# Reporting the fraudulent practices behind global warming science

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The prison gate is about to slam thunderously shut on the global warming fraudsters. It is time to report their profitable but murderous deception to the public investigating and prosecuting authorities.

To prove a fraud, though, is harder than to prove a murder. One has to demonstrate – beyond reasonable doubt – not one but two criminal intents.

The first is the intent to deceive by way of a false and dishonest representation. A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or may be, untrue or misleading. A representation is dishonest if what was done would be regarded as dishonest by the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus, and if the perpetrator must have realized that the reasonable man would regard the deception as dishonest.

The second is the intent to cause a gain or loss in money or money’s worth by means of the deception – an intent either to gain by fraudulently getting what one does not have or by fraudulently keeping what one already has, or both, or an intent to cause a loss by depriving the victims of what they already possess, or by preventing them from gaining what they would otherwise have gotten, or both.

I recently visited a country house somewhere in Scotland to consult an eminent lawyer with close ties to the police. I described to him certain specific matters that appeared, prima facie, to be frauds. I told him exactly how the fraudulent claim of “97% consensus” had been fabricated. He got the point at once.

I went on to tell him how certain parties have wilfully and, as we see it, fraudulently thwarted our attempts to get one of the leading learned journals of climatology to publish our paper demonstrating that a single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics is the sole cause of the absurdly overblown predictions of warmer weather on the basis of which scientifically-illiterate governments have been panicked by downright evil lobby groups and profiteers of doom into causing untold death, disease, educational disadvantage, industrial destruction and financial ruin worldwide.

His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.

The journal’s management then got in touch to invite us to submit further papers in future and to say they hoped we were happy with the review process. I wrote back to say that, unless we were given the opportunity to appeal against the editor’s decision, we proposed to report him as a participant in what Professor Mörner has justifiably described as “the biggest fraud in human history”.

Thereupon, the editor agreed to send out the paper for review again. For our part, we offered to expand the argument considerably, so as to forestall the usual attempts by politically and financially motivated academics to weasel out of allowing the paper to be published.

But when we submitted the much-extended paper, the editor did not reply. When we wrote a reminder email, again he did not reply.

We wrote to the IPCC, not once but twice, to activate the error-reporting protocol that the IPCC had been obliged to adopt after a series of acutely embarrassing errors, such as the laughable notion that all the ice in the Himalayas would melt by 2050. The IPCC, however, had failed even to acknowledge our report, let alone to activate the mandatory protocol that the Inter-Academy Council had obliged it to put in place.

The eminent lawyer’s eyebrows lifted. He pondered for a few moments, and then gave us the following advice:

First, he said, we should write to the Serious Fraud Office, with a copy to my local Chief Constable and a further copy to him, putting the authorities on notice that a fraud was suspected, providing the evidence of the “97% consensus” fraud (some of the perpetrators were in Britain) and providing the evidence of how we had been mistreated by the journal. At this stage, we should not request an investigation, but we should outline the widespread death, disease, damage and destruction caused by the suspected fraud.

Next, he advised us to submit our paper, in the normal way, to a second journal, this time within the jurisdiction of the British investigating authorities. We should keep meticulous records of the correspondence between us and the journal. If that second journal failed either to publish our paper or to provide a legitimate and robust scientific refutation of our argument, then we should copy that correspondence to the Serious Fraud Office and to the Chief Constable, again not requesting an investigation but merely putting them on notice that the fraud appeared to be continuing, and appeared to involve more than one journal.

Then, he said, assuming that no genuine fault had been found with our scientific argument, we should submit the paper to a third journal, again in the normal way, keeping a careful track of the correspondence. If the third journal did not handle the paper scientifically, we should write to the police again, this time to request investigation and prosecution of the connected frauds of the authors of the “97% consensus” claim, of the journal that had published that claim and had failed to publish a correction when requested, of the board of management of that journal, of the three journals that had refused to handle our paper scientifically, and of the IPCC secretariat that had fraudulently failed to activate its error-reporting protocol.

By that time, he said, the police would begin to be curious. They would check out certain easily-verifiable points, such as the fact that the list of almost 12,000 papers allegedly reviewed by the perpetrators of the “97% consensus” deception showed that the authors had themselves marked only 0.5% of the papers as explicitly stating their support for the “consensus” position as they had defined it. Once the police realized that we were telling the truth, they would begin to investigate, and he would support them in doing so.

So that is what we are going to do. And this is where you come in. There follows a condensed version (warning: it’s not for wimps) of our scientific argument to the effect that climatologists had forgotten, at a vital point in their “how-much-warming” calculations, to take due account of the fact that the Sun is shining. Is our argument sound? Is it definitive? Or is it erroneous or in some respects deficient? And should we follow the eminent lawyer’s advice? I shall read your comments with interest.

### An error in defining temperature feedback explains overstatements of global warming

Abstract: Climatology borrows feedback method from control theory1-6, but errs by defining feedback as responsive only to perturbations of the input signal, emission temperature. If so, impossibly, the feedback fraction due to warming from noncondensing greenhouse gases would exceