 K in 1850. The only uncertainty is in the rate of change of the feedback fraction with temperature: but even if one were to assume, absurdly, that the feedback fraction is four times the 0.07 we have derived theoretically, Charney sensitivity is still only 1.5 K, the value that is also derivable empirically if one assumes, per impossiblie, that all global warming since 1850 was manmade (see Lewis & Curry, 2018).
And if Bellman would like to imagine that the ratio of net anthropogenic forcing to the forcing from CO2 is smaller than we have thought, well, that is one of the many uncertainties attendant upon an empirical derivation of Charney sensitivity. However, using the published mid-range estimates and assuming that just one-quarter of the 1 K global warming since 1850 (including the contribution from the energy imbalance) was anthropogenic, the feedback fraction remains at 0.07 and the Charney sensitivity is 1.2 K.
The more that Bellman quibbles about whether Charney sensitivity is 1.2 K or 1.3 K or 1.5 K, the more he underlines the robustness of our result, which demonstrates that, even on the most extreme assumptions, it is hard to posit a Charney sensitivity above IPCC’s long-standing minimum estimate, once the calculation is corrected for the large error we have identified. If Charney sensitivity is anywhere in that ballpark, then that is the end of the climate scare, and no amount of quibbling will revive it.

Bellman

“I repeat that our result was obtained by theoretical means and then verified by empirical means.”
Yes, you keep repeating that, and I don’t know why as I’ve never denied that you obtained the result by theoretical means. I’m just trying to find out what you mean by “verified”.
“The theoretical result is subject to very few of the uncertainties that attend any attempt at empirical verification.”
Any model is subject to a huge range of uncertainties depending on the assumptions in that model. As evidence I repeat your assertion that the actual sensitivity might be only 0.5 K, far outside the declared theoretical uncertainty of 1.2±0.15 K.
“And if Bellman would like to imagine that the ratio of net anthropogenic forcing to the forcing from CO2 is smaller than we have thought, well, that is one of the many uncertainties attendant upon an empirical derivation of Charney sensitivity.”
We were talking about your claim that the rate of warming since 1950 of 1.2°C / century was agreeing with your sensitivity of 1.2 K. It seemed you were suggesting that the two values being the same verified the sensitivity value. You did this as far as I can see without any calculations, just the assumption that sensitivity was equivalent to a centennial warming rate.
But then you say, correctly, that there are many uncertainties in using empirical methods, so the question remains how much uncertainty is there in your verification? How big a difference between the trend since 1950 and the sensitivity would be required to fail the test?
“The more that Bellman quibbles about whether Charney sensitivity is 1.2 K or 1.3 K or 1.5 K, the more he underlines the robustness of our result,”
I’ve made no claims about the the actual value of sensitivity. I’ve been trying to determine what you think the sensitivity is. I’m not a scientist, I couldn’t argue if your claim of identifying an error in the IPCC calculations are correct or not, and I’m not suggesting 1.5K is an upper limit on any possible sensitivity value.
“it is hard to posit a Charney sensitivity above IPCC’s long-standing minimum estimate”
The IPCC’s minimum estimate is 1 K, but likely to be above 1.5 K. You’ve already posited a sensitivity of 1.6 K.

jhborn

How do the inanimate water vapor, albedo and other feedback processes in the climate know that they must respond little, if at all, to the 255 K emission temperature, but that they must suddenly respond with as much as 22-24 K of feedback-driven warming triggered by the extra 9-11 K of temperature directly forced by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases?

How does an inanimate gram of ice know that it must raise its temperature from -10° C. to 0° C. in response to the first 25 J. of heat absorption but that it must suddenly resist any further temperature change at all in response to the next 25 J.?
How does an inanimate tunnel diode know that it must increase its current in response to the first 100 mV but that it mus suddenly decrease its current in response to the next 100 mV?
Some of the universe’s many mysteries.

Anyone familiar with applied control theory would realize that, in a circuit such as that depicted in the head posting, there is no way in which the feedback processes represented by the beta feedback fraction can decide not to respond to emission temperature of 255.4 K but then decide to respond aggressively to the next 12 K of temperature. Elementary control theory, as well as empirical verification on two test rigs, one of them at a government laboratory, shows that the feedback processes cannot draw any such artificial distinction.

“there is no way in which the feedback processes represented by the beta feedback fraction can decide not to respond to emission temperature of 255.4 K but then decide to respond aggressively to the next 12 K of temperature”
It does not make sense to speak of feedback to an unchanging property. But if you insist, yes, there is a way. Because it has already responded to the 255.4 K long ago. Or if you insist it should respond again, then why only now? Why not again in a few minutes, then again etc. As said, it just makes no sense.

Alan Tomalty

Well the initial date should be 4.6 billion years ago to satisfy Nick. Chris you should use the date of 4.6 billion years ago as your 1st feedback date.

Mr Stokes says, “It does not make sense to speak of feedback to an unchanging property.” Welcome to the counter-intuitive mathematics of feedback. One of the reasons why official climatology’s error in not accounting properly (if at all) for the feedback response to emission temperature has gone unnoticed until now is that the mathematics is counterintuitive.
One way to look at it is simply to set the mu amplification to unity and run the equation represented by the diagram in the head posting, with an input value and a nonzero beta feedback fraction. The output value will differ from the input value.
Another way to look at it is to imagine that the emission temperature plus the additional temperature from the non-condensing greenhouse gases are both present, before accounting for feedback. Assume that in 1850 there was a radiative equilibrium (for our influence at that stage was very small). Now, was the temperature in 1850 255.4+12 = 267.4 K, or was it 287.5 K? It was, of course, the latter. And yet there had been no perturbation of the climate, which was in radiative equilibrium. Now, in that scenario, how can the feedback processes, such as water vapor, distinguish between the emission temperature and the additional 12 K from the presence of the non-condensers? Well, they can’t. They respond to both. So the feedback fraction is simply 1 – (255.4 +12) / 287.5, or 0.07, and not 1 – 12 / 32 = 0.63.

jhborn

True, I can’t be absolutely sure about a “test rig” I haven’t seen. But my experience with guys similarly afraid to show their cards tells me this will prove to be vaporware. My guess is that the “test rig” will turn out to be nothing more than a straight linear feedback circuit whose mu and beta are simply set with potentiometers, i.e., do not depend, as the chimerical head-post circuit does, on the input and output voltages.

The Born [politely pruned] resorts to mere spite, again. Since he has absolutely zero knowledge of elementary control theory, let me explain that the circuit illustrated in the diagram in the head posting does not require the mu direct-gain factor to be dependent upon the input signal, any more than the directly-forced warming from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases is dependent upon the emission temperature. Likewise, the feedback fraction can be set separately.

jhborn

he has absolutely zero knowledge of elementary control theory

This is rich coming from someone who repeatedly and intransigently makes the most-fundamental of errors in that discipline.
The central equation of his “Irreducibly Simple Climate Model” paper perpetrated the howler that a linear system’s response is well approximated by merely multiplying the stimulus by the system’s step response. To control-systems types, that’s like saying you can get two operands’ product by adding them: it occasionally works, but you’d be a fool to count on it.
Despite my having demonstrated otherwise, Lord Monckton for years insisted that feedback theory consisted of “rogue equations” inapplicable to climate. He only recently (but tacitly) repented of that position. That’s progress, I suppose, but he does seem to be a slow learner.
Even though he has repented, it appears that he still misinterprets the gain-versus-feedback-factor hyperbola, now thinking it indicates that $f>1$ implies global cooling. It doesn’t. In connection with Figs. 12 and 13 of the post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/12/reflections-on-monckton-et-al-s-transience-fraction/, moreover, I years ago instructed him that the corresponding behavior is not true of the electrical analog, either.
Now, it’s true that I’m no controls-systems expert. However, I did make it my business several decades ago to study the subject in depth; for clients I familiarized myself with control systems vastly more complicated than the rudimentary arrangements that Lord Monckton is struggling unsuccessfully to treat here. On one occasion I saved a client from a seriously bad investment by pointing out a control-systems mistake made by a PhD at one of my country’s premiere science institutions. So, no, I can’t say I’m an expert. But this isn’t my first rodeo, either.

jhborn

[T]he diagram in the head posting does not require the mu direct-gain factor to be dependent upon the input signal. . . . Likewise, the feedback fraction can be set separately.
Note that Lord Monckton has not denied how trivial his “test rig” is. Note also that his use of the word input shows how far his weird contortions such as the head-post equations have taken him from the question at hand.
He claims he’s “proven that the large estimates of the feedback factor arise from an elementary error of physics,” namely, that climatologists have “made the grave error of not realizing that emission temperature $T_E$ (= 255 K) itself induces a substantial feedback.” Their models’ small-signal behavior is said to match a feedback relationship $\Delta T=\lambda_0(\Delta F+k\Delta T)$. Here the input is obviously the forcing perturbation $\Delta F$, and algebraically isolating the output $\Delta T$ results in $\Delta T=\frac{\lambda_0}{1-\lambda_0k}\Delta F$.
Lord Monckton has hopelessly obscured the issue and apparently confused himself in the process by (1) opaquely transforming the input forcing perturbation $\Delta F$ into a temperature change $\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}$ and (2) not applying that input properly to the summing junction but instead using it to control the value of the ostensible open-loop gain $\mu$. Specifically, he assigns that parameter the value $1+\frac{\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}}{T_{\mathrm{ref}}}$. So, contrary to Lord Monckton’s contention, $\mu$ depends on the input $\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}$.
Of course, if you (not unreasonably) look at the input as the whole quantity $T_{\mathrm{in}}\equiv T_{\mathrm{ref}}+\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}$ in which the small-signal input $\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}$ is a perturbation, then the actual open-loop gain is unity ($T_\mathrm{eq}=\mu T_{\mathrm{ref}}=(1+\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}/T_{\mathrm{ref}})T_{\mathrm{ref}}=T_{\mathrm{ref}}+\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}=T_{\mathrm{in}}$), independently of $\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}$. But there remains the fact that setting the feedback fraction $\beta$ “separately” would mean that the closed-loop gain $\dfrac{1}{1-\beta T_{\mathrm{in}}/T_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ depends on the input $T_{\mathrm{in}}$.
He can contend the circuit “does not require the mu direct-gain factor to be dependent upon the input signal.” only by taking $T_{\mathrm{ref}}$ by itself as the input and taking the true small-signal input $\Delta F$ (somehow transformed to $\Delta T_{\mathrm{ref}}$) as a parameter. And probably that is all his “test rig” does, in which case it proves nothing of consequence.
Lord Monckton continues incoherently to conflate small-signal with large-signal, input with parameter, linear with non-linear. What a mess.

