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.
Not a blade of grass to gladden the students’ eyes in the eco-fraudsters’ paradise
Christopher,
I have been telling people about your result, and saying we don’t have to worry about global warming anymore, but unfortunately this evening I have discovered what I believe to be a flaw in it. Let
F_0 = solar flux density (forcing)
F_1 = CO2 forcing at 260ppm
F_2 = initial water vapour forcing before feedback
I think, but correct me in careful terms if I am wrong, that your result depends on F_2 being roughly proportional to F_0+F_1, so that any feedback (i.e. more forcing => higher temperature => more WV) depends on F_0. But unfortunately, if we convert into temperature via T_1 = c(F_0+F_1)^0.25, F_2 is proportional to something like T_1-277, and so that spoils the dependence on F_0. I get the 277 as follows: at https://brownell.co.uk/datasheets/basics_humidity.pdf there is a graph of absolute humidity against temperature for a relative humidity of 40%. It curves upwards, but for our purposes of interest around the current global temperature 14 deg C =287K we can draw a tangent to make it linear and passing through ordinate 0 and abscissa 4 deg C = 277K. So the slope of that line, which is going to affect the feedback quantity, is much steeper than if the abscissa was 0K.
Do you agree that looks like a problem? (And sorry, I hate to do alarmists’ work for them, but you did ask for review.)
If we have to deal with temperatures varying by latitude, then we have to integrate and it gets complicated.
Rich.
I am most grateful to Rich for having given some careful thought to our result. It would perhaps be helpful if I explained at the outset that we have adopted all of official climatology, for the sake of argument, except where we can prove it to be incorrect. The overwhelming majority of the criticisms of our result here have in fact been criticisms of the official Party Line. Rich’s comment comes somewhat into the same category. For his F(2) is described as “initial water vapor forcing before feedback”, but official climatology draws a distinction between the condensing and the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Little error arises, therefore, from taking it that there is no water vapor forcing and that the increase in specific humidity with temperature is entirely a feedback. That deals with Rich’s first point.
His second point is that the water vapor feedback, in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, increases with temperature. That point is addressed in the head posting, which points out that the logarithmicity of the absorption response offsets the exponentiality of the growth in specific humidity with temperature, so that the increase in water vapor feedback with temperature is approximately linear, and is in any event very small, because the expected increase in specific humidity in the mid- and upper-troposphere layers is not occurring, so that nine-tenths of the expected water vapor feedback cannot occur.
His third point is that it is difficult to integrate temperatures that vary by latitude. Well, a little geometric number theory helps. All one needs to know to do the dayside calculation, in the absence of any greenhouse gases or feedbacks, is to slice the lit hemisphere into, say, a billion equialtitudinal frusta: for it is a little-known but very useful property of equialtitudinal spherical frusta that their zonal surfaces are equiareal. For each of the billion frusta, the dayside temperature will be the product of the equatorial noon temperature and the cosine of the zenith angle. Summing the billion temperatures and dividing by one billion neatly integrates the latitudinal values. Of course, this is a rough and ready method, but it gives 288.9 K as the mean dayside emission temperature. Taking the nightside temperature as somewhere between the 250 K for a Merlis tidally-locked aquaplanet and 260 K (for the Merlis planet has an albedo 0.38, making it about 10 K cooler than the Earth) one gets a mean emisson temperature of 269.5-274.5 K. But we can’t yet prove that definitively, so we have simply taken official climatology’s value 255.4 K for the emission temperature. That is quite enough to get us into the right ballpark, and any increase in the true emission temperature reduces the feedback fraction and, consequently, all equilibrium sensitivities.
Christopher,
On the first point, I am not convinced by your argument about forcing versus feedback. If I am arguing agisnt IPCC then so be it. More important is to find a way, in relatively simple equations as you have done, to express feedback now in terms of current temperature changes, and show, hopefully, that it is small (but it may not be).
On the second point, your argument about what is observed to be happening now does not accord with your desire to show theoretically that we have arrived at now through low feedback rate processes. But I am happy to accept you arguments for linearity and in any case had rather suggested that with the tangent approach. What concerns me is the gradient of the line, theoretically, though I am prepared to listen to arguments that relative humidity is decreasing, however that is totally ungermane to your paper.
On the third point I wrote “complicated” not “difficult”. (I have happily integrated over (n-1)-dimension spheres to get the volume of an n-dimensional sphere.)
Unfortunately I cannot attend more to this discourse until Saturday, but I hope the thread may still be open then. I would intend to develop my equations above a little further, to see if they shed light on the feedback rate which, I feel, has to come mainly from water vapour. The problem I was trying to raise with you is that that feedback must be highly non-linear in the vicinity of freezing point, which cannot be ignored when wondering how one gets from -18degC (255K) to +14degC.
Until then, best wishes,
Rich.
In response to Rich, we shall have to agree to disagree on his first point, for we have accepted ad argumentum all of official climatology except what we can prove to be incorrect.
On his second point, our argument does not rest on what is happening now, for we base our result on three known and quite well constrained quantities: the emission temperature, the directly-forced warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases, and the equilibrium surface temperature as it was in 1850. That – assuming a constant feedback factor – gives 0.07 as the feedback factor and 1.2 K as the Charney sensitivity. Even if the feedback factor were in fact four times the 0.07 we have posited, Charney sensitivity would still be only 1.5 K. It is really not possible to suggest a steeper slope than that over the 20 K interval of interest from 267 K to 287 K. For one thing, a steeper slope, applied to the existing defective method of deriving the feedback factor, would produce a feedback factor > 1, and that would imply global cooling.
Recall that one can derive the official interval of predicted Charney sensitivities by using the official values of the reference sensitivity and the feedback factor, without imagining any contribution from emission temperature to the calculation. If, however, one insists on ignoring the emission temperature and also in predicting a far steeper slope for the change in the feedback factor with temperature than the actually quite small slope that official climatology imagines, one would indeed be predicting a feedback factor > 1. That consideration imposes an upper bound on the slope of the linear temperature response to the water vapor feedback (one may conveniently ignore the others, for they self-cancel).
On the third point, I am sufficiently familiar with spherical geometry to find it neither complicated nor difficult.
I think Monckton is a team. Maybe it’s the lord himself who handles the insults.
Silly Silber says it “thinks” I am a team. In fact, it knows I am part of a team, because, a little upthread, I told it so, explaining that I have numerous professors and doctors of science at my back. I can prove that Silly Silber read my comment, because it replied to it.
And yes, I am well familiar with handling the insults that cheap totalitarians such as Silly Silber habitually throw around. But, unlike most of those at whom such insults are directed, I give as good as I get.
This thread is being read with more than usual interest, and in a number of interesting and influential places. The sheer vapidity and feebleness of the totalitarians’ responses to our result, Silly Silber’s among them, is being noted, and is greatly helping to establish that our result is probably correct.
“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.”
But wait, say I. There are negative and positive feedbacks. What if the negative feedback changes more slowly than the positive feedback? Could it be then that the negative feedback is close to the positive feedback at 255 K, giving rise to a combined feedback factor of 0.07 when averaged over the range from 255 K to 287 K, while the positive feedback is dominant at 287 K, giving rise to a combined feedback factor of 0.67 in that neighborhood?
The question arises: did Monckton know of Monckton’s grave error?
Or has he fully characterized all negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks over the range of interest, allowing him to make such a vainglorious pronouncement? If so, is this work shown somewhere?
ScottM has perhaps not read the earlier articles in this series, where all of the temperature feedbacks regarded by official climatology as relevant to the derivation of equilibrium sensitivities are described. In practice, all feedbacks but the water vapor feedback self-cancel. The water vapor feedback is the only one large enough (if it were as large as official climatology imagines) to allow a feedback factor as high as 0.67 to be claimed: but, even then, our theoretical derivation of a feedback fraction one-tenth of that value does not depend on knowing any individual feedback. We have taken a top-down approach, starting with numbers on which just about everyone agrees.
The only uncertainty in our result relates to the (actually near-linear) rate of growth in the feedback factor with temperature. What is the slope of the line? Nobody actually knows. But we can linearize the near-exponential growth in specific humidity with temperature and infer even quite a steep slope for that line, and it is really very difficult to derive a feedback factor more than about twice our 0.07. Even if – per impossibile – it were four times that, Charney sensitivity to doubled CO2 would only be 1.5 K. Hope this helps.
Is water linear when it turns to ice?
Monckton of Brenchley, just asking, is this a stupid question? I am expecting a response because I got your name correct. thanks.
In response to Mr da Silva, this is no place for me to give a lecture on the thermodynamics of the triple-point of water, or the formidable thermal inertia of ice. What one can say, however, is that at present there is simply far too little ice on Earth to make much difference to the calculation. And, if we are dealing with the water vapor feedback, we are by definition dealing with water that is already in its gaseous phase – water, in short, that is above freezing.
Monckton of Brenchley , So water will never freeze in this model? I was just taking the model to its extreme which may be a stupid thing to do. Let me say that I respect you and your efforts and I am sorry to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I hate the consensus and I am sorry for being flippant with you.
I am most grateful to Mr da Silva for his charming apology. And yes, water freezes, but the moment it does so it ceases to deliver a water-vapor feedback.
However, even on a snowball Earth, the surface temperature at the equator at noon would be 300 K, and that is not a lot different from today’s equatorial temperature during the day. So there might well be some open water at the Equator even with an albedo twice today’s 0.29. And that woiuld allow a water-vapor feedback to begin.
What we know is that, at the temperature equilibrium in 1850, before Man had any appreciable influence, the emission temperature was 255 K, the additional temperature directly forced by the non-condensing greenhouse gases was 12 K, and the surface temperature was 287 K. Therefore, 20 K of that 287 K was a feedback response not only to the 12 K of direct greenhouse warming but also to the 255 K of emission temperature. So the feedback fraction at the 1850 equilibrium was 1 – (255+12) / 287, or 0.07, and not the 1 – 12 / (287 – 255) = 0.63 imagined by official climatology.
For variety, alliteration, and “swing,” I suggest occasionally writing “consensus climatology” in place of “official climatology.”
Roger Knights’ phrase is certainly alliteratively catchy, but I am reluctant to give any credence to the notion of “consensus”, which is a totalitarian political concept and has been ruled out from all serious science since the time of al-Haytham, who sternly rejected it as a basis for scientific research as far back as the 11th century.
Of course, there ought to be no such thing as “official” climatology either, but there is, and it was wrong, and it was protected from the exposure of that wrong for decades by the hold that it gained over governments.
The Arctic has actually strongly reversed its comparatively infinitesmal period of naturally occurring cyclic melting and TOTAL ice mass has now moved up into its multidecadal average and is above 2013/2014 levels.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180425.png
In this animation…from “official” climatology, it is painfully obvious that solar maximums result in a smaller Arctic sea ice coverage….CYCLICALLY, as always.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/piomas-monthly-thickness-map
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/04/2018-winter-arctic-sea-ice-bering-down/
Furthermore, there is currently over 500 gigatons MORE snow than the average in the Northern Hemisphere at this very moment.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2018/04/Figure5-1-350×576.png
This latest Winter in Britain may well be remembered as the last marginally palatable Winter for some time to come.
Consensus isn’t a basis for science. One isn’t going to “prove” anything scientifically through a consensus. It is, however, a gauge of agreement among scientists and carries weight (or it ought to) in terms of how the public can (and should) perceive the issue. Consensus should carry political weight. Otherwise, what is the public to go by? They aren’t generally equipped to assess the science. Many can be fooled by a bunch of equations, numbers and graphs, unfortunately, allowing laymen to make up in quantity what the skeptic scientists can’t because they are so few. I’m sure there are more than are vocal about it, but there are only a few dozen at the core, making the most difference in policy and publicity. Then there are the economists, think tankers, bloggers and jack-of-all-trades who write about climate science. But what a major influence they have, despite the small numbers.
On one side, a relatively small group of contrarian scientists with enormous public influence who don’t have any agreement about climate change except that it’s not going to be bad enough to do anything about. Many are policy advocates, and many have direct or indirect ties to Big Oil.
On the other side, the consensus: 1000s of scientists around the world who have amassed a body of research that is still being filled out, but provides ample theoretical, observational and experimental evidence from several disciplines — AGW is a scientific Theory.
Hmmm.
Silly Silber falls back on the usual defensive position of every totalitarian hater of humanity: the Party Line, here tediously rebranded with the Latin word “consensus” to try to make it sound a little grander and less nakedly, childishly political. Since Silly Silber is a doggedly supine reciter of every ludicrous mantra handed down by the Central Committee, let us see how the Central Committee’s approved quango, the Intergummintal Panel on Climate Claptrap, defines the “consensus” proposition. That proposition says no more than that recent warming was mostly manmade. It might even be true. However, the quango, whose duty is to provide a fair reflection of the peer-reviewed literature, had plainly not read it. For Legates et al., 2013, found that of 11,944 papers on climate and related topics published after peer review in the learned journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 just 41, or 0.3%, had specifically stated that recent warming was mostly manmade, or words to that effect. Baffling, then, that the quango decided that this “consensus” proposition was true to “95% confidence” – incidentally pretending that this proposition had been reviewed and approved by some statistically recognizable method, which it had not. It had been decided upon by a show of hands among scientifically-untutored government representatives.
So here are a few more Latin phrases that Silly Silber may like to learn. The first is “argumentum ad populum”, the fallacy of arguing from headcount, and the second is “argumentum ad verecundiam”, the fallacy of argument from the supposed reputation of imagined experts. As the SAS says, “x, an unknown quantity: spurt, a drip under pressure.” In appealing to “consensus”, the totalitarians are not only flying in the face of the overwhelming preponderance of the peer-reviewed literature, which is honest enough to be silent about what fraction of recent warming was manmade, for the honest scientific truth is that we do not know, but also flying in the face of logic and reason. The only valid conclusion from a logical fallacy, such as the headcount and reputation fallacies, is that the perpetrator of those fallacies is insufficiently educated.
There is not, of course, any “consensus”, even among mathematically-challenged climatologists, to the effect that the emission temperature does not induce a feedback response in the presence of feedback processes. The vast majority of them, on both sides of the debate, have never gotten to grips with enough control theory to hold any opinion on the subject. Furthermore, since our result has not yet been published, the supposed “consensus” has not yet had the opportunity to review it in all its glorious detail. So there can be no “consensus” on it yet.
In any event, if Silly Silber had actually bothered to read the head postings in this series, it would see that, over and over again, we have stated that for the sake of argument we have accepted all of official climatology except what we can prove to be incorrect. We can prove, by the method sufficiently described in these articles, that official climatology has made a grave error of physics. No amount of appealing to “consensus” will make the slightest difference to that conclusion if it proves to be correct. Silly Silber may well find that in due course it will be told to recite a new and less silly Party Line, just like the orator in 1984 who, in mid-speech, was handed a note to the effect that the Party Line had been changed, whereupon he seamlessly negated all his remaining sentences and vigorously attacked the very position that, moments earlier, he had been passionately supporting. So it will be with Silly Silber, who, having insufficient knowledge of the scientific method and insufficient intention to discern what is true, is condemned merely to recite, over and over again, whatever nonsense the Central Committee has told it to utter. This abnegation of rational thought is not so much contemptible as pitiable.
The reason why the actually fast-growing band of scientists who question the Party Line are so successful at punching above their weight is that we are interested in the truth and determined, notwithstanding the shrieking vilification to which totalitarians such as silly Silber direct at us, to find it. That takes work and thought and effort and not a little money, for it is the totalitarians who have the money, the power and the glory, and we have nothing but an enquiring thirst for the objective truth. Therefore, they have nothing, and we have everything. And that is why we are prevailing, as even Silly Silber recognizes.
CMoB wrote, “I am reluctant to give any credence to the notion of “consensus” …”
That could be remedied by putting “consensus” inside sneer-quotes. I haven’t found it necessary to do so when I’ve used it on this site, because readers here generally believe 1) that the consensus has been artificailly created (e.g., by recruiting primarily “greenies” and social malcontents); that its extent has been exaggerated (e.g., to the absurd 97%, vs. von Storch”s more realistic 80% maximum); and 3) that it has been partly “manufactured” by propaganda and social/economic pressure.
To us and, I suspect, many Americans, “consensus” has the negative connotations of herds, crowds, sheep intimidated by our designated drovers, lemmings, applauders of the emperor’s new clothing, go-along/get-along careerists, trendies, wrong-headed majorities, etc.
In response to Mr Knights, sneer-quotes around the word “consensus” are a good idea, but become vexatious to readers if repeated. The phrase “official climatology”, without quotes, conveys much the same air of contempt but without annoying the readers when repeated.
As to the extent of the “consensus”, Legates et al. (2013) established that, of 11,944 papers published in peer-reviewed journals on climate and related topics in the 21 years 1991-2011, only 41, or 0.3%, explicitly stated their assent to the “consensus” proposition that recent warming is mostly manmade.
Any melting in Antartica is certainly from ice that extends from the land mass. It is melted mainly by undersea volcanic activity. Volcanic activity is very much on the rise globally due to a weakening of Earth’s magnetic field in conjunction with a deep solar minimum. As the magnetic poles continue their rapid movement it is being measured by NASA. Both poles are migrating toward each other on paths that meet in the Indian Ocean. The site of that series of earthquakes that caused so much commotion several yrs. back. The very opposite side of the globe features the well known South Atlantic Anomoly.
While all this is going on the most important thing to monitor is the rapidly increasing cosmic ray flux which rapidly induces greater cloud cover increasing the Earth’s albedo and quickly cooling the planet.
We’re going to at least a Maunder Minimum type event. Crop yields are now paramount.
I’m sure Lord M is aware of this.
I also have to say that because the global warming hysteria has wasted so much precious time, it WILL go down in history as the most devastating human folly/fraud of all time.
Anomalous Howard is, of course, correct that one cannot attribute the recent dip in Antarctic sea-ice extent to global warming. In fact, even after that dip (from which the sea-ice extent is now recovering) there has been an uptrend in Antarctic sea-ice extent at a rate of 2.8% per decade, while the Arctic sea-ice extent has declined at 2.7% per decade. But there is about thrice as much Antarctic sea ice as Arctic sea ice, so the global sea-ice trend has actually been upward throughout the satellite era, not that that interesting fact is mentioned by the climate fanatics.
It has also become apparent that the predicted declines in populations of polar bears in the Arctic and penguins in he Antarctic have not occurred. Perhaps next April 1 we should circulate a Greenpeace memo giving a dire warning that global warming will cause the polar bears to eat the penguins.
Anomalous Howard,
Yeah, I remember reading that – the poles were going to meet – but can’t figure out where in the Indian Ocean they were headed. Being exactly opposite the South Atlantic Anomaly narrows it down, though.
Have to disagree with you about the Maunder. Maybe a Meander.
Dear Lord Monckton,
As an engineer I feel that your analysis has the ring of truth about it. If it turns out to be correct then I hope it will start to bring an end to the colossal misdirection of time and effort that has been the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) scare. However, we should not underestimate the huge political inertia in this hysterical endeavour and so, I am afraid, a slow exit from this erroneous path is likely.
To hasten the demise of the CAGW scare the realists should point out that this is not the first time that the much vaunted “experts” of the IPCC have behaved like scientific amateurs. Recall that, after huge effort by a small number of dedicated souls, the Hockey Stick icon of the CAGW agenda was shown to be nothing more than an artefact of erroneous statistical analysis.
As Oscar Wilde’s Mr Worthing might have been told, “To once use unprofessional methods may be regarded as a misfortune; to do so a second time looks like carelessness.” Unfortunately I am neither as witty nor as charitable as Oscar; I feel that the CAGW scare has been a largely political process from the outset and that many of those who engaged in the charade soon came to realise it was just that, but – given the antagonism unleashed against unbelievers – understandably lacked the courage to speak out. So I ask myself where to place these people on the line from honesty to dishonesty that passes via exaggeration, distortion, sins of omission, spin doctoring, bullshit, etc. Perhaps we all have our own opinion on this question!
Anyway, I hope your efforts help to bring humanity back to the ways of correct (and less politicised) scientific thinking sooner rather than later.
Very well done! And all best wishes for your further endeavours in this most important field.
Regards,
Idiot_Wind.
I am most grateful to the curiously-named Idiot_Wind for his kind and perceptive comments. One can tell from the tone and tenor of the comments by the few ranting, canting totalitarians who have tried and failed to land blows on our result here that the global warming scam was a financial fraud and a political campaign to damage the West.
It is certainly right not to underestimate the power or determination of the financial and political vested interests that have driven this scam. However, one should also not underestimate the power of a formal mathematical demonstration. Any honest observer reasonably familiar with control theory will realize at once, as our co-author who is a professor of applied control theory realized, that our central point is correct. One cannot, as IPCC dishonestly tries to do, simply redefine “feedback” so as deliberately to exclude the actually large feedback response to emission temperature, attributing that response instead to the very small additional temperature from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Assuming that our result is indeed correct and that official climatology eventually allows it to be published in a leading climate journal, open-minded climatologists at universities throughout the world will show our paper to their control-theory colleagues and ask them whether we are right. The reply will, of course, be that we are right. The corrected form of the zero-dimensional-model equation for the operation of a feedback amplifier circuit, as shown in the head posting, makes it inevitable that feedback processes do not respond only to the 12 K of directly-forced greenhouse warming but also to the 255 K of pre-existing emission temperature. The failure of the various paid or unpaid totalitarian defenders of the Party Line here to acknowledge that fact indicates that they have not the slightest interest in the truth.
From their misconduct, one can deduce that it will be some time yet before our result is universally accepted as obviously true. At that point, the believing totalitarians will try to become more sophisticated than the drones who have commented adversely here, and will do their best to contain the damage by saying that despite climatology’s error there will still, somehow, be something like as much warming as the usual suspects had predicted. That will delay matters a little, but, in the end, it will become clear to all that this was a huge error on the part of official climatology, and governments will slowly distance themselves from this nonsense.
In mentioning the totalitarians who have unfairly and inadequately and sneeringly tried to derail our argument without the slightest regard for the truth, I do not in any way criticise those commenters who have raised sensible and serious scientific points and have done so with reasonable courtesy and honesty. But those who have childishly sneered have been treated with the contempt they so richly deserve, and it is interesting how many of them, on being given a taste of their own medicine, have shrieked in impotent fury. Like all bullies, they like to dish it out but they can’t take it.
Well, their day is done.
Even Kim Jong Un understands. North Korea’s biggest threat now would be their former isolation now that climate cycles will produce an extended cold period threatening crops and seriously threatening climate.
Climate moves history on this very day. Mark it.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=59964
…seriously threatening crop yields.
And as I’m sure some here are also aware, the reason for Kim’s emergence from isolation is the same reason for two other macro “situations”.
These situations also have to do with entire regions of the planet.
A.) It is well known that during a period of glaciation (which is what the Earth experienced during the Maunder Minimum), one of the most viable areas of the globe is the region encompassing the Middle East.
In what direction have the native populations of this area been forced to migrate en masse?
Exactly the wrong direction in which one should very soon desire to go. Basically depopulating and creating space for a southward migration. Those who have left will not be going back, I imagine…but others will repopulate the region…newly freed up as it will be.
B.) It is also well known that on North America the most viable area in the near future will be the American Southwest. The volcanic activity in Central and South America along with crop destroying weather will force inhabitants to relocate. BUT…maybe there will be a wall stopping their flow into the American Southwest land of viability. Canadians however, are few…and polite.
Events are shaped by climate. Every empire rises and falls with the climate.
From February 2016 to February 2018 global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C.
This is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1880s, the planet has warmed by about 0.8 degrees C.
Another Ice Age Begins Once Global Average Temperature Continues Down Just 1/4 More Degree C.
Keep an eye on the Southern Hemisphere.
Beyond the global warming argument there lies the next pressing need for scientific investigation of the climate and its workings. Note I do not use the word, “into”, but rather, “of”. The problem that has crept up on the globe under the scientific static created by those who peddled the anthropogenic/CO2 nonsense.
I have touched on the contours of it in my above postings.
The problem is actually highly calculation intensive at its root…as is everything, really. But it is in dire need of attention by those who have good scientific discernment.
I have built an extensive brief of the problem, for public consumption so it’s not heavily mathematical. All references to where the math lies are available throughout the brief.
You may access it here:
https://bit.ly/2w11Utk
“Idiot wind” is the title of a Bob Dylan song in 1974. It contains this:
So his choosing that “handle” is self-deprocating.
Most grateful to Roger Knights. I wondered where the curious name “Idiot Wind” had come from. Being Classically trained, I very seldom listen to any music composed after about 1825, unless it is my own, so I am at present ignorant of more recent lyrics.
Mr Tomalty – You are mistaken in your assertion that WV increase “is completely false”. Table 1 at the link you provided, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/ shows an increase in TPW of 2.19% per decade 1990-2001 compared to the 1.5% per decade, 1988 to now, for the NASA/RSS data which has been reported through March, 2018.
In response to Mr Pangburn, in an earlier article in this series I pointed out that, though the precipitable water vapor has increased in the lower troposphere, it has reduced in the middle and upper troposphere, where nine-tenths of the supposed water vapor feedback is imagined to occur. This may well be the main reason why the models’ predictions are so far askew. In their anxiety to explain the 20 K of feedback-driven warming to 1850, they had foolishly assumed that all of that 20 K was a feedback response to the 12 K warming from the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases, when less than 1 K of it was attributable to those gases. Then they had to imagine a feedback large enough to produce such a huge feedback factor, and water vapor was elected.
Monckton mentions Ibn al-Haytham. He was a wise man:
“The DUTY OF A MAN WHO INVESTIGATES THE WRITINGS OF SCIENTISTS, if learning the truth is his goal, is to MAKE HIMSELF AN ENEMY OF ALL THAT HE READS make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and… ATTACK IT FROM EVERY SIDE,” he wrote. “He should also SUSPECT HIMSELF as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may AVOID FALLING INTO either PREJUDICE OR LENIENCY.”
Pot calls kettle black. The hallmark of unthinking totalitarian adherents to some tedious and often murderous Party Line or another is that they have become altogether incapable of self-criticism, believing that if they parrot the Party Line they must be safe and they must be right. Silber, however, knows strikingly little science, and is in any event simply not interested in the objective truth.
Here is a reply I gave earlier to a commenter here (a good deal less impolite and hysterical than the silly Silber) who had asked whether we had scrutinized our own result as thoroughly as we should.
==================================
“Mr Smith makes the excellent point that one must check and check and check again. Indeed, al-Haytham, who founded the scientific method in the East as Thales of Miletus had done in the West, said in 11th-century Iraq that one should be deeply suspicious of one’s own results, and should subject them to the most searching scrutiny, investigation, inspection, inquiry and verification.
“That is why, when I first realized that something was amiss with official climatology’s derivation of feedback responses, I recruited three eminent co-authors and published a paper two years ago in the Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences giving, among other things, a first outline of our concerns, though we had not at that stage tracked down official climatology’s error. We knew there was one, but we did not know what it was.
“That paper provoked perhaps the most vicious campaign of totalitarian hatred ever directed at a blameless individual. One of our co-authors found his reputation trashed on the front pages of Science, Nature, the New York Times, the Boston Globle, the Journal of Education, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times et hoc genus omne.