If only Mr Born would look at this matter dispassionately and in the pursuit of objective truth, he would not continue to make elementary errors of arithmetic and of control theory, of which he has remarkably little knowledge.
He makes the remarkably bonkers assertion that, where the emission temperature is Te, and the mu direct-gain factor is 1 + delta-Te / Te, the gain factor is dependent upon Te. Of course it isn’t. Suppose that the directly-forced warming delta-Te from the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases is, say, 12 K. Suppose that the emission temperature is 255 K. Then the direct-gain factor is 1 + 12 / 255 = 1.0471. Suppose, on the other hand, that Lacis 2010 is right to imply it is 9 K. then the direct-gain factor is 1 + 9 / 255 = 1.035. Yet the emission temperature Te is the same in both cases.
Mr Born continues to correspond here in his habitually spiteful, sneering tone. He should recall that sneering at me won’t make the slightest difference. Everyone can tell from his tone that he is not a seeker after truth but a partisan. Our research team does not consist of only me. There is a professor of control theory, who considers that the description of the feedback loop that I have given is correct.
Since Mr Born appears to think that personalities, rather than science, are important, then he should know that a professor of control theory is more likely to be heeded than Mr Born. He is entitled to his opinion, but it is the opinion of a retired lawyer, whereas our opinion is the opinion of, inter alios, not one but three control theorists, supported by an independent external reviewer who is both a control theorist and a climatologist.

jhborn

[O}ur opinion is the opinion of, inter alios, not one but three control theorists, supported by an independent external reviewer who is both a control theorist and a climatologist

Yet not one of has shown up here, given his identity, affiliation, and credentials, and staked his reputation on backing up in his own words the silly things Lord Monckton says. Let Lord Monckton bring them on. Let’s see how they stand up. If they’re what Lord Monckton says, they should have no trouble with a retired lawyer.
As I say, though, this isn’t my first rodeo. And to me Lord Monckton looks like all hat and no cattle.

As usual, the Born Liar cannot resist being petty, and, as usual, fails to advance anything recognizable as a credible scientific point.
He says none of my co-authors has “shown up here, given his identity, affiliation, and credentials, and staked his reputation on backing up in his own words the silly things Lord Monckton says.” O, how ineffably childish is the Born Liar’s spite. My co-authors have neither the time nor the inclination to subject themselves to the pathetic hatred and snide comments of the totalitarian true-believers such as the Born Liar, whose every comment here betrays his utter lack of interest in the objective truth.
My distinguished co-authors have lent their name and their expertise to our draft paper, which, we hope, will in due course pass successfully through peer review. That is their role, and it is an appropriate one for practising scientists. Why should they waste their time dealing with confused, half-recalled drivel from a clapped-out shyster?
The process of peer review will not be a rapid process, for our result – if correct – is a mortal blow to official climatology and to all who, like the Born Liar, prefer to imagine that The Science Is Settled and The Debate Is Over and Now We Must Act. We are expecting a degree of scrutiny a great deal more rigorous, and a great deal tougher, and a great deal more intellectually honest, than the generally feeble points that have been made by the hate generation here. My co-authors are rightly conserving their strength for dealing with the reviewers, and they see no reason to endure the hate speech that is the common currency of the totalitarian supporters of the Party Line on climate, such as the Born Liar.

jhborn

My co-authors have neither the time nor the inclination to subject themselves to the pathetic hatred and snide comments of the totalitarian true-believers such as the Born Liar

Translation: They’re all third-raters afraid to go on record to dispute what a superannuated lawyer specified in explicit math for all to see. Got it.

The Born Liar again betrays his ignorance of the scientific method and his totalitarian proclivity in sneering at my co-authors. No doubt he, as a threadbare shyster of no particular distinction, considers his wisdom on scientific questions vastly superior to theirs, because he adheres to the Party Line and they, in the respect we have identified, do not. Few here would agree with him. His malice, his prejudice, his spite and his wilful disregard of objective truth are visible to all.
Our result is simple. Official climatology has overegged the pudding, climate-sensitivity-wise. Warming in response to doubled CO2 will not be 3.3 K or 4.5 K or 10 K or 11 K: it will be not much above 1 K. Get over it, and enjoy the sunshine.

Rule of Chinese martial arts: leave your opponents only one graceful way out.
Give them that and we can have our economies back now.

Ladylifegrows makes a very fair point. How would she construct a rat-hole for the Forces of Darkness to scurry away? It’s not easy, because They have nailed Their totalitarian colors to the mast of the sinking ship global warming.

WXcycles

Build a time machine, then send all alarmism fans to the Carboniferous to confront their carbonphobia delusions. It would do them good to see the Earth at its most healthy and productive ever, with huge seasonless wet forrests, all produced by high CO2 and humidity. Which said giant trees and micro plants produced the highest oxygen levels in all of geological history (~35%). Which made for gigantic lively animals with many teeth and stings. Which would also do them a lot of good.

4 Eyes

May I suggest MoB that you make sure you have a rock solid team of well qualified helpers and energetic supporters backing you up. I suspect you will have to endure some very serious reactions from the new deniers given the stakes. You’ve prompted me to brush up on auto control theory which I haven’t revisited from over 40 years ago – I wish I’d paid more attention in lectures!

In response to 4-Eyes, my co-authors are Dr Willie Soon, an award-winning astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Dr David Legates, Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware; Dr Matt Briggs, Professor Emeritus of statistics at Cornell University; Professor Dietrich Jeschke, an associate professor of applied control theory in the Flensburg University of Applied Sciences; Dipl.-Ing. Michael Limburg, an electronics engineer; Mr John Whitfield, an electronics engineer (who built our in-house test rig); Mr Alex Henney, an expert in the electricity supply industry; and Mr James Morrison, who was recently able to forewarn a California senator of his acquaintance that an unusually strong atmospheric river was about to hit the State. His warning was several days ahead of any official warning.
These, then, are a powerful team of experts in all the relevant fields. I am proud to be working with them. And it is owing to their patience and determination that we have achieved what we have achieved so far.

richard

If only all your work had been filmed for a documentary. It would have been interesting seeing all this thrashed out.

In response to Richard, I suspect the proposed documentary would be rather dull, consisting of a series of emails over several years, together with meetings at scientific conferences in various parts of the world. It would not be an exciting watch. But the end product, if we are right, will have been worth the wait.

I still do not accept the very basic idea that an atmosphere causes Earth to be “warmer than it would otherwise be”.
I am under the impression that the day side of an Earth with no atmosphere would be ABOVE boiling by over 20 degrees Celsius, and the night side of an Earth with no atmosphere would be BELOW freezing by well over 100 degrees Celsius. Yes, if we want to obliterate this reality with a ridiculous “average”, the Earth would have a temperature lower than a TOTALLY DIFFERENT derived ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE, but to say that the atmosphere warms the surface “on average” is ridiculous. The atmosphere REGULATES temperature within a habitable range.
Using this temperature difference between a theoretical black-body temperature derived by ideal calculation, and then comparing it to a measured-and-statistically contrived average ATMOSPHERIC temperature seems, not only confused, but ignorant of day and night.

Mr Kernodle’s dispute is not with me but with official climatology. The approach we have taken is to accept ad argumentum all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false. We can prove that official climatology’s feedback factor 0.7 is an order of magnitude too big.
And the head posting makes it plain that we are not necessarily content with official climatology’s estimate of the emission temperature that would obtain in the absence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases. We have, however, accepted it for the sake of argument. Mr Kernodle should express his concerns about official climatology to secretariat@ipcc.ch.

Chimp

IMO it’s fair to say that the net effect of having an atmosphere is to warm Earth, since air warms the night side more than it cools the sunny side. But it works in tandem with the oceans, and a bit with the land.

HotScot

Chimp
I’m so thick, I never thought of that before. Every day’s a school-day at WUWT.
Thank you. Genuinely.

Chimp

You’re welcome, although I’m not absolutely sure I’m right.

@ Christopher Monckton – I hope I didn’t miss this point in the articles you’ve posted here, but what I’m wondering is if you are taking account of the low amounts of water vapor in very cold atmospheres. I expect that at cold temperatures, almost all the water vapor freezes out. It is said that the water vapor feedback is non-linear, but I would guess that an even stronger statement might be true, that at low temperatures, the water vapor feedback is zero or so close to zero as to be effectively zero. So how much water vapor is expected to be in air at 255K, which is 18 degrees Celsius below freezing or -1degF? And how much temperature rise would be expected due to just the feedbacks to the emission temperature of 255K, i.e. not including CO2 etc? If no significant water evaporates at that temperature then I would expect no significant feedback.
On the other hand, I’m with you in that it is perplexing to me that others don’t think they should take into account as a feedback, whatever warming does occur from the water vaporized by that 255K (or other effects like ice albedo or clouds). Sure, they can pick an oddly narrow definition of “feedback”, but it seems that they should still have to include the effects in their equations, whether they are called feedbacks or not. Maybe you should end the debate about whether they are feedbacks by just coming up with a new name for them, like Emission Temp Boost Effects, and then challenge them to justify why they should leave the ETBEs out of their equations if they do.
Also, how does one get an average radiation surface temperature like 255K? The equator would surely be warmer than the poles, and the radiation is related to the fourth power of the temperature, so does one take a weighted average of the polar, equatorial, and night side temperatures or something? You would even have to take account of the temperatures changing through the day and night as the surface heats and cools. That seems like a tricky calculation. It also seems like it would be tough to estimate the albedo with much accuracy, not knowing an accurate distribution of surface ice.

Mr Day raises a most intelligent and interesting question about whether there would be much in the way of water-vapor feedback at an emission temperature of 255 K. The first point to make is that, since there are non-condensing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the temperature to which the feedback processes such as the water vapor feedback respond is actually 255.4 + 12 = 267.4 K, which means that the tropics, which are the real engine-room of the climate, would be ice-free and the water-vapor feedback would be quite powerful, though not quite as powerful as today.
Mr Day’s point about the attempts by some commenters here to pretend that feedbacks won’t respond to 255 K of emission temperature but will respond to the additional 12 K of temperature forced by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases is well made. One could give the feedback response to emission temperature a different name: but it is a feedback response, and I prefer to call things what they are rather than introducing any additional confusion into what is already the counter-intuitive subject of feedback theory. Besides, those here who are trying to say that feedbacks can somehow tell the difference between emission temperature and the amplification of it caused by the presence of the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases know perfectly well that feedback processes can make no such distinction. Because feedbacks increase near-linearly with temperature, there will be a little more feedback response pro rata to the temperature caused by the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases than to the emission temperature, but not much.
In answer to Mr Day’s third point, the mean surface emission temperature of 255 K in the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks is, in effect, a function of only two quantities: the insolation and the albedo. It can be calculated using the fundamental equation of radiative transfer. However, I have my doubts about doing such a calculation, because one should really do the calculation individually for each latitude and then integrate. Doing that, one finds that the temperature on the dayside of the planet in the absence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases is 288.9 K. The situation is more complicated on the nightside, because one must take into account the formidable heat capacity of the ocean and the limited rate of heat loss from the ocean at night. Merlis et al. (2010) attempted to do this for an Earthlike aqsuaplanet with albedo 0.38, considerably higher than today’s 0.29, and they still found that on the nightside the temperature was 250 K. Taking the mean of 288.9 and 250 K gives a global emission temperature of 269.5 K. We are not yet in a position to prove that result, owing to uncertainties as to the leakage of temperature from the dayside to the nightside and as to the overall nightside temperature, so for the time being we are using the 255.4 K value that appears all through the literature of official climatology.

joe

we can blindly say the CO2 is the driver and water vapor is a feedback effect, as an argument can be made that water vapor has the stronger effect, and that warming from water vapor based greenhouse effect causes CO2 to rise, hence CO2 is the feedback. Could it be argued that water vapor and CO2 are coupled? I have seen no evidence the water vapor is constant unless driven by CO2 driven warming, as opposed to other warming sources.

ThinkingScientist

This question of the average emission temperature of the planet with no atmosphere intrigues me very much and I don’t think the average value of 255 K can be correct. Even without an ocean, the rockwould retain heat when the sub is not shining – there will be inertia. The obvious place to test such a calculation is the moon. I think it does require an integration with latitude and I have found a published dataset with the necessary temperature profiles with latitude and time of day. Unfortunately I am having to digitise them, its nearly done, but then I will be able to perform that integration and see what number comes out for the moon. Of course, rotational speed plays a role, but it will be an interesting exercise nonetheless.

Thinkingscientist will find, when he has completed his lunar experiment, that the actual lunar mean surface temperature is very considerably below the 271 K that use of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer on a global scale would lead us to expect, given the lunar Bond albedo of 0.11.
On Earth, however, the position is the other way about owing to the formidable heat capacity of the ocean, which prevents loss of significant accumulated heat on the nightside. On the dayside, the temperature would be about 288.9 K on Earth, based on integration of latitudinal values; on the nightside, probably not less than 250 K. The true emission temperature of the Earth, then, is probably around 269.5 K.

joe

I believe Prof. Lindzen made another argument why the runaway strong feedback amplification of CO2 induced warming is total rubbish. The feedback mechanism proposed does not operate on global average temperature with a response time scale of months or years, which is relatively stable, but rather on a regional scale with a response time of weeks if not days. In other words, any source of temperate rise on a regional scale over a period of weeks will induce a strong feedback. Yet temperature does have strong rises in these conditions without any run away effects. This cannot be averaged out with low temperatures elsewhere because the response is nonlinear, hence low temperatures has little feedback which high temperatures have strong feedback amplification.

Chimp

Yes, and the Arctic is supposedly where the effect of CO2 is most pronounced, yet it hasn’t warmed enough there greatly to increase water vapor in the cold, dry air, especially of winter.
H2O varies enormously geographically, from at most a few molecules per million air molecules over Antarctica, to 40,000 per million in the hot, moist tropics. There has been no warming at the South Pole.

In response to Joe, there is indeed no basis whatsoever for assuming that a runaway feedback can occur, particularly if the feedback fraction is, as we have proven it to be, one-tenth of the official estimates. The feedback processes relevant to the climate are indeed quite quick-acting. IPCC itself now admits that the timescale for operation of the water-vapor feedback is hours, not days, months, years, decades or centuries.
Also, though the rate of change in specific humidity or column water vapor with temperature is exponential at 6 to 7% per Kelvin, the absorption occurs only at the far wings of the spectrum (as with CO2), so that the net absorption response is logarithmic, making the water vapor feedback increase linearly, and very slowly, with temperature. The Planck “feedback” also has a linear increase with temperature (a very small increase). The other feedbacks are too small to make very much difference. So our result, a feedback fraction of just 0.07, is actually plausible. Official climatology has only chosen larger values for the feedback fraction because its grave error of physics has led it to assume that it must somehow account for the 20 K of feedback response to the 12 K directly-forced warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases. In fact, 19 K of this 20 K of feedback response is a response to emission temperature, and less than 1 K is a response to the 12 K of warming from the non-condensers.

joe

So, the IPCC makes assumptions that support their interpretation, only retracting when confronted with evidence? which was their job to find in the first place?

In response to Joe, IPCC does not always retract, even when confronted by evidence of its errors. The Swiss Bureau de l’Escroquerie is building up quite a file on it and, were it not for the fact that IPCC is worth billions a year to the Swiss economy, it would have been shut down years ago.

Juan

We have had periods in history with 3-4x higher CO2 levels than today. If the high-sensitivity approach of IPCC is correct, I just cannot figure out how humans or animals would have been able to evolve or survive because the warming would have increased to a level where most of the living creatures cannot exist.

Chimp

It appears that during the Cambrian Period, first of the Paleozoic Era and ongoing Phanerozoic Eon, CO2 has been estimated at ~7000 ppm, vs. ~400 ppm today. That’s more than four doublings of CO2, and, guess what!, global average temperature wasn’t more than 13 degrees C higher than now (as would be the case at IPCC’s ludicrous central value of 3.3 degrees C per doubling). Granted, the sun was about five percent weaker then, but still, observations don’t compute with “theory”. I wouldn’t dignify the CACA hypothesis with such a grand term, however.
During the following Ordovician Period, CO2 was still more than 11 times higher than now, but there was an ice age! Even average temperature during the period was only about two degrees C higher than now, despite 3.5 doublings.

willhaas

The AGW conjecture is notorious for being based on only partial science. The improper feedback calculation is only one problem.
The radiametric calculations that I am familiar with come up with a climate sensitivity for CO2 of 1.2 degrees C which in itself tells us that the climate effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere are not very significant. To make it more significant the AGW conjecture adds the concept of amplification by means of H2O feedback. The idea is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is also a so called greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. They like to assume a positive feedback that results in an amplification factor of roughly 3 but admittedly they do not know exactly what that amplification factor really is. The idea is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. In fact if you believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, H2O is the primary greenhouse gas and molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2. Christopher Monckton of Brenchly is apparently saying that, given that one accepts the “Official Climatology”, the amplification calculation is in error and must be significantly reduced. In the IPCC’s first report, they published a very wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. In the last report that I read of their’s they published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort they still do not really know what the amplification factor really is, they do not really know what the climate sensitivity of CO2 really is, and they have been unable to narrow the range of their guesses one iota. So’ in all that time they have learned nothing which would more accurately determine what the climate related danger of adding CO2 to the atmosphere really is. The climate simulation models supported by the IPCC have all predicted much more warming than has actually taken place which would lend credence to the idea that the lower feedback amplification feedback factor that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has calculated is a much better number than what the IPCC has been using.
A researcher from Japan has pointed out that the radiometric calculations that were made totally ignore the fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight drop in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. When one includes this cooling effect, the climate sensitivity of CO2 is reduced by a factor of more than 20, So instead of 1.2 degrees C we have less than .06 degrees C for the climate sensitivity of CO2.
The AGW conjecture ignores the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, CO2 is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere, moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form where the energy is more readily radiated out to space. The over all cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. This means that the H2O feedback is negative and would operate to reduce any warming caused by CO2 How much H2O reduces the climate sensitivity of CO2 has not been determined by me but a climate sensitivity of less than .06 degrees C is already trivial. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for more than the past 500 million years..
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. So to on earth. The surface of the Earth is not kept warm because of the action of some trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. The surface of the Earth is as warm as it is because gravity limits cooling by convection. In the troposphere, heat energy transfer by conduction, convection, and phase change dominate over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation. It is a convective effect that is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the pressure gradient, and the depth oft the troposphere that causes the insulation effects of the Earth’s atmosphere. All gases in the atmosphere play a part and no gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere are thermally inert as the AGW conjecture would have us believe. As derived from first principals the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect results in an average temperature at the Earth’s surface of 33 degrees C higher than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the derived amount and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Additional warming caused by 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 so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
If CO2 really affected climate by causing warming then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is evidence that warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere as it is well known that warm water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water but there is no real evidence the added CO2 has caused any warming. It iis all conjecture.
My conclusion has been that there is not real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity is essentially zero.

Dan DaSilva

What do you think is causing the warming, if not CO2?

willhaas

The sun and the oceans.

In reply to Will Haas, experiments in the laboratory show that introducing CO2 to an atmosphere without it will intercept some of the near-infrared radiation passing through it, causing it to warm. The quantum physics of how a molecule of a greenhouse gas causes warming is quite well understood. The question, therefore, is not whether CO2 or other greenhouse gases cause warming, but how much warming they cause. Our answer is that they cause very little warming, because the feedback response, which official climatology had thought was large, is actually small. And we have proven that the large estimates of the feedback factor arise from an elementary error of physics, Correct that error and the global warming problem vanishes.

willhaas

I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to so many of our comments. That is a fundamental problem with climate science in that one cannot set up definitive experiments with the Earth’s climate system. One may be able to show that in the laboratory, adding CO2 to a volume of air may cause that block of air to warm more quickly when irradiated with LWIR radiation than that same block of air without the CO2 added to it, but that block of air in the laboratory is not the same as the Earth’s climate system. In the past it was believed that a greenhouse was kept warm because the glass blocked the passage of IR radiation but experiments were performed and showed that blocking the passage of IR radiation had nothing to do with it. I believe that you are right in that the feedback effects have been miscalculated but, as I have explained, there is a lot more wrong with the AGW conjecture then just the calculation of feedbacks.

In response to Mr Haas, indeed there is a lot more wrong with official climatology than its definition of feedback. However, since feedbacks contribute two-thirds to nine-tenths of all imagined anthropogenic warming, correcting the definition of feedback removes almost two-thirds to nine-tenths of the imagined warming, leaving equilibrium sensitivity at not much more than 1.2 K.