“As a result of that hate campaign, I realized that there was something in our paper for the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy that had upset the Green Blob more than somewhat. Most of our paper was an unexceptionable pedagogical account of the zero-dimensional-model equation and its utitlity in climate-sensitivity studies. There was nothing in that uncontroversial account to provoke the malice directed at my award-winning co-author. But there was a single paragraph in which we had briefly aired our concern about some irregularities that were evident in official climatology’s handling of feedbacks. It was plainly that paragraph that had provoked the organized, paid fury of the marxstream media.
“So, after a long discussion with the then editor of Energy & Environment, I wrote a full-length paper setting out in mathematical terms the reasons why I thought there was something wrong with climate feedback math. I said that at that stage I did not know what was wrong, and I asked readers to contact me if they were able to shed light on the problem I had identified.
“A few months later, an electronics engineer who had heard of this paper got in touch and said that indeed there was an error in official climatology’s method. However, that was a small error, which would have made a difference of only 0.1 K to global temperatures. But the engineer told me to read Bode’s textbook on feedabck amplifiers and network analysis, published in 1945, which had been a best-seller worldwide for several decades until the digital revolution made the study of feedback less important. As soon as I read ch,. 3, on feedback, I realized at once what official climatology had gotten wrong. I recruited numerous co-authors and we set to work on drafting a paper.
“So stark was the difference between IPCC’s definition of a “feedback” and the definition in Bode’s text that we decided to build a test rig to verify that, even if there were no amplification of the input signal by greenhouse gases, that input signal would still generate a feedback response, in the form of a higher output signal, in the presence of a non-zero feedback process. Sure enough, a signal was measured, and it was exactly what our use of the equation had predicted it would be.
“We were not satisfied, however, and we commissioned a government laboratory to build a more sophisticated test rig and operate it under strict laboratory conditions, including careful control of the ambient temperature in a special chamber. The result was the same as it had been on our own rig. We carried out some two dozen different tests to investigate different properties of the corrected form of the zero-dimensional-model equation, and in every case, to the nearest tenth of a Kelvin, the result was as the equation had predicted it would be.
“So we wrote up our research in the form of a learned paper. That paper is now out for peer review at a leading climatological journal. We are not expecting to be given an easy ride, for our result has come as a great shock to the hate-filled totalitarians some of whom are paid to disrupt discussion threads here, for this website is far more dangerous to the Green Blob’s totalitarian ambitions than is generally realized. The hatred directed at me for having dared to do this research and to publish an account of it in this series was a further clue suggesting that we were on the right track. For if we were obviously wrong, there would be no need to direct hatred at us. All that would be necessary would be to track down an experienced control theorist and invite him or her to review our work. That is what we did, and the control theorist made one or two modest corrections, but otherwise found our result to be correct.
“The process of peer review will be a further level of checking. The journal to which we sent our paper is right at the heart of official climatology, and we chose it precisely because we expected its reviewers to be hostile. Therefore, they will do their very best to find any weaknesses in our result. If there is a fatal flaw, you can be sure that they will find it. And, once they have found it, that will be that. But if they do not find a fatal flaw, we expect the journal to allow us to make such major or minor revisions as may be necessary and then to publish our result.
“Then the final round of checking will begin, as the entire discipline directs its searching gaze at our result. There will of course be counter-papers. But official climatology will find that, to a large extent, its freedom to overthrow our result is limited, because it has borrowed feedback methodology from electronic network analysis without really understanding it, as is all too evident from some of the comments here from the totalitarian shriekers. We think, therefore, that if we succeed in getting as far as publication, it will be very difficult to impugn our result.
“However, I bear in mind at every stage that, eminent though my co-authors be, we may all be wrong and the totalitarians right after all. All that one can really say at this stage is that we have done quite a bit more checking and scrutinizing our own result than would perhaps be normal, and we are prepared to do quite a bit more to answer any genuine concerns that the reviewers may have. I hope that Mr Smith will find this account of our researches helpful. He may be left wondering why, given that the point we are making is so simple and so obvious, we did not find it a great deal sooner than we did. I have known for at least six years that there was something wrong with feedback mathematics, and had been researching climate questions for another six years before that. Well, it took time because our result is, at first blush, so surprising. At first, we found it hard to believe that such an elementary error could have been perpetrated. So we went back and read all the early papers on feedback in the climate, and we saw exactly how the error had crept in.
“To make assurance doubly sure, we also consulted several of the world’s most eminent physicists in various relevant fields. They tell us we are not wrong. Of course, they too could be wrong. But, for the moment, we are entitled to think, cautiously, that we may be right.”
=======================
Silly Silber has made no constructive suggestions at any stage. It merely snidely snipes. But its pathetic comments, like those of other paid agents of the Green Blob who officiously go around sneering at their betters, serve as an excellent advertisement for the likely correctness of our result. I am already receiving comments from some interesting places to the effect that, even by the lackluster standards of the climate fanatics, the responses to our result on the part of the totalitarians have been more than usually insubstantial. If this is the best that the totalitarian shriekers can do, then it’s all over bar the shouting.
Dear Lord Monckton,
At 4.17am on 27th you wrote, ” … but, in the end, it will become clear to all that this [climate hysteria] was a huge error on the part of official climatology, and governments will slowly distance themselves from this nonsense.”
I hope you are correct in your analysis. However, I fear that the climate hysteria’s Forces of Darkness (as you have called them) are part of a larger problem of which many in the West are, as yet, only dimly aware and which we have not yet started to counter effectively – although your current endeavour is, I very much hope and trust, a major step in reversing the situation.
As this is essentially a technical thread I do not wish to derail it, but I think the issue should be flagged, albeit briefly, for future reference, namely the weakening of democracy in the West that has occurred (at the latest) from the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Several commentators have written books on the topic [for example Refs 1, 2, and 3] and the censorship instigated by the BBC about a decade ago in relation to climate change issues is a real-world example from the realm of the much compromised mainstream media.
I will close by quoting the committed environmentalist and scientist Peter Taylor [Ref. 2, page 367], “The apocalyptic vision of climate chaos is thus not only an illusion born of hubris and maintained by religious fanatics; it is a deception on a grand scale and it serves the same powers and elites that the old stories served. It promises salvation and the defeat of an old enemy, but with more jobs and greater prosperity in a future green economy. That the green economy will be wearing a black shirt is not yet obvious, as such things seldom are at the outset.”
I think we should take note of Peter Taylor’s warning.
References
1. Colin Crouch, “Post-Democracy”, polity, 2004.
2. Peter Taylor, “Chill – a reassessment of global warming theory”, Clairview Books, 2009.
3. T. Cave & A. Rowell, “A Quiet Word – lobbying, crony capitalism and broken politics in Britain”, Vintage Books, 2015.
With best regards,
Idiot_Wind.
I agree with Idiot_Wind that the totalitarianism that began in the West with the monarchical dictatorship of Henry VIII, continued with the brutal monstrosities of the French revolution and then hideously mutated in Germany, Russia and China is now making great headway in the West, particularly among universities. However, the joy of our result is that the totalitarians, in their eagerness to use the global warming scam to bring down the Western economies with rationed and overpriced fuel and power, based their campaign of hatred and destruction on what turns out to be bogus science – and the bogosity turns out to be quite easy to prove.
If we are right, eventually the world will laugh at the totalitarians who dedicated themselves to the New Superstition – and there is nothing totalitarians hate more than being laughed. No one will be able to take them seriously. Do not underestimate the power of a formal proof in mathematical physics to undermine the totalitarian project by demonstrating that They were irremediably, gravely, entirely wrong.
What I find most fascinating about these recent Monckton threads is how the Totalitarians keep coming back with stuff that has nothing to do with Monckton’s process/result, leaving Monckton to repeat: “We have used official IPCC/climatology assumptions….[etc]”
This is what gets them the most nervous! For even if Monckton et al are shown to be wrong somewhere, there is still much to pursue in all of current climate science’s base assumptions, let alone the wriggle room in their conclusions (even though they pronounce with such certainty!) Someone might find Monckton et al to be wrong, but it will probably be because one of the base assumptions of all climate science is incorrect as well!
They know Monckton et al are really on to something, right or wrong in his result.
I admire Monckton’s patience and tenacity with this entire endeavor (i.e, posting to WUWT). Yes, his patience does were thin, but he deals with it using well-crafted, chlling and humorous prose. He’s obviously a confident person, but always humble enough to say “I may be wrong.”
The various computations do not appear to consider the cyclic nature of the global air temperature change. The longer duration warming-cooling cyclic change espoused by climatologists and the shorter duration warming-pause in warming cyclic change evident in global air temperature graphs would seem to suggest a cyclic cause for the temperature change. The greenhouse effect does not appear to be cyclic.
Mr Everett is broadly correct that the greenhouse effect, or at least the anthropogenic fraction of it, is generally cumulative in that the residence time of CO2 is of order 40 years, according to Professor Lindzen, so that while we continue to be strong emitters of CO2 its concentration will tend to accumulate, whereupon its forcing will continue to strengthen and global temperature must rise.
That said, the value of our theoretical approach is that it considers the difference between emission and equilibrium temperatures at the 1850 equilibrium, before Man had noticeably perturbed the climate system. Our method establishes that the feedback factor cannot be greatly in excess of 0.07 or thereby, whereas official climatology would imagine 0.67 or even (in Lacis 2010) 0.75.
Our method, though tested empirically in the industrial era, does not depend upon the empirical derivations of equilibrium sensitivity in that era as reported e.g. in Lewis & Curry 2015, 2018. Therefore, the very large uncertainties that would arise from various causes, including the cyclicity of the natural climate mentioned by Mr Everett, would greatly affect Lewis & Curry’s result, but would not affect ours at all.
I am most grateful to Bruckner8 for his kind comments. It is indeed of no little significance that the totalitarians commenting here have, over and over again, found themselves unwittingly attacking the very Party Line (or, as they would put it. “consensus”) to which they have sworn unthinking allegiance.
And one can tell from the desperate, shrieking and sometimes hysterical tone of the comments, some of them dripping with pure malice, that the totalitarians are, as we used to say in Yorkshire, “frit”. Our central result is very simple. Though they have elaborately and inconsistently pretended at one moment not to understand it and the next to have understood it well enough to condemn it, and me, because our result is simple they understand it full well, and they know perfectly well that it is very, very likely to be true.
That is why so many of them, so often, have found themselves – some of them even after having been warned of what they are doing – attacking some aspect or another of their own Party Line, because they know it is so much more vulnerable to attack than our result.
That does not mean our result is correct. But all those totalitarians who have ended up attacking not what we have done but what official climatology has done have, of course, wasted their energy and have entirely failed to land a blow on what we have discovered.
None of this says that we are right. It does say that the shrieking totalitarians, some of them lavishly paid to disrupt these threads, are entirely inadequate to muster a sound, scientific case against our result. And nearly all of them have betrayed their political proclivity by wasting their venom in directing personal attack after personal attack on me, just as the old Disinformation Directorate of the KGB under Ion Mihai Pacepa taught them and their ilk to do. But I am supported by a distinguished team of scientists, and my reputation is no longer the issue – if ever it was.
Now that our result is available, the muttered, nervous discussions among the ranks of the ungodly have already begun. They can see where our result will lead, if it is proven to be correct. And, having watched their fellow totalitarians, one after another, coming to grief here and, in a striking number of instances, attacking the Party Line and not attacking our result, they can begin to see that – at the very least – it is not at all easy altogether to dismiss our result. It has too much going for it.
We suspect that we shall now be subjected to long delays in peer review. But we shall persist until either we are published or some reviewer produces a definitive argument demonstrating that it is we who have erred.
We may be wrong, but we may also be right.
Christopher,
It is Saturday and I am back. The time for words is over, as only mathematics can explain my point. You may well be right that the IPCC is wrong on this, but that does not necessarily mean that your alternative is right. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
I start once again with letting
F_0 = solar flux density (forcing), in W/m^2
F_1 = CO2 forcing at 1850’s 260ppm plus other anthropogenic effects but no water vapour
With just F_0, we have temperature
T_0 = c F_0^.25 in Kelvin
Taking T_0 = 255 and F_0 = 1360/4 = 340 we derive
c = 59.4
Now with F_0+F_1 we have T_1 = c(F_0+F_1)^0.25. I am not sure what T_1 should be, because from your article the 255+12 = 267 value seems to include water vapour with no feedback? However I derive a value for F_1 below anyway.
With feedbacks we observe that in 1850 we reached T_2 = 287. If your feedback function is correct then you derive
beta = 1-T_1/T_2 = 1-267/287 = 0.0697 ~ 0.07
However, the crux is how does the feedback really happen, and does it depend on the whole of F_0 and hence T_0? I take (as of today, April 28th) a totally different view, which is that all things watery, viz. vapour, clouds, snow, ice caps, produce a forcing which is dependent on temperature. Since water then influences temperature, there is indeed a feedback, but it is not a simple linear feedback as per your article, but instead yields an implicit equation for temperature, as follows:
T(F) = c (F_0 + F_1 + F_2(T(F))^0.25
This has to be solved iteratively, and depends critically on the function F_2 which converts temperature into watts per square metre. For that I follow your lead and assume it is linear:
F_2(T) = d(T-e)
e is the temperature at which the greenhouse water vapour warming exactly cancels the ice albedo cooling, and I consider 255, 260, 265, 268 as values for it. This is a totally different model from yours, because yours assumes a feedback based on an origin of 0K whereas mine is based on an origin of e, which must be closer to the truth because it is hard to see water having any effect at 100K = -173degC!
I then estimate the slope d, which is critically important to the final sensitivity, as follows. With Google I found “The radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor” by V. Ramanathan and Anand Inamdar, which implies that F_2(288) = 131.
I also need the value F_1, which I chose to be 80 in order to give a temperature near 287 when e = 260.
I then plugged all this into ‘R’, and for e = 260, the first value I tried, was astonished to get almost exactly the same final result as you, namely sensitivity of 1.2K!
Here is a table of temperature T for the 4 e values and two added forcings, being 0 for 1850 and 3.7 for an IPCC’s worth of doubled CO2. I also give values of betaf = 1-F/F’ and betat = 1-T/T’where F (resp. T) is the value without the F_2 addition and F’ (resp. T’) is the value with it, to compare with your feedback parameters. Note that though for e = 268 betat is still only 0.070, the slope d is high enough to give strong sensitivity.
added forcing fa since 1850: e 255 260 265 268 fa = 0 => T: 287.56 287.47 287.17 286.48 betaf 0.235 0.234 0.232 0.228 betat 0.065 0.065 0.064 0.061 fa=3.7 => T: 288.56 288.70 289.03 289.74 betaf 0.240 0.241 0.243 0.247 betat 0.066 0.067 0.068 0.070 sensitivity 1.00 1.23 1.86 3.26My conclusion is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and your noble effort to prove the IPCC wrong in this regard is correct but leaves us with a model which is not correct either. Of course, “all models are wrong” but I believe my model is closer to the truth and the future scientific argument should rest on the exact shape and parameters for the H2O forcing curve, assumed linear above.
Rich.
P.S. Do let me know if you want me to be a co-author to a modified paper 🙂
I tried to include this with the above comment but it didn’t work, so second try.
The R code for anyone who wants to experiment:
# T(F) = c (F_0+F_1+F_2(T(F)))^0.25
c = 59.4
f0 = 340
f1 = 80 # chosen to give 287.46 for e = 260
# e must be smaller than T(f0+f1)=T(420)=268.91
e = 255
e = 260
e = 265
e = 268
d = 131/(288-e) # so f2(288) = 131
f2 = function(t,d=4.68,e=260){ d*(t-e) }
T = function(f,c=59.4){ c*f^0.25 }
# added forcing fa since 1850:
# e 255 260 265 268
fa = 0 # => 287.56 287.47 287.17 286.48
# betaf 0.235 0.234 0.232 0.228
# betat 0.065 0.065 0.064 0.061
#fa = 3.7 # => 288.56 288.70 289.03 289.74
# betaf 0.240 0.241 0.243 0.247
# betat 0.066 0.067 0.068 0.070
# sensitivity 1.00 1.23 1.86 3.26
t1 = 280
for(i in 1:100){
t2 = T(f0+f1+fa+f2(t1,d,e))
cat(i,t1,t2,”\n”)
if( abs(t2-t1) < 0.001 ) break
t1 = t2
}
betaf = f2(t1)/(f0+f1+fa+f2(t1))
betat = 1-T(f0+f1+fa)/t1
cat("beta =",betaf,betat,"\n")
Bruckner8 wrote “Someone might find Monckton et al to be wrong, but it will probably be because one of the base assumptions of all climate science is incorrect as well!”
I believe that my comment above falls into that category. Lord M has certainly shown the standard IPCC feedback model to be wrong, but in my view his correction is not right either. However, the sensitivity result he obtains is close to the sort of values I am getting, though mine depend on ‘e’ so there is some wiggle room for argument.
I published that comment as soon as it was written, but in fact I want to do some further thinking on how near or far my method really is from his. But my brain needs a little rest first…
Rich.
I must again make it clear to Rich that our approach is to adopt for the sake of argument all of official climatology except what we can prove to be erroneous. We can prove that IPCC’s definition of a temperature feedback is erroneous, since it does not conform to the definition of a feedback in mainstream control theory, where feedback responses arise not only from any amplification in the original input signal but from the input signal itself, as long as non-zero feedback processes are present in the system.
We cannot prove that official climatology’s assumption that water vapor forcing is a feedback forcing and not (except marginally) a direct forcing is incorrect. Therefore, contrary to Rich’s speculation, our value of 12 K for the direct radiative forcing from the presence of the non-condensing greenhouse gases self-evidently does not incorporate any direct radiative forcing from water vapor, for any water vapor forcing is treated by official climatology as a feedback.
If Rich would prefer to turn the water vapor feedback into a direct rather than a temperature-dependent consequential forcing, as he seems to be saying he would, it is no good his asking us to make that change. He must instead apply to secretariat@ipcc.ch and invite it to do things his way in future. Before he does that, though, it would be as well for him to read official climatology’s papers on forcings and feedbacks so that he can come to some understanding of how the mathematics should be handled and why official climatology regards nearly all of the forcing from water vapor as a feedback forcing consequent upon temperature and thus contingent upon the magnitude thereof and not as a direct forcing.