Dan DaSilva

“A researcher from Japan has pointed out that the radiometric calculations that were made totally ignore the fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight drop in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect”.
Could provide link or name of the researcher?

willhaas

Look at the Hockey Schtick.com Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Basic Global Warming Hypothesis is Wrong
by Kyoji Kimoto.

ScottM

“The improper feedback calculation is only one problem.” If you consider that feedback isn’t a parameter that is dialed in arbitrarily, but emerges from the actual system itself (or in simulations thereof) due to the underlying physics, you’ll begin to see that this statement is nonsense. There isn’t a “feedback calculation” coded in climate models (except in extremely simple ones such as Monckton is using).

willhaas

I believe that feedback is used to compute the climate sensitivity of CO2 and the warming that they think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes is hard coded into their simulations. The IPCC has published a wide range of guesses as to the climate sensitivity of CO2 and largely due to the uncertainty of the climate sensitivity of CO2 they have sponsored a plethora of climate models, really simulations. All of their models have failed to adequately predict today’s global temperatures. They have predicted global warming that has not happened. If there is any truth to the climate simulations, then one can conclude that the IPCC’s entire range of guesses as to the climate sensitivity is all wrong and that the actual is lower than the IPCC’s published range of guesses. For me a climate sensitivity of less than .06 degrees C is more defensible than anything the IPCC has published. Of course if one concludes that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is actually less than .06 degrees C then one must conclude that the climate effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is negligible and hence the IPCC no longer needs to be funded.

Will Haas’ point is interesting. Some years ago a specialist in forecasting techniques calculated that if one had predicted zero global warming in 1990 one would have been considerably closer to the truth than IPCC’s prediction at that time. Our result explains why IPCC has been over-predicting: it is using far too large a feedback factor.

Bob K

The first picture is the building of the Ministry of Propaganda, 1934-1938, Hitler’s Germany. Found here: https://jaywaytravel.com/blog/berlin-nazi-architecture/

ggm

Wrong. It isn’t the building in Germany. Just do a google for “Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus” and go to the Google Maps street view of the building, and you will see that this is definitely not the German building. Similar, but definitely not the same building

It’s a view from the inside of the South-East quadrangle, not from the street.
Check the relative heights of the left and right rooflines.

John Hardy
joelobryan

“Did official climatology know its predictions were nonsense?”
A pertinent question but the most irrelevant question at the same time.
A better question, “Does official climatology care that its predictions were nonsense?”

knr

no because this brings in their ‘daily bread ‘ and where else could third rate academics get such an easy life.

Kristi Silber

I’ve been reading the “climategate” emails. It’s striking what a contrast there is in the respect for the value of quality science and the integrity of the profession between them and those here who make comments like, “A better question, “Does official climatology care that its predictions were nonsense?”” and “no because this brings in their ‘daily bread ‘ and where else could third rate academics get such an easy life.”
The climategate emails supposedly blackballing scientists are instead an demonstration of the thoughts and behavior of scientists who have integrity. Only those whose ideas are distorted by preconceptions could read them as trying to keep a lid on alternative ideas. The ideas aren’t even mentioned, it’s the science that is the problem, and they feel it their professional duty to rebut the poor science because they think could be misleading.
Seeing the exchange as a whole could lead to no other conclusion.
Comments like, “no because this brings in their ‘daily bread ‘ and where else could third rate academics get such an easy life” are just silly.

Kristi Silber has not read the Climategate emails with due care and attention. There, she will find personal insults directed at me by the unspeakable Michael Mann in an email to a scientist who had written to me asking for clarification of a result I had obtained. I had supplied the clarification to the satisfaction of that scientist, who had then circulated it to colleagues including Mann. there was no call for any insults in the circumstances, but Mann is a totalitarian and, ever since Pacepa and the disinformation directorate, that is how totalitarians instinctually behave.
You will also find Phil Jones of the unspeakable University of East Anglia talking of destroying data so that other scientists could not verify it. Not one of the seven enquiries into Climategate asked him whether he had destroyed any data, or why he had made such a remark.
Silber, in imagining that the Climategate emails indicate the conduct of principled and high-minded scientists, is demonstrating an irremediable prejudice,

Chris Hoff

“Windmills, for heaven’s sake – 14th-century technology to solve a 21st-century non-problem. Will the subsidies stop and power prices fall by two-thirds, as they should?”
As per the old saying, “follow the money”. You will very likely find the real feedback loop(monetary), between power providers and the universities peddling the climate schlock. If you look very carefully at published papers in support of climate alarm, you may also find the same disclaimer lines being reused again and again when citing reference material, something about personal belief or personal conviction. Happens a lot in humanities.

thingodonta

I rejected the supposed positive feedback of extra water vapour years ago; when one looks at the tropics, all that extra water vapour doesn’t make things warmer, rather it makes things cooler. The tropics are cooler than the deserts largely due to the endothermic effect of evaporation and thunderstorms, and the greater cloud cover.
But I would like to know how one accurately derives the magnitude of positive feedback from the initial temperature condition, prior to any warming. This might be the one weakness in Monckton’s paper, if the initial effect from positive feedback is estimated, it weakens the certainty of any further calculations.

In response to thingodonta’s excellent question, one can calculate directly the feedback response to emission temperature by simply setting the mu amplifier to unity in the equation that is described by the feedback-loop diagram in the head posting, and then setting the beta feedback fraction to 0.07, and then the calculation is 255.4 x 0.07 / (1 – 0.07) = 19.2 K. To derive the feedback response to the 12 K directly-forced warming from the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases, the calculation is 12 x 0.07 / (1 – 0.07), giving 0.9 K. To find the total feedback response, the calculation is (255.4 + 12) * 0.07 / (1 – 0.07), giving 32.1 K. Note that this calculation assumes the feedback factor is constant. However, even allowing for the fact that the feedback sum, and hence the feedback fraction, rises a little with temperature, the feedback factor will not be large enough greatly to increase equilibrium sensitivity.

Wow!!
That says it all!!
Done – and dusted..

Nylo

On a previous post in this thread (Looping the Loop…) Lord Monckton said:
“Emission temperature is dependent on just three quantities: insolation, albedo, and emissivity”
And later he applied the corresponding formula and arrived to the accepted 243.3K in absence of feedbacks. And I cannot blame him because everybody uses this. But then, at some point, everybody also makes the same mistake than he does, by assimilating “Emission temperature” to “Earth’s average temperature”. The only circumstance when you could assimilate both would be if Earth’s temperature was a constant accross the entire planet. In THAT unreal scenario with perfect conductivity of heat accross the planet, the emission temperature would be the same as the Earth’s average temperature. But the very moment that you have some places colder/warmer than others and the temperature in each place varies during the day and with the seasons, you can be sure that the average temperature will be lower than the calculated emission temperature. Because the emissions taking place right now in the small 1 square meter where I am standing depend on the temperature in THIS square meter at THIS time of the day and THIS time of the year. And because the dependance is to T^4, the overall emissions of the year will be HIGHER than they would have been if, all accross the year, the temperature had remained the same and equal to the average of the year. Because when temperature goes up from average by N degrees, emissions increase more than what they decrease when temperature goes down from average by the same N degrees.
((T+N)^4 + (T-N)^4)/2 = T^4 + 6*T^2*N^2 + N^4 which means higher than T^4.
Emissions being higher means the planet cools faster than the ideal “perfect heat conductivity and therefore permanently isothermal” planet at the same average temperature and incoming energy. So the average temperature of our real planet without feedbacks has to be lower or else it would not be at equilibrium. Should there be no feedback, the average temperature would NOT be the calculated emission temperature. It would be lower.
This can be easily verified with the Moon. It is a fantastic example because the Moon is fantastically diferent from isothermal, temperature variations there are enormous thanks to its 14 days “day” and 14 days “night” and the lack of atmosphere and oceans to distribute heat around. If you apply the formula of the emission temperature of the Moon based on its insolation, albedo and emissivity, you will arrive to a value that is waaay higher than the Moon’s actual, real, average temperature.

Dan DaSilva

Nylo, you explain this very well are. Are you a teacher? Where can I read your work?

Nylo

No I am no teacher and I don’t have any work related to climate published anywhere. Too lazy.

In response to Nylo, on the Moon the mean surface temperature is probably some 70 K below the 271 K that the fundamental equation of radiative transfer applied globally would lead us to believe. However, on Earth the position is the other way about owing to the formidable heat capacity of the global ocean. On the dayside, integration of latitudinal calculations suggests a mean emission temperature of 288.9 K. On the nightside, thanks to retention of heat by the ocean, the mean temperature would be about 250 K. Subject to various uncertainties, the global mean emission temperature may well be 269.5 K, a long way above the 255.4 K that is derived from the fundamental equation of radiative transfer applied globally.

Nylo

Thaks a lot for your response Lord Monckton.
I am not sure how you did those integration of latitudinal calculations, but IF it was from real measured temperatures, then obviously you are already including some of the feedbacks of the system and the temperature can be higher. My point is that to evaluate how much of a feedback there is, you cannot start from the claimed 243.3K or 255.4K. Yo have to start lower, because the calculations of the “fundamental equation of radiative transfer applied globaly” are only correct for an isothermal planet. A planet with different temperatures day/night, poles/ecuator, land/sea etc emits the same ammount of outgoing radiation with a lower average temperature. Which means that the feedback of the system through GHGs, condensation/evaporation, melting/generating of ice, convection etc, all of it, is some Kelvin bigger than you think.

In further response to Nylo, I used to design sundials (including the largest sundial in Scotland), so I am familiar with the relevant spherical geometry. One useful wrinkle, which is useful when explaining matters to those who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with calculus, is to note that the zonal surfaces of equialtitudinal spherical frusta are equiareal. One determines via the fundamental equation of radiative transfer the zonal temperature for each frustum using today’s insolation and albedo, sums the temperatures and divides by the number of frusta. The answer is 288.9 K. For the nightside, we have borrowed the 250 K estimate of Merlis et al. (2010), which, however, is for an aquaplanet of albedo 0.38 rather than today’s 0.29. Adjusting for albedo, the nightside emission temperature on Earth might be more like 260 K. Take the mean of the two hemispheric temperatures and one arrives at an emission temperature, without greenhouse gases, of 269-274 K, rather than the 255.4 K currently universal in official climatology, which, however, scandalously ignores Hoelder’s inequalities between integrals.
However, as stated in the head posting, we are still working on a demonstration of what the emission temperature of the Earth should be, and we are not yet ready to challenge official climatology on this point. So we have accepted its 255 K value ad argumentum, but work on this aspect of the calculation continues, because if emission temperature is indeed of order 270 K then the feedback fraction is negligible and the issue of nonlinearity (pretty much a non-issue anyway) all but disappears.