Unfortunately, much of Rich’s mathematics is similarly non-standard. That does not mean it is wrong: I express no view on that. But, because it is not the way official climatology would do it, and because Rich is unable to prove that official climatology errs by not doing things his way, we cannot incorporate his method into ours until he has either provided that proof in formal mathematical terms or persuaded the IPCC secretariat that official climatology should change its methodology.
M’lord, my brain is now rested, and refreshed by half a bottle of Chardonnay on this cool Saturday evening not too far from that eminent CET station Pershore.
I wrote that I published my comment as soon as I could, excited by its import as I saw it, but I see that thereby I did not include enough words to express my understanding of your well and oft stated position regarding your approach to the IPCC and its alleged error. Therefore I apologize for the trouble to your fingers in the production of your first paragraph above. I do understand your line, and I share in the excitement you expressed about the discovery of the IPCC’s apparent error.
As to the rest, my position as newly found today is that “direct” or “feedback” forcing is a mere sophistry, but one on which the IPCC has apparently come to rely in order to make use of the feedback equation which you, rightly in my view, criticise. Therefore I accept that for now you do not choose to take my suggestions into account. I do invite you, though, and also your co-authors who may see things differently, to look again at the sheer beauty (Chardonnay-enhanced no doubt) of my equation:
T(F) = c (F_0 + F_1 + F_2(T(F)))^0.25
This tells you, subject only to knowing a good estimate of F_2(t), the net forcing from all H2O effects (with no relevance attached to any labelling of it), everything you need to know about equilibrrium temperatures.
I wish you every success in publishing your paper, because even though I believe it to be somewhat wrong, it is less wrong than IPCC’s version of the feedback function. However, I fear that by virtue of your blog article here, it may be less likely to get published. For, suppose a peer reviewer were to tread a dark alley such as this thread? (Do they ever thus?) Then he or she might be emboldened to level a criticism of your paper along the lines I have put forward. You will then cry “But we have shown that the IPCC is wrong!”, and they will retort “But yours isn’t right, so we can’t publish it!”.
Bonne chance with your endeavour, and do get in touch (e.g. via Anthony) if for any reason you want to pursue our friendly debate in private.
Rich.
For the third time, I must make it plain to Rich that, ad argumentum, we have accepted all of official climatology except what we can prove to be incorrect. Rich has provided a rather hasty jumble of mathematics with poorly-defined terms inconsistent with official climatology, but without having provided any proof that his alternative method he proposes is true or that, in the numerous respects in which he departs from official climatology, official climatology’s method is false. No peer-reviewer, even if he or she came across this thread, would pause for a single instant to think of rejecting our paper on the basis of Rich’s unproven assertions.
At the heart of Rich’s opinion is the notion that official climatology’s distinction between a direct forcing denominated in Watts per square meter and a feedback forcing denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin is inappropriate. As I have already explained to him twice, if he considers that this or any other aspect of official climatology is inappropriate he should address his concerns not to us but to secretariat@ipcc.ch.
For IPCC, together with all of official climatology, denominates feedback forcings in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the temperature that induces them. Its reason for doing so is that – to take the instance of the water-vapor feedback – the feedback response is not independent of temperature, but is temperature-dependent. As the Earth warms, the space occupied by the atmosphere is capable of carrying near-exponentially more water vapor with temperature, though the exponentiality of the growth in specific humidity is of course offset by the logarithmicity of the absorption in the far wings of the principal absorption bands of water vapor – and that is a feedback forcing consequent upon the change intemperature, not a direct forcing independent of temperature.
It is necessary to understand that nothing less than the most rigorous and complete mathematical demonstration will be at all likely to convince official climatology that it was in error. We do not, therefore, propose to dilute the rigor of our paper with unproven contentions from third parties. If Rich is unable or unwilling to provide a formal demonstration that, in the respects to which he animadverts, official climatology is in error, we cannot and will not incorporate his notion into our paper.
Christopher,
Here are a few more theoretical thoughts, which you will ignore because your sails are set, but one of them might pique your interest anyway.
You are using the feedback equation
T_o = T_i + bT_o (=T_i+bT_i+b^2T_i+… = T_i/(1-b))
where T is temperature, i is input, o is output. One commenter said “you cannot add temperatures”, and you replied that you could add any numbers if they had the same units. However, that missed the point, which is that physically you cannot add temperatures, there is no physical process which does this, nor is there one to multiply them by b and add to the temperature you first thought of. Radiative flux density (forcing) is a different matter, though, and these can be added together. So, naughty IPCC has been using temperature, which procedure you have followed in order to minimize the peer reviewing flak. But let’s see what happens if we use forcing.
F_o = F_i + b_F F_o = F_i/(1-b_F)
What implication does that have for temperature, knowing T = cF^0.25?
T_o = cF_o^0.25 = c(F_i/(1-b_F))^0.25 = cF_i^0.25 / (1-b_F)^0.25 = T_i/(1-b_T) where
b_T = 1-(1-b_F)^0.25 = b/4+O(b^2) if b is small
There is a sense then in which this conversion justifies changing a physically justifiable feedback equation for F into a physically unjustifiable feedback equation for T. But the fourth power law has an interesting consequence. Suppose that b_T = 2/3 which you suggest is IPCC’s figure. That is a little bit close to the instability figure of 1, which could not match the real world. But b_F = 1-(1-b_T)^4 = 80/81. This is alarmingly close to 1 and even less likely to be true, and is another nail in the coffin of high feedback parameter b_T. I hope this piques your interest.
Finally I note that my “beautiful” equation is really
F_o = F_i + F_2(T(F_o)) (along with T(F_o) = cF_o^0.25 as before)
which could be rewritten as
F_o = F_i + b(T(F_o)) F_o where b(T(F_o)) = F_2(T(F_o))/F_o
This now looks like a feedback function, but with a non-constant b. The amount of variation in b can be seen from betaf in my table in an earlier comment.
Rich.
P.S. I posted my 6.25am comment without refreshing and therefore seeing Christopher’s 5.20am comment. I am amazed that he did not take the hint about troubling his fingers, and has repeated himself not for the third time but the umpteenth time in this column about his acceptance of official climatology except for etc. etc.
I discern that only a peer-reviewed paper on my part will be satisfactory justification for my mathematics/physics. However, from what I hear that is very onerous, so I shall ponder… In the meantime I continue to extend my good wishes to all attempted publications on this important subject. And I no longer have to feel guilty about queering the pitch regarding peer reviewers, so that’s some consolation.
Rich.
It will probably be best for Rich to wait to write his own paper until our paper is published. We are expecting that many subsequent papers will amend or correct our result, though we think it unlikely that the result will be completely overthrown. We shall see.
It’s been fun watching the totalitarians smashed against the Rock of Brenchley.
Many thanks to Richard for his cheery comment. The totalitarians have certainly had a harder time the usual. They have nearly always found themselves attacking not our result but the Party Line. Of course, there has been the usual sniping and sneering at me personally, but of course that does not matter because I am backed by an eminent and highly qualified team of real scientists. Our result has emerged unscathed from the more than usually feeble assaults of the paid or unpaid agents of the Green Blob. Let us see what the peer-reviewers make of it. I suspect we shall face a sterner tribunal than that of the self-appointed guardians of the Party Line here. Anyway, our result is now out in the open, and has been described in this series in enough detail to allow any fair-minded observer to study it. The word is spreading fast, and will spread a lot faster once our paper is published.
Speed is important to wrap this up.
?
The Earth’s magnetic field is weakening at an accelerated pace due to a large, ongoing excursion of the magnetic poles.
The Sun’s magnetic field strength is weakening as well. Solar study now shows we are in for an extended period of weak solar activity. Both of these facts either are, or soon will be, common knowledge.
The combined effects lead to only ONE conclusion.
As we type we are stepping, if not running through the door into a full on Ice Age.
synch this long-term geomagnetic field strength chart up with the GISP2 solar strength chart for the Holocene. (if you haven’t previously)
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Holocene_palaeointensity.jpeg
It’s from here:
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2009/02/is-the-earths-magnetic-field-about-to-flip/
and you know this one GISP2
With the Earth’s magnetic field strength currently weakening at an accelerated pace, that chart shows we came out of the previous ice age at very nearly the same terrestrial magnetic field strength that we have now. That’s the doorway into full Ice Age and we’re definitely walking, if not running, through it.
Charts of solar activity for this same period show the solar magnetic field strength was strongly increasing from 12000 BP until about 1/3 way through the Holocene. Then, at that 1/3 way point, when the sun started a slow decline from the Minoan Warm Period,
the Earth compensated with a stronger field…which has since reversed rapidly.
Now both are going down just as we hit glaciation levels of global avg. temp since we’re just .24 degrees C above little ice age temps even before April numbers are avgd in.
The key is that weaker magnetic fields allow greater levels of solar and galactic cosmic rays to penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These extremely high energy particles then collide with with those in our atmosphere and cascade a shower of ionized particles that become water condensation nuclei. This has been pronouncedly demonstrated by studies of this effect at CERN. http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud
Clouds become more prevalent and Earth’s albedo is greatly increased. Snow begins to fall more heavily in the Northern Hemisphere, as we have seen. Temperatures go colder and the snow remains longer…adding to the increase in albedo.
Currently, cosmic ray counts are at a level never before seen by the human race….never. And this trend of increase is very robust.
We have been dealt a new script and the sooner everybody gets a copy the better.
The debate over anthropomorphic global warming is but a withering sapling in a great forest. It has now come time to engage that forest.
data compiled, analyzed, synthesized.
https://bit.ly/2w11Utk
Cosmic rays also greatly magnify the dangers posed by large volcanic eruptions.
Magma becomes more volatile.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234022172_Explosive_volcanic_eruptions_triggered_by_cosmic_rays_Volcano_as_a_bubble_chamber
The magma begins displacing in the deeper regions of the planet..
This shows up as deep earthquakes. Their force moves up to the crust and larger earthquakes at the surface are the result.
3 days ago there were over 15 deep quakes. It takes about 3 days for their pressure to appear at the surface. We are in the start of a round of increased earthquake activity at the surface for the next five or 6 days. Iran, Italy may see damaging tremors this week.
This chart is all that is needed to destroy and sweep away the CO2 crap. Look at the Minoan Warm…the Roman Warm, The Medieval Warm.
EXACTLY WHICH HUMANS DURING THOSE PERIODS WERE THE CO2 CULPRITS?????
They must have been highly prolific at it because they ENJOYED much higher temperatures than our thermometers pitifully demonstrate.
Global warming is a long con of epic proportions. The stretching out of the argument abets this con.
The ICE is the real danger.
CROPS.
In the interest of proper scepticism (I trust that is a function of WUWT), those that wish to exercise such really ought to investigate the past actions of Monckton. Because you know, we all have false “Gods”…..
Maybe those that uncritically give Monckton his so cherished ‘hugs and kisses’ may care to watch the following.
Or maybe not, as, after all, those who champion the sceptic cause are of course above reproach (sarc).
The “Monckton manoeuver” ….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
BTW: I welcome your default ad hom Monckton … it does powers of good to the sceptic cause (more sarc).
When not doing that you do that witnessed in the vid. And never once a trace of honesty.
It’s all a charade. The train is leaving the anthropogenic global warming/climate change arguers behind as it is quickly becoming a moot point (for many it IS already moot).
Bad science being argued against by a “champion” all abluster in a grand Colosseum.
My what a show. The crowds are enthralled. They should get out of the Colosseum and get busy with reality.
And WHY the charade? Global agriculture is on the brink of losses that will put stress on the global population. Many living areas will soon become inhabitable. There’s no word to describe the size of the ADVANTAGE that comes with knowing what CORRECT science has been saying for some time now.
Correct science that was done because to those working on it, anthropogenic factors were already a moot point for them because they were involved with REALITY. The FACTS are well established and the global warmist combatants are aware.
The perpetrators of this global warming charade have used it as a SCREEN to GAIN that advantage….OVER YOU.
Yours Truly, Doug R
THAT Doug R
https://archive.org/details/MSNBC_20100624_050000_Countdown_With_Keith_Olbermann/start/1320/end/1380
The crackpots have been saying this for half a century. See the Club of Rome.
Frankly, this is just Malthusianism. A theory that has 300 years of evidence disproving it.
Millennial fears hyped up the loony ravings. But the big, scary round number is long gone. You need real evidence now. Not just faith in what will happen.
The End is always Nigh. But never seems to come.
Mr Courtney is right that all the dismal projections of the environmentalist fanatics have proven false. However, it is worth bearing in mind that a repeat of the Maunder Minimum would be likely to cause quite severe dislocation of food production in the short term. However, we are a more adaptable species than the extremists will allow, and the melting of permfrost in Siberia and northern Canada, if it were to occur, could open up millions of acres of new agricultural land.
How’s that wine going for you? 70% losses just fine?
Pay attention…it’s happenning.
Watch for large hail events all summer. Hail kills crops. Watch for late frosts…oh…that’s right…they’re here now.
Watch wheat growing regions of Canada shrink…this year.
Crop losses are only one concern.
Look at earthquake and volcano activity…right NOW.
UVc now penetrates to the Earth’s surface…confirmed by thousands of sources.
Your “Club of Rome” argument is entirely non sequitur to the situation.
That indicates you are either willfully blind, or blind for more a pitiable reason.
WATCH.
The pathetic totalitarian Anthony Banton, who got away with hiding under a cowardly pseudonym here until I outed him, has failed to appreciate that the Party Line that he is no doubt handsomely paid by a political and financial vested interest to peddle in threads such as this has now crumbled away to nothing. I say he must be paid because no rational person, unless well paid, would produce so off-topic and so altogether a feeble and unscientific response to a scientific argument.
The math is strikingly simple. In the corrected version of zero-dimensional-model equation used by official climatology to diagnose the equilibrium sensitivities that the general-circulation models might be expected to predict, the system gain factor, which is the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature, is the reciprocal of (1 minus the feedback factor). It follows that the feedback factor is 1 minus the ratio of reference to equilibrium temperature. Reference temperature is the sum of the 255 K emission temperature and the 12 K warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Equilibrium temperature in 1850 was 287 K. The feedback factor is thus 1 – (255 + 12) / 287, or just 0.07. Reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 is 1.1 K. Therefore, equilibrium sensitivity is 1.1 / (1 – 0.07), or just 1.2 K, not the 3.3 K that is the models’ current mid-range estimate, not the 4.5 K that is their upper bound, and not the 7, 8, 9, 10 or even 11 K that has been suggested in some of the sillier papers in the totalitarian climate literature.
Mr Banton, being wholly baffled by this very simple argument, resorts to the tactic first practised at the instigation of the Reichspropagandaamt in the 1930s and copied by the Desinformatsiya directorate of the KGB when, in 1945, the building in Mauerstrasse, Berlin, and all its records fell into their hands. Ion Mihai Pacepa, then head of the secret police in Ceausescu’s Romania, was appointed to head the new directorate in 1945. Over 40 years, the Directorate recruited a million willing totalitarians in the West to act as unpaid agents of Moscow. The Directorate’s sole task was to denigrate the reputations of all who had proven effective in opposing the Party Line.
So many willing totalitarians came forward that it became impossible for the Directorate to keep in touch with all of them directly. So they were trained not only in the various techniques of trashing the personal reputations of the successful opponents of the Party Line, but also in the recruitment of others like themselves.
For this reason, when the Berlin Wall came down the process of targeting the personal reputations of the opponents of totalitarianism continued. By then, indeed, it had become a habit among the totalitarian hard Left, which had found that every political argument it advanced had been proven wrong. It was much easier to use the technique by which the Nazionalsozialistische Arbeitspartie Deutschlands had cowed all but the most determined and courageous opposition into silence even before the “election” of the NSDAP in 1933.
However, there were several weaknesses in this hateful and hate-filled technique, which is the only technique known to the appalling Party hack Mr Banton. Not the least of these is that, every so often, the Central Committee decides to adopt a Party Line on a scientific question, and does so not for scientific but for political reasons. Eugenicism and Lysenkoism are two signal examples of this fatuous attempt by totalitarians to co-opt science and dictate a scientific result rather than to leave it to the scientists.
Environmental totalitarianism is the new brand of hatred of humanity on the part of the hard Left. As Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, has often pointed out, when the Berlin Wall came down the totalitarians, having nowhere else to go once the NSDAP and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were no more, piled into the environmental movement and took it over for their own fell political purposes, using exactly the same technique of attacking the personal reputations of those who found the courage to stand up and be counted in opposition to their genocidal policies.
Why will environmental totalitarianism fail as all other forms of totalitarian opposition to objective science have failed? The answer is that, on just about every scientific point advanced by the environmentalist extremists, they have been proven wrong. They have now been proven wrong about global warming as well. And, precisely because the mistake they have made is a scientific mistake, in the end no amount of personally attacking me will make the slightest difference. It will not delay by a single instant the widespread exposure of the remarkably stupid error that totalitarian climatology has made.
If the universities had not sold their souls to totalitarianism, and if they had stood up to the shriekers who, by crude bullying such as that in which Mr Banton seems overpaid to specialize, the error made by official climatology would have been identified and elminated decades ago. As it is, at my back stand an array of distinguished scientific co-authors in all the relevant disciplines, supported by several eminent professors who kindly gave us pre-submission reviews. So it matters not what anyone thinks of my reputation. What matters is whether or not we are scientifically correct. And the useless Mr Banton has been unable to provide the world with any illumination of that question, except to the extent that the sheer malevolent feebleness of his responses here indicates that he, too, realizes that the game is up and that, in due course, the Party Line that he parrots so unthinkingly will be changed, and the Central Committee will then order him to dance to an altogether different tune, and he will ask, “How high shall I leap, Comrade?”
In the end, the abject failure of totalitarianism to contribute anything but misery, disease and death to mankind will be visible to all, because a doctrine based on the pure hatred that is the only manner in which the likes of Mr Banton knows how to communicate eventually becomes seen as the miserable dead end that it is.