Nylo

Thanks a lot once again Lord Mockton. I still have some important objections to your calculations, not in the part of dividing in frustra (new word for me, thanks for that), calculating and averaging temps, but on the insolation values that you must have used to arrive to such a result, probably the correct average insolation during the day time of a day, but not for the 24h day, meaning that your 288.9K temp would be the temperature reached by a “permanently under the sunlight” day side of the planet (a tidally locked planet), and not the day side of our non-tidally locked planet. In fact, the result that you show is very similar to what one can see in the Merlis et al. (2010) paper that you have mentioned (and also thanks for that), for the day side of a tidally locked water planet. A non-tidally locked planet necessarily has a lower average temperature for the day side of the planet. In addition for a planet like ours, should we divide the surface in 2 parts, the difference between tropical-nontropical areas is way greater than between day/night areas. So this is the divide that I would have started with.
However, this is not the point that I am trying to make, which is that Earth’s temperature would NOT be 243.3K in absence of feedbacks of any kind affecting the incoming energy (GHGs) or the albedo (clouds). It would be lower. I can totally believe, in absence of a better estimate, whatever estimate you want to give to me about what the temperature would be without GHGs alone, but still with the rest of the feedbacks (convection, evaporation, condensation, freezing and defreezing of the polar seas…). You say this is 269-274? Ok for me, why not? THAT ONE is not the value that I dispute, as I haven’t done yet my own maths. What I dispute is that the way to calculate the importance of the non-GHG feedbacks is to substract 243.3K from this temperature, or from IPCC’s 255.4K if we are going to accept it ad argumentum. Temperature without feedbacks of any kind would NOT be 243.3K. They would be lower. They could only reach an average of 243.3K under a perfect heat transport mechanism making the surface isothermal.
My best regards.

In response to Nylo, I perhaps neglected to make it clear that the tidal locking in the case I used from Merlis (2010) was that of an aquaplanet rotating at the same rate as Earth, i.e., once a day.
As to the temperature without any greenhouse gases and without any feedbacks, official climatology says that, at today’s albedo, that temperature – known as the emission temperature – would be 255.4 K. I have adopted all of official climatology except what I can prove to be wrong. Though I think that 255.4 K is too low, for the reasons I have explained, I cannot yet prove it to be too low, so I am using it because it avoids all argument.
If Nylo would like to use some other, lesser value, he can of course do so, but to get a lesser value he will have to increase the Earth’s albedo. And he will find that, even at an albedo of 0.6, the feedback fraction would not exceed 0.2, giving a Charney sensitivity of about 1.4 K. Our result, for obvious reasons, is very resistant to stress-testing of this kind.
I am not sure that Nylo is correct that emission temperature without feedbacks is lower than 255.4 K. The emission temperature is a function only of insolation and albedo (assuming a unit emissivity, as is usual). Feedbacks don’t come into it.

Nylo

Lord Monckton: “I am not sure that Nylo is correct that emission temperature without feedbacks is lower than 255.4 K. The emission temperature is a function only of insolation and albedo (assuming a unit emissivity, as is usual). Feedbacks don’t come into it“.
To clarify my position: I do NOT claim that the emission temperature would be lower than 255.4K. What I DO claim is that the planet’s AVERAGE temperature would be lower than this emission temperature, in the same way that the moon’s average temperature is lower than its emission temperature, although to a much lower extent than in the case of the moon because in our temperatures distribution, the temperatures’ departures from average are much smaller. Some “back of the envelope” calculations that I have done put this difference between the emission temperature and the average temperature at somewhere between 2 and 3 Kelvin. It looks like a small ammount, but it is significant, because when comparing actual AVERAGE temperatures to what they would be without feedbacks, you have to compare as well to AVERAGE temperatures, not to emission temperature.
Best regards, and thanks a lot, as always.

Nylo

Simple experiment: Earth’s surface average temperature is believed to be somewhere around 14ºC (287K). what is Earth surface’s emission temperature? Well, if we were to consider an isothermal Earth, that would be 14ºC as well. Let’s divide the Earth in 2 separate parts with the same area: the 30S-30N “tropical” area and the rest. Let’s consider now that instead of being isothermal, the 2 areas are separately isothermal but have different temperatures from each other, equal to our Earth’s average temperatures in such areas. I don’t have the data, but I believe that the tropical Earth has something like 24ºC average temperature, which means that the non-tropical Earth’s average temperature must be around 4ºC, so that the planet’s average temperature stays at 14ºC. What is now the average emission temperature of the planet?
(((297K)^4+(277K)^4)/2)^(1/4) = 287.52K = 14.52ºC
We have just found that the emission temperature in this waaaaaaay simplified model of the distribution of Earth’s surface temperatures is already half a degree higher than the planet surface’s average temperature.
You can continue to divide areas of the planet. You can now divide in 4 latitudinal parts: 0-14, 14-30, 30-48 and 48-90. And use the average of those regions. Emission temperature will go up by another half Kelvin. Then you can divide each region between “summer” average and “winter” average (actually the average of its 182 hotest days and its 182 coldest days), for a distribution with 8 different temperatures, and find the emission temperature rises by about another half of a Kelvin. And then you can divide the summer and winter averages between their hoter day temperatures and colder nigh temperatures… You can continue ad infinitum. You will continue to get increases in the emission temperature, although soon the increases will start to be small. In the end, I estimate a difference between emission temperature and average temperature of between 2-3 Kelvin, being quite conservative. It could be more.

Nylo appears to be confusing emission temperature and surface temperature. The two coincide only in the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks.

Nylo

Lord Monckton: Nylo appears to be confusing emission temperature and surface temperature. The two coincide only in the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks.
No, they don’t. Emission temperature and average temperature only coincide in the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks AND in an isothermal planet. A non-isothermal planet Earth with NO greenhouse gases or feedbacks will still have an emission temperature of 255.4K, if we don’t modify albedo nor incoming energy, but will NOT have an average temperature of 255.4K. The same exercise that I did before, you can do it with an average planetary temperature of 255.4K, with the tropics 10K hotter and the rest 10K colder, the average emitted longwave radiation would be higher than the average incoming energy, meaning that the planet would not be at equilibrium, it would be cooling down. And this doesn’t involve feedbacks nor GHGs. It purely involves only the fact that the planet is NOT isothermal. Average temperature does not need to reach the emission temperature for the planet to radiate as much heat away as would do an isothermal planet at the emission temperautre.
To calculate how much the GHGs and other feedbacks are increasing Earth’s average temperature, you should NOT substract 255.4K from today’s average temperature. You should substract around 252K or 253K, which would be the average temperature in absence of such feedbacks, assuming that the temperature distribution of the planet didn’t change too much in terms of anomalies from the average from today’s Earth’s distribution of temperatures. Which basically means that the heat provided by the GHGs and feedbacks is 2-3K greater than commonly believed by ignoring the fact that the Earth is not isothermal.

Nylo

To put it simpler, if as you claim the average temperature and the emission temperature coincide in the absence of GHGs or feedbacks, please explain why they are vastly different in our Moon, which does not have GHGs nor feedbacks of any kind.

In response to Nylo, let us be clear that in the absence of greenhouse gases or feedbacks the emission temperature would apply at the Earth’s surface, for there would be no other functioning emitting surface in the atmospheric column.
That fact is quite separate from the question of how to calculate the emission temperature. I have already spent some considerable time explaining to Nylo that, just as the Moon’s emission temperature as determined by a single global use of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer is inaccurate, so I think it very likely – but cannot yet definitively prove – that the Earth’s emission temperature thus determined is also inaccurate. On the Moon, which has no ocean, the true emission temperature is very considerably below the value derived using the fundamental equation of radiative transfer in a single, global calculation. On the Earth, which has an ocean, the emission temperature is perhaps 10-20 K higher than the value thus derived. But, as I have explained again and again and again in this series, our policy has been to accept all of official climatology except what we can prove to be incorrect. We cannot yet definitively prove, to our own satisfaction, that the 255 K value for emission temperature is incorrect, so, since that – like it or not – is the current canonical value, that is the value we use.
Nylo is entitled to his own estimate that emission temperature is 252 K rather than 255 K. That would not much alter our result. The feedback fraction would then be 1 – (252 +12) / 287.5, or 0.08, instead of 0.07. Charney sensitivity would still be 1.2 K.
So, who is right – Nylo or us – about emission temperature on Earth? He says 252 K; official climatology says 255 K; we say 265-275 K. What we can say is that we used the outputs of the Lunar Diviner mission to calibrate our dayside-temperature curve (with the lunar albedo substituted for the Earth albedo), and the Diviner curve, derived empirically, and our own curve, derived theoretically, coincided exactly.]
The real difficulty is the nightside, where, on Earth, the vast ocean retains much of the heat it accumulates during the day. We have not found a definitive method of deriving the nightside temperature yet, but we are working on it.

Nylo

Lord Monckton: “just as the Moon’s emission temperature as determined by a single global use of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer is inaccurate, so I think it very likely – but cannot yet definitively prove – that the Earth’s emission temperature thus determined is also inaccurate”.
I think I understand then what our discrepancy is. You are basically saying (correct me if I am wrong) that the emission temperature of a planet is its average temperature, and not the one derived from the equation that only considers albedo and incoming energy. If that’s the case and you are only using the equation not to disagree with what is commonly considered in climate science for a planet without feedbacks, then I agree with what you say, although for me the emission temperature is something else, it is the temperature at which an isothermal planet would emit the same total radiation as a given planet. I don’t use emission temperature for the average temperature because I don’t need a new term to refer to the average temperature, I already have one: average temperature.
A simple final question to verify that I understood your position correctly, forgetting about the term “emission temperature” as we understand it differently: Do you believe as I do, that two planets with the same albedo and different incoming energy can still have the same average temperature and be in equilibrium (i.e. radiate away on average the same ammount of energy that they receive), just by having a different distribution of temperatures, in space or time (day length / seasons)? Or, to put it differently, do you believe that they can be both in equilibrium with different average temperatures and different distribution of temperatures while the albedo and incoming energy are exactly the same for both planets?
Thanks a lot for your time and patience.
Best regards.