Consider this. Man, uniquely among the visible creation, has been given the capacity to exercise the faculty of reason. It is this faculty, possessed by us to a degree unmatched, as far as we know, in any other species, that marks us out most clearly from the beasts. Totalitarianism will ultimately fail because it is, at root, an attack on the use of reason by those who insist that, regardless of the objective truth, some cheerless and often murderous Party Line should be followed. It is an attack on what makes humanity human.
Well, as far as the climate debate is concerned, if we are right that debate is now over, and the result is not that which the likes of the hapless Mr Banton would have wished. Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Toneb, could you give me a hint about getting handsomly paid to comment here? I don’t mind doing it for fun, but could do with the money.
Nobody is paid by WUWT to comment here, though I suspect some people that use fake names and fake email addresses are paid by outside sources who disagree with what we do here, and we regularly toss those comments (from fake personas) per our policy page. https://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
Disagreement is welcome, fakery to post disagreement is not.
Sorry. It was a dumb joke. Please delete if it caused any offense.
If the climatologists are correct then the global mean temperature will rise until about 2350 then a 500 year cooling period will begin. Toward the end of the current 500 year warming period the global temperature should resemble that of the year 1350. It would appear that the presence of greenhouse gases has no significant effect on such a cycle. It also should be noted that the temperature rise has not been continuous since 1880 but has risen in steps about 30 years long interspersed with equally long pauses in temperature rise. This is an indication that the sparse presence of CO2 in the atmosphere (one cubic foot of CO2 spread across each 2500 cubic feet of atmosphere) probably has no measurable effect on the global air temperature. Projection of the already recorded temperature track through the current century would lead to prediction of only 40 years of continuous warming in this century with the one thirty year period of continuous warming occurring from about 2034 to 2064.
May as well post it twice…it’s the only reality that appears on this web page as all the CO2 arguers are non sequitur now.:
How’s that wine going for you? 70% losses just fine?
Pay attention…it’s happenning.
Watch for large hail events all summer. Hail kills crops. Watch for late frosts…oh…that’s right…they’re here now.
Watch wheat growing regions of Canada shrink…this year.
Crop losses are only one concern.
Look at earthquake and volcano activity…right NOW.
UVc now penetrates to the Earth’s surface…confirmed by thousands of sources.
Your “Club of Rome” argument is entirely non sequitur to the situation.
That indicates you are either willfully blind, or blind for more a pitiable reason.
WATCH.
As the Earth’s magnetic field continues to rapidly weaken, Earth facing solar events such as solar flares, solar coronal mass ejections and equatorial coronal hole streams will have greater opportunity to cause damage to the planets electrical systems. The Carrington Event was an example. At the geomagnetic field’s current strength, it would take an event only 1/3 as powerful as the Carrington Event to shut down half the planet or more. That would be a problem even if there were only one half billion people on the planet.
ALL of what’s in store for us…PHYSICS….will be a serious problem no matter the population size.
the Club of Rome chestnut is overroasted.
PHYSICS DOESN’T PHUCK AROUND!
Mr Howard’s thread-bombing is increasingly off topic.
Your topic is actually moot. That’s the point. Nature is up to bat. And it’s the bottom of the ninth. Both sides of your argument are engaged in folly. If you cannot publicly see this, you may be thought of as complicit I’m sure.
After all, you do appear to be an intelligent being.
Mr Howard appears unaware of the role of formal demonstration in the sciences. We have formally demonstrated a large error in official climatology’s method of deriving equilibrium sensitivities. That, and that alone, is the topic of the current thread.
Three‐dimensional tomography of ionospheric anomalies immediately before the 2015 Illapel earthquake, Central Chile
Direct connection to an Earth-facing solar coronal hole. And that’s only one aspect of the fact that the Earth/Sun geomagnetic system is in a state of finding a new equilibrium. I’m sure you’re all aware that dynamic processes undergo sharp, high-amplitude shifts during such an event in any complex system.
AND…equilibrium will not be re=established for some time to come.
PHYSICS.
climatologists….children. nothing but children.
Mr Howard’s thread-bombing is unconstructive and increasingly incoherent, as well as off topic. This thread is about a single, clearly-identified error in official climatology’s method of deriving equilibrium sensitivities.
On the contrary, Your Lordship. I could not have been more clear.
… and Mr Howard could scarcely have been more off topic.
Here you are…the week’s only just begun. This is not all.
Tue, 1 May 05:17 UTC M 4.1 / 10 km – [info] Central Italy I FELT IT
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/italy/archive/2018-may-1.html
Science is passing you by as you whistle past the graveyard.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/24/did-official-climatology-know-its-predictions-were-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-2803004
” Iran, Italy may see damaging tremors this week.”
What were your plans for your work once you have “destroyed” the moronic climate science of the day?
You realise their unspeakably despicable service to distract the world from the real problem has, sadly, succeeded. The time has come to apply the minds that can be mustered toward that problem because whatever the criminal climate scientists do…or do not do…from this point on makes NO difference in terms of the immediate future. Zero…none. Which means your own efforts in this endeavor, realistically, are meaningless and only serve to further the distraction.
Somebody should really warn Central Italy and the Iran/Iraq border region.
Mon, 30 Apr 22:14 UTC M 3.9 / 16 km – [info] IRAN-IRAQ BORDER REGION
I FELT IT
[Map] EMSC
Mon, 30 Apr 22:13 UTC M 4.0 / 8 km – [info] IRAN-IRAQ BORDER REGION
I FELT IT
[Map] EMSC
Mon, 30 Apr 05:05 UTC M 3.7 / 8 km – [info] SOUTHERN IRAN
I FELT IT
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/iran/archive/2018-apr.html
Mr Howard becomes ever more off topic. I repeat that the purpose of the head posting was to provide a summary of our demonstration that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 will be of order 1.2 K and not up to 11 K as official climatology has hitherto imagined, and to raise the question whether the error was already known about. Now that it is known, in due course we shall publish in a reviewed journal, whereupon it will be possible to publicize our result in the mainstream news media, and to require IPCC to take notice.
Thread-bombing such as that of Mr Howard is discourteous and not welcome.
Lord Monckton, you pursue folly. The, single most influential modulating factor of climate variability, both medium and long term, is not CO2, but cosmic ray flux. CO2 is a relative non-factor.
This has already been SETTLED in areas of science of which you and your opponents, most apparently, remain ignorant.
Since this relationship has been PROVEN, it is all that is needed to completely annihilate the anthropogenic CO2 simpletons.
One can only assume that your ultimate goal is to, ahem, eventually, accomplish this. That IS THE POINT…is it not?
End the circus…the means are really at your disposal. And now that I have informed you of this, you have no reason to continue the nonsense.
AND cosmic rays’ effects on temperature and climate are not the only effects they have.
“Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays”
Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234022172_Explosive_volcanic_eruptions_triggered_by_cosmic_rays_Volcano_as_a_bubble_chamber [accessed May 01 2018].
Mt Agung exploded again today. Shinmodaki, 12 others currently rumbling. It started showing in earnest in 2015 with Mount Hakone waking up after 800 years. A significant event, cosmic ray induced.
From the above research:
The strong negative correlation observed between the timing of silica-rich eruptions and solar activity can be explained by variations in cosmic-ray flux arising from solar modulation. Because silica-rich magma has relatively high surface tension (similar to 0.1 Nm(-1)), the homogeneous nucleation rate is so low that such magma exists in a highly supersaturated state without considerable exsolution, even when located relatively close to the surface, within the penetration range of cosmic-ray muons (1-10 GeV). These muons can contribute to nucleation in supersaturated magma, as documented by many authors studying a bubble chamber, via ionization loss. This radiation-induced nucleation can lead to the pre-eruptive exsolution of H2O in the silica-rich magma. We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux.
Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays:…. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234022172_Explosive_volcanic_eruptions_triggered_by_cosmic_rays_Volcano_as_a_bubble_chamber [accessed May 01 2018].
So you see, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Doug R
Periods on Earth that exhibit rapidly cooling climate (as we has seen in the last two years) along with increased volcanic and earthquake activity (which we are seeing), and with increased levels of UVa and UVb and with UVc reaching ground level when it previously hadn’t been doing so at all – ARE PERIODS OF VERY HIGH COSMIC RAY FLUX DUE TO WEAKENING HELIOSPHERE DURING A SOLAR MINIMUM.
That’s what THE topic is. Your entire endeavor here is guilty of being off topic. You, sirs and ladies, involved in both sides of the fray will soon be scrambling for any last bits of credibility you can scrape up for yourselves because you’ll need it.
Cosmic ray flux (the REAL climate modulating factor) is also modulated by the Earth’s own magnetosphere which I have shown is rapidly weakening due to a large magnetic polar excursion. These are facts.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY THAT THE EARTH HAS HAD A COSMIC RAY COUNT AS HIGH AS IT IS CURRENTLY.
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/27jan16/cosmicrays_mar15_jan16.png
And it’s still climbing.
Arguing over anything to do with CO2 and climate is infantile.
Mr Howard continues to be off tiopic. His thread-bombing has been effective in shutting this thread down. He is not welcome here.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Warming-Temperature-Cloud-Page-17.jpg
None of this is relevant to the head posting.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/public/3581144_95e73d34aa96e43c59cbb458c1887fc3.jpg