In response to Nylo, the emission temperature is supposed to be the mean temperature that would obtain at the surface of a planetary body of known albedo and insolation in the absence of any greenhouse gases or temperature feedbacks. The divisor 4 in the equation for insolation is designed to distribute the sunlight across the surface area of the Earth, which is four times the area of the great circle.
In climatology, the term “mean temperature” without qualification is taken to be the current global mean surface temperature.
However, trying to apply the fundamental equation of radiative transfer globally with a single calculation is very likely to fail because no allowance is made for Hoelder’s inequalities between integrals. My own calculations for the dayside make specific allowance, by integrating latitudinal calculations. The nightside is more complicated, but, if a Merlis aquaplanet of the same rotation period and insolation as the Earth but an albedo of 0.38, much greater than that of the Earth, has a nightside emission temperature of 250 K, then the Earth probably has a nightside emission temperature of 260 K or thereby, in which event, since the mean dayside emission temperature is 290 K, the Earth’s emission temperature (by which is usually meant the mean emission temperature) is more like 275 K than 255 K.
Unfortunately, Nylo has provided no reasoning to support his contention that on a waterbelt Earth, the mean emission temperature would be lower than the 243.3 K that is derivable by a global calculation using the fundamental equation of radiative transfer using Lacis’ albedo 0.418. On the dayside, the temperature would be not less than 275.2 K, and might well be more, since the calculation takes no account of the latitudinal distribution of albedo, and the albedo is less in the equatorial zone of a waterbelt Earth than elsewhere. On the nightside, the temperature will be very close to Merlis’ 250 K (call it 245 K), since the albedo of a Lacis waterbelt Earth is not much different from that of a Merlis aquaplanet. So the mean planetary emission temperature is about (275 + 245) / 2 = 260 K.

Nylo

Lord Monckton: “Unfortunately, Nylo has provided no reasoning to support his contention that on a waterbelt Earth, the mean emission temperature would be lower than the 243.3 K that is derivable by a global calculation using the fundamental equation of radiative transfer using Lacis’ albedo 0.418”.
Now I am totally disappointed. I will leave this exchange here. If Lord Mocnkton wants to do that calculation, he can just do the math. Add together the emissions of each separate piece of land (or sea in this case) of the “planet at an average temperature of 243.3K or higher”. Get the total emissions, in watts (joules per second). Then compare them to the total incoming energy, in watts (joules per second). If total emissions, in watts, are higher than the incoming energy, in watts, then the planet is not in equilibrium, it is cooling down. As simple as that. I know that I am absolutely right in this, it is a very easy thing to do. (T1^4+T2^4)/2 will always be higher than ((T1+T2)/2)^4, for any T1T2. I am very disappointed that Lord Monckton cannot see this, because it is true for any planet, be it rocky, water or have any other kind of surface, in absence of atmospheric feedbacks modifying the ammount of surface radiation that is able to escape the planet based on the surface’s temperature. You only need the planet to not be isothermal.
Do the maths, Lord Monckton. Add the emissions of the surface of your Lacis planet’s dayside area at 275K and nightside area at 245K and compare them to the total incoming energy. It is really that easy.
Total incoming energy: (1364.625(1 – 0.418))(W/m^2)*pi*R^2 = 1.012748*10^17 Watts.
Total outgoing energy, dayside: σ*(275K)^4*(2*pi*R^2)=0.82408935*10^17 Watts.
Total outgoing energy, nightside: σ*(245K)^4*(2*pi*R^2)=0.52100570*10^17 Watts.
Total outgoing energy, dayside + nightside: 1.34509505*10^17W, clearly bigger than 1.012748*10^17W.
Or if you prefer, use your claimed 260K “average temperature of emission” (which again would be wrong even if the other had been right, because you cannot average temperatures to get average emissions due to the T^4 dependance as we see applying the formula right now):
Total outgoing energy at 260K for the whole planet: σ*(260K)^4*(4*pi*R^2)=1.32160455*10^17 Watts. Notice that it is DIFFERENT from the sum of the emissions of two halves at 245K and 275K.
The planet is losing energy and cooling down, at an impresive rate of around 3.3*10^16 Joules per second.
Lacis’s planet is as hot as it is because he IS already including atmospheric feedbacks, by GHGs, in particular water vapour, which limit the outgoing energy by capturing some and sending back half of what it traps. This is what makes his planet as hot as it is.
I hope I didn’t mess up with the html tags as I used too many. If so, please excuse me mods. I also hope that the sigma symbols can be seen correctly in the comment after I post it.

Nylo

Note: when I said Lacis’s planet I meant Merlis’s planet at Lacis’s albedo.

Nylo

A simplified Earth without GHGs, with a tropical zone (30S-30N) only 30K hotter than the non-tropical zone (thanks to distribution of heat by the oceans and thanks to water’s heat capacity) would only need an average surface temperature 1.384K lower than 243.3K (i.e. 241.916K) to have the same total emissions than an isothermal planet at an average temperature of 243.3K. Demonstration:
E1=σ*(243.3K-1.384K-15K)^4*(2*pi*R^2)=0.3834*10^17W
E2=σ*(243.3K-1.384K+15K)^4*(2*pi*R^2)=0.6300*10^17W
E1+E2=1.0134*10^17W = total emissions of our non-isothermal simplified Earth at 243.3K-1.384K = 241.916K average temperature.
E3=σ*(243.3K)^4*(4*pi*R^2)=1.0134*10^17W = total emissions of an isothermal Earth at 243.3K.
E1+E2=E3. Which means that if the isothermal planet is in equilibrium, then the other one is in equilibrium as well, despite having a lower average temperature, for the same incoming energy and albedo.

Kristi Silber

Nylo,
Nice! Thanks very much for that comment, that explains things quite nicely indeed. The example of the Moon is the frosting on the cake.
In Monckton’s response,
“Subject to various uncertainties, the global mean emission temperature may well be 269.5 K, a long way above the 255.4 K that is derived from the fundamental equation of radiative transfer applied globally.”
Hmmm. It may well be 269.5 K. That’s mighty precise. In the OP it was 10-20 higher than the accepted 255 K.
Interesting the things he comes up with.

Kristi Silber, instead of asking nicely how I arrived at an emission temperature of 269.5 K, sneers about it. Well, that is Silber’s specialty. Sneer, sneer, sneer.
So here is a little science. Any kindergarten will explain the terms to Silber.
Consider the dayside of the Earth without greenhouse gases but with the present albedo. Divide the lit hemisphere into a billion equialtitudinal frusta. Equialtitudinal frusta are of equal spherical-surface area. Determine the latitude of each frustum and derive from it the mean dayside temperature at that latitude. Integrate by summing the temperatures thus obtained and dividing by a billion. That is a simple way, without even resorting to calculus, of deriving the dayside hemispheric mean temperature of 288.9 K.
Now read Merlis (2010), which considers inter alia the surface temperature of a tidally-locked Earthlike aquaplanet with today’s insolation but an albedo of 0.38 rather than today’s 0.29. The nightside surface temperature of such a planet, rotating at the same rate as the Earth, would be 250 K. Sum the dayside and nightside temperatures and divide by 2 to obtain a global mean temperature of 269.5 K.
But, as I stated, this calculation is subject to various uncertainties. For instance, the mean temperature on a Merlis aquaplanet would be lower than that on the present Earth owing to the higher albedo of the Merlis planet. In that event, it is likely that the nightside temperature could be as much as 260 K on today’s Earth, increasing the emission temperature from the previously-calculated 269.5 K to more than 274 K.
However, as the head posting makes clear, we are not yet in a position to provide a formal demonstration that the usually-cited 255 K emission temperature for the Earth – whose derivation via the fundamental equation of radiative transfer was performed earlier in this series – is too small. Therefore, we have adopted official climatology’s figure ad argumentum while we wait for Professor Merlis to reply to our enquiries.

Dan DaSilva

Dear Monckton of Brenchley,
Aren’t you assuming this a linear system where feedback gain will not be dependant on temperature? I do not see why this should be so. The feedback should be piecewise approximately linear but not necessarily linear over the whole range. Thanks for a response, Dan DaSilva

Dan DaSilva

Dear Monckton of Brenchley, OK, I see where you talk “linear stuff” I will read the whole paper and think about it. Thanks, Dan DaSilva

I first learned about feedback analysis in the context of electronic amplifier design almost 50 years ago and frankly the whole pretext of using feedback analysis in a climate context confuses me.
Bode spends the first chapter of his paper on mesh analysis (climate model) and the second on ‘the complex frequency plane’ which deals with how reactive components affect the frequency response.
In the feedback chapter the assumption is made that u and B are separate and independent components of a system. Bode worries a bit about that because ‘30s vintage electronics did not always provide clean interfaces between the system elements. Bode, and a couple of other techniques were taught as graphical tools to allow design to take place with a minimum of effort. In other words a short cut that provides analyticaly correct answers if the conditions are true.
So one of my concerns is the independence of the gain and feedback transfer functions are not independent of each other or of the input. The whole (IPCC) analysis is fatally broken then and there.
The second problem I have is the appearance that the feedback analysis is being applied over and above an already (complete) model of a system which is being sold as being able to model the climate. As an EE it’s perfectly acceptable to drop the entire circuit into a modeling tool and see what happens. You wouldn’t do a Bode analysis except maybe for documentation.
Losing the non-EEs at this point: with both u ans B strictly real, the output must be imaginary.

“So one of my concerns is the independence of the gain and feedback transfer functions are not independent of each other or of the input. The whole (IPCC) analysis is fatally broken then and there.”
Yes. Dependence of μ and β on input is a point I made here and following. But this isn’t an IPCC analysis that is broken. It is entirely Lord M’s.
“with both u ans B strictly real, the output must be imaginary”
It is supposed to be a circuit for equilibrium response to adjustments, so there isn’t really a phase to shift. In fact this is part of the shuffling between flux (the real input) and temperature. It’s really a transimpedance amplifier, and if time response mattered, μ and β would probably be complex.

Mr Stokes imagines, incorrectly, that the mu direct-gain factor is dependent upon the magnitude of the input signal. No, it isn’t. The beta feedback fraction, to the extent that it is assumed constant, is not dependent on the input signal either. However, to the extent that the beta feedback fraction increases – probably slowly and near-linearly – with temperature, it is to that limited extent dependent upon the input signal.
However, to impugn the analysis in the head posting on the ground that the beta feedback fraction is not constant requires a demonstration that an inconstant- or even a nonlinear-beta feedback model will give more accurate equilibrium sensitivities than the constant-beta model.
As a first approximation, the constant-beta model works surprisingly well,. And one certainly cannot assume that when using the corrected form of the zero-dimensional-model equation that is illustrated in the head posting one should assume a steeper linear slope or a greater nonlinearity than would be present if the incorrect current form of the equation is relied upon.
As Lacis et al. (2010) have pointed out, using the incorrect version of the zero-dimensional-model equation, the feedback fractions for the total greenhouse effect and separately for the current climate are identical. Not much nonlinearity or variance there, then.
The nonlinearity issue applies no less to the current system than to the corrected system.

Germinio

This whole thing is complete nonsense. Firstly the story about the vice-chancellor yelling at a whole department because of some paper would never happen in any UK university. And the fact that there are no details about which University it was only makes it more likely that it is a complete lie.
Secondly as discussed before Monckton’s alleged formula for the climate makes no sense
physically or mathematically. This is clear from the fact that he has a feedback coefficient with
the wrong units – he is claiming that an input temperature of T_in gives an output temperature
determined by some feedback – in which case the feedback parameter must be dimensionless.
Yet he says the feedbacks have dimensions of Wm^2 K^-1 which gives the wrong units to his
equations.
Moreover it is clear that temperatures do not act as an “input signal” to anything. If I were to ask
Monckton or anyone to apply a input signal of 255K to a pot of water and then measure the temperature what would that mean? I can apply heat to the pot of water, or energy in some other form but I cannot apply a temperature to a pot of water. Similarly I cannot apply a temperature signal to the earth. I would like to know what Monckton thinks applying a temperature signal means in relationship to a pot of water on a stove rather than applying heat or energy.
[?? .mod]

Nylo

Germinio, consider the signal “T” as a transformation of the actual signal in W/m2 which is the change in incoming energy. The “T” means the temperature change that would be needed for the outgoing energy to match the new incoming energy and therefore be at equilibrium, in absence of feedbacks. And the feedbacks represent how the actual change in temperature that happens relates to this theoretical change of temperature. A positive feedback means the temperature will change more than theoretical, because as it increases it induces other changes in the climate that either further increase the incoming energy by reducing albedo, or reduce the ability of the planet to cool by increasing the ammount of greenhouse gases (humidity), or reduce the energy lost due to convection. A negative feedback means the temperature will change less than theoretical because of the opposite changes in climate happening as the planet warms.

Germonio

Nylo – if the temperature is a transformation of the actual signal then Monckton’s argument is
nonsense since his formula explicitly has temperature as an input and as an output. If you want
to claim that the temperature is a transformation of the energy then it is a highly nonlinear function
given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and hence his feedback coefficients depend in a highly non-trivial
way on the reference state.
Again the claim that you can apply an input temperature signal to an object is plain wrong. There is no
clear or obvious meaning to the statement “apply a temperature signal of 255K” to any object.

If Germinio/Germonio and Mr Born think it inappropriate for feedback loops to be denominated in Kelvin, and if they therefore think it inappropriate that feedbacks themselves should be denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, then they should address their concerns not to me but to secretariat@ipcc.ch.
All we have done is to use the standard methodology that appears in paper after paper after paper in the learned literature. Several of these papers have been cited in this series.
As to Germinio/Germonio’s allegation that I have lied about the university’s misconduct, it is repellent that whoever this creepy individual is should make personal attacks on me from behind a craven, cowardly cloak of anonynmity. The allegation that I have lied should be disregarded, because Germinioi/Germonio lacks the guts to tell us who he is. He is contemptible.

jhborn

Germinio:
You seem to be nearly the only critical thinker left in the discussion. I, too, think that Lord Monckton has made no sense in using temperature as an input.
That said, one could imagine a transformation from forcing as an input to temperature as an input. Suppose we know the equilibrium relationship $g$ between temperature $T_{eq}$ and what we’ll call “total forcing” $F_{tot}$; i.e., we know that $T_{eq}=g(F_{tot})$. By “total forcing” I mean a quantity that has a temperature-dependent part $F$, usually thought of as the input forcing, and a temperature-dependent part $f(T_{eq})$ often thought of as feedback:
$T_{eq}=g[F+f(T_{eq})]$.
(Not that it matters, but here I’m thinking of forcing as an absolute quantity rather than the relative quantity $\Delta F$ usually encountered in such discussions.)
In this situation, in which our input is usually thought of a the temperature-independent forcing $F$, we could obscure things by expressing it as an input temperature $T_{ref}\equiv g^{-1}(F)$, where $g^{-1}$ is $g$‘s inverse function. That is, $T_{ref}$ is the temperature that the temperature-independent component would cause without feedback.
We could do that, but why would we want to—unless our purpose is to frighten the natives? It just confuses things; Lord Monckton’s writing is so vague, and his logic so incoherent, that we could never be sure that’s actually what he means. Moreover, it’s apparent that by using his obscure formulations he has confused himself along with everyone else.

The fact is that official climatology, in diagnosing sensitivities, uses the zero-dimensional model. That equation, like it or not, has a quantity in Kelvin as its input and a quantity in Kelvin as its output, and the two are related by the mu direct-gain factor, which is unitless, and the beta feedback fraction, which is unitless. The product of mu and beta, the feedback factor, is, therefore, also unitless: but it is the product of the Planck parameter, in Kelvin per Watt per square meter, and the feedback sum, which – like it or not – is denominated by official climatology in Watts per square meter per Kelvin. Anyone who considers that the zero-dimensional-model equation should not have Kelvin as its inputs and outputs, or who considers that temperature feedbacks should not be called temperature feedbacks and should not, therefore, be denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, should not imagine that attacking me for using these conventions from official climatology will be in the least bit effective. If you want to attack official climatology or lecture it about how wrong it is to use temperatures as the inputs and outputs in feedback loops, send an email to secretariat@ipcc.ch. Don’t try to hold my feet to the fire for what official climatology does: all I have done is to accept all of official climatology except what I can prove to be wrong.

Germonio

Monckton – your claim about the zero dimensional model is wrong as you know. In Roe 2009 which you
frequently cite the equation is written as
delta T = lambda_0 Delta F/(1-f)
so the input is a forcing Delta F and not a temperature. Claiming that the input is a temperature is
just wrong. lambda_0 Delta F has units of temperature but the input is Delta F not lambda_0* Delta F.
Having a temperature as an input to a physical system does not make any physical sense in any obvious
way. You still need to provide an explaination of how I could apply an input signal of 255K to a pot of water.
I can heat a pot of water but in that case I am applying an input signal that has units of W/m^2. Or I could
bring a pot of water to a specific temperature in which case there can be no feedbacks by definition.

Germonio needs to learn a little elementary climatology. The reference system in a dynamical system (i.e., in a system, such as the climate, that changes its state over time) upon which feedbacks operate consists of the input signal and any direct amplification thereof. The input signal in the climate is emission temperature, which is about 255 K. The mu direct-gain factor is 1.047. The product of that direct (or open-loop) gain factor, before taking any account of feedback, is 267 K. That is the reference temperature, of which 12 K is the directly-forced warming in response to the presence of the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Before we look at the return-transmission characteristic, or feedback fraction beta, and its effect, let us first of all show the link between radiation and temperature. The link is, of course, the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, whose first differential, to first approximation, is the Planck parameter, denominated in Kelvin per Watt per square meter. It can be approximated by the Schlesinger ratio (Schlesinger 1985), which is Ts / (4Q0), where Ts is surface temperature and Q0 is the emission flux, which is about 241.2 Watts per square meter at today’s albedo. So the Planck parameter increases approximately linearly with temperature, but very, very slowly. It is thus generally taken as constant in the industrial era. Since today’s temperature is 288.4 K, the current value of the Planck parameter is around 0.30, though, for convenience, it is usually taken as the reciprocal of 3.2.
Now we have the means of converting any radiative forcing into a temperature change. One merely takes the product of the forcing and the Planck parameter, and the reference temperature change emerges. Thus, for instance, the 3.5 W/m^2 forcing at doubled CO2 is divided by 3.2 to yield the reference warming of 1.1 K. Because the Planck parameter is near-invariant across the temperature interval of interest, official climatology finds it convenient to denominate feedback forcings not in Watts per square meter, as Germonio prefers, but in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature (or temperature change, or both) that induced the feedback forcings. If, therefore, Germonio would prefer the feedback forcings to be denominated in units other than Watts per square meter per Kelvin, he should address his concerns to secretariat@IPCC.ch.
For our part, we have accepted all of official climatology except what we can prove to be wrong. Therefore, we use mainstream methods – however unpopular they are with Germonio – unless we can prove them wrong. If Germonio thinks feedbacks do not respond to temperatures, his beef is not with me but with official climatology.

Germonio

Monckton, again you appear to be wrong and deliberately ignoring my main point. Firstly the Planck
parameter is precisely the first derivative of the Temperature with respect to the radiative forcing for a
black body and as such it goes like 1/T^3 and thus decreases slowly with temperature rather than
increases.
Again it makes no physical sense to claim that a temperature is an input signal. What does that mean?

Germonio thinks that “the Planck parameter is precisely the first derivative of the Temperature with respect to the radiative forcing for a black body and as such it goes like 1 / T^3 and thus decreases slowly with temperature rather than increases”.
It is important that if Germonio wishes to contribute usefully it should read my responses to its musings. I have already explained that the Planck parameter is, to first approximation, the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer. But I also explained that the first derivative, expressed as the change delta-Ts in surface temperature Ts per unit change delta-Qe in emission flux density Qe, is Ts / (4Qe). This is the Schlesinger ratio. Since the emission flux density Qe, at today’s albedo, is fixed at about 241.2 Watts per square meter, any increase in surface temperature Ts is bound to increase the Planck parameter, not reduce it. But it will not increase the Planck parameter by much.
The reason for taking the Planck parameter as the ratio of surface temperature to four times the emission-altitude flux density is that it is not “precisely” the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer. It is necessary to determine the derivative at each separate altitude and, preferably, latitude, and then integrate. The models do this: it is the sort of thing they are good at. But Schlesinger’s approximation (Schlesinger 1985) is a workmanlike simplification.
To illustrate how wrong Germonio is to assume that the Planck parameter is “precisely” the first derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, one has only to realize that the surface temperature today is 288.4 K and the surface flux density is about 392 K, and that would imply a Planck parameter of only 0.18, when actually it is about 0.31.
On Germonio’s second point, I have repeatedly explained that it is inherent in the corrected form of the zero-dimensional-model equation that the input signal will itself induce a feedback response. Germonio should really go away and consult a professor of control theory. That is what we did, and he is now a co-author.

Germonio

Monckton you need to read the literature more carefully. In Roe 2009, Eq 3 defines the Planck constant
as precisely 1/(4 sigma T^3) which is again precisely -1/(d F/dT). There is no first approximation it is
exact. This agrees with your definition since the emission flux depends on the fourth power of the
temperature so Ts/Q0 goes like 1/T^3.
If you want to define the Planck constant as something different then that is fine but that would involve
defining a completely new reference system which would have different feedbacks.
And on my second point it is that have a temperature as an input signal makes no physical sense.
As I have asked repeatedly and you have ignored is how would you apply an input signal of 255K
to a pot of water in your kitchen?

If only Germonio were interested in the objective truth rather than in shrieking for the Party Line, then its lack of mathematical acumen would be less of a barrier than it is. It is not my place to try to teach elementary calculus to Germonio, but I can at least explain that Te / (4Qe) and the reciprocal of 4 sigma Te^3 are equal. However, as I have now tried to explain to Germonio on several occasions, one cannot select the surface values Ts and Qs because that would give a Planck parameter of only 0.18. One cannot even take Te and Qe, because that would give a Planck parameter of only 0.26. It is necessary to take the values at each altitude and then integrate.
As I have repeatedly explained, the simplest approximation to that otherwise refractory integration is to take Ts and Qe: thus, today’s Planck parameter is 288.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.3 Kelvin per Watt per square meter. Since Qe remains constant at today’s albedo, which the head posting said would be held constant in accordance with the principle in Schmidt (2010), the Planck parameter increases linearly with temperature, and does not decrease exponentially as Germonio had attempted to assert.
Self-contradictorily, Germonio describes the Planck parameter as a “constant”. But one cannot in the same breath say it is a constant and an exponentially-diminishing variable. it is in reality a variable that increases approximately linearly in accordance with the Schlesinger ratio, because surface temperature, the numerator, increases while emission flux, the denominator, is by definition constant.
Germonio continues to refuse to learn not only the necessary differential and integral calculus but also to learn the necessary minimum of elementary control theory. Study the circuit diagram in the head posting. Study the equations set out in that diagram. Think about them. Don’t just recite the Party Line – any fool can do that, and a lot of fools do just that. Think man (if man you be).
One may denominate the input and output of a feedback loop in any convenient unit. Since feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induces the feedback response, it is always convenient to denominate the entire circuit in Kelvin, as I have done, and as is often done in the literature. Indeed, even in Roe’s paper, which of course contains the error that is the subject of this series, there are plenty of equations denominated in Kelvin for this reason.
Schlesinger (1985) actually changes his units from one part of the circuit to the next. One can do that, of course, but it is in danger of creating a muddle.
Germonio’s objection is in reality an objection to the denomination of feedbacks in Watts per square meter per Kevin of the originating temperature. Well, that is how official climatology denominates them. If Germonio thinks feedbacks should not be denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, and that, therefore, no one should denominate the inputs and outputs of climate-sensitivity calculations in Kelvin, let him address his concerns to secretariat@ipcc.ch, and not to me. I have made it repeatedly plain throughout this series that I have adopted all of official climatology except what I can prove to be wrong, and, whether Germonio likes it or not, official climatology denominates the emission temperature in Kelvin, the reference sensitivity in Kelvin and the equilibrium sensitivity in Kelvin. Of course, official climatology neglects to make any provision for the feedback response to emission temperature in its cut-down implementation of the zero-dimensional-model equation, and that is precisely the error that we have exposed.
Our professor of control theory is entirely content that we are right about this. Let Germonio not seek to preach to me: let it go and consult its own professor of control theory. But first, let it set aside the Party Line, just for a little, and let it think, and think hard, about the circuit diagram that I have taken the trouble to provide. See how it is entirely consistent with Bode (1945, ch. 3). See how it is mainstream science. No, it is not yet mainstream climate science, because mainstream climate science is in error.
And none of this has anything to do with putting a pot of water on the stove. However, it is necessary for the heating element in the stove to be hotter than the desired final temperature of the water. The temperature of the heating element is the input, and the temperature of the water is the desired output. But one does not want to wait for hours for the system to equilibrate, so one takes the pot off the stove as soon as the water is boiling. The temperature of the water – the output temperature – will be less than the input temperature from the heating element, because to save time the system is not allowed to reach equilibrium. But the input and output are denominated in temperature, for that is convenient. And feedbacks don’t really come into that calculation at all. Let us stick to the point, which is that if feedback processes are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that triggers them, then it is – to say the very least – convenient to know what that temperature is. From there it is but a short step to denominating the equilibrium-sensitivity equation in Kelvin, for one is concerned with the difference between the reference sensitivity (in Kelvin) and the equilibrium sensitivity (in Kelvin); and, if one uses the corrected form of the ZDM equation, one is also concerned with the feedback response to the input temperature (also in Kelvin).
If Germonio wants to write its own version of the ZDM equation, that’s fine by me: but I have adhered to official climatology’s method except where I can prove it to be wrong, and I have proven it to be wrong in overlooking the feedback response to emission temperature.

Germonio pays no attention to my answers, so I shall keep this one short. It is here trying to say that the Planck parameter is a constant, when previously it was trying to say that it was declining exponentially. It is in fact increasing linearly, but very slowly, with temperature, The simplest approximation is the Schlesinger ratio: Ts / (4Qe), where Ts is surface temperature and Qe is emission-altitude flux, which is constant at 241.2 Watts per square meter.
It is not my place to instruct the mathematically-challenged Germonio in elementary calculus, but it should be able to verify for itself without too much difficulty that the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, Te / (4Qe), is equal to the reciprocal of (4 Te^3). However, as I have explained, it is insufficient to take that first derivative either at the surface or at the emission altitude and call it the Planck parameter (the values would be 0.18 and 0.26 respectively). One must integrate across the emission surfaces at all altitudes, and the Schlesinger ratio does that to quite a respectable approximation. Therefore, the Planck parameter today is 288.4 / (4 x 241.2), or 0.30 (though IPCC usually takes 0.31 for convenience, because it is the reciprocal of 3.2). It is not, therefore, precisely the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer; it is not constant; it is not decreasing exponentially. It is increasing near-linearly, and very slowly.
As to Germonio’s second point, the fact remains that official climatology denominates temperature feedbacks (the clue is in the name) in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induces the feedbacks. It is, therefore, necessary to know what the input temperature in Kelvin is, and it is necessary to know what the mu gain factor is. Armed with these two values, together with the value of the feedback fraction beta, one can swiftly use the corrected form of the equation to derive the equilibrium temperature. If Germonio thinks that feedbacks ought not to be denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, it is really no good complaining to me: let it address its complaint to secretariat@ipcc.ch.
But it should be obvious even to Germonio, blinded as it is by the Party Line, the Party Line and nothing but the Party Line, that since feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin it is necessary to know the magnitude, in Kelvin, of the temperature that induces them.

Nigel S

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/16/leavis-snow-two-cultures-bust
Academic disputes are visceral precisely because most of what is disputed is trivial.

Germonio

Nigel,
I am not sure how that is relevant. What is the academic dispute you are talking about? Monckton is not an

Nigel S

You said ‘the story about the vice-chancellor yelling at a whole department because of some paper would never happen in any UK university. And … more likely that it is a complete lie.’ MoB is not a professional academic (thank God) but this is certainly ana academic dispute which takes us back to CP Snow.

Nigel S

So the informant is lying? I expect you work at a nice old one, not a modern upstart struggling for money to pay the vice chancellor’s inflated salary.
‘One of those who heard the vice-chancellor feared that the university would expose itself to fraud charges if it failed to admit that the Party Line had been wrong all along and instead went on applying for hundreds of millions of dollars a year in taxpayer funding for research on global warming that its senior members knew was not and is not going to happen at anything like the predicted rate. He broke ranks. There is goodness even in the grim, concrete camps of the Forces of Darkness. That is how we learned of the vice-chancellor’s meeting.’

The furtively pseudonymous “Germinio” falsely accuses me of lying, and does so from behind his cowardly cloak of anonymity, contrary to site policy here. If it wants to accuse me of lying, let it name itself and do so honestly, and also with evidence. Otherwise, no one here but “Germinio’s” fellow totalitarians will pay the slightest attention. It is “Germinio” who is lying, and is a lying coward to boot, because it is not willing to say who it is. How craven and poltroonish is that?

Dan DaSilva

Germinio, put the pot on a stove that has a constant temperature of 255K. Problem solved, heat will flow into the pot or out of the pot depending on temperature of pot.

Germonio

Dan,
That is my point – you are applying heat to the pot not a temperature. And if we adopt your
definition of how to apply a temperature signal then it is clear that there can be no feedback.
If you put the pot on a stove that has a constant temperature of 255K and then measure the
temperature of the put it will be at 255K.

Dan DaSilva

“If you put the pot on a stove that has a constant temperature of 255K and then measure the
temperature of the put it will be at 255K.”
Only true if there is no thermo resistance or if heat capacity of the pot is zero. Otherwise, it will take some time.

Germonio

Dan,
Of course it will take some time but that is irrelevant. You agree that energy (heat) is flowing into or out of the pot – that is the signal that is being applied not the temperature. The same is true with the earth –
energy flows into the climate and produces a temperature change. It makes no sense to say that a temperature is applied. Monckton’s formula makes no sense – if you want to claim that applying a temperature signal means bring a body into contact with an body at a constant temperature then there
can be no feedback .

Dan DaSilva

If the pot is losing heat to the air it will never reach the temperature of the 255k unless the thermal resistance between the stove and pot is zero. There will be temperature drops as heat flows through a thermal resistance just like voltage drops across a resistor. Even if the pot is in a vacuum it will radiate heat to colder objects. So I do not think it reasonable to assume the pot will be at 255K even if it has been on the stove for a long time. However, if the air and all other objects are at 255K then the pot it will settle at 255K.

Germonio

So Dan you are agreeing with me – if as you suggest applying a temperature signal of 255K means
surrounding the pot by an infinite thermal reservoir then the final temperature will be 255K so there
can be no feedback. This is then clearly not what Monckton means since he is claiming a feedback
from an input temperature signal. So again the claim that you can apply a “temperature signal” makes
no physical sense. You apply energy to a system you do not apply temperature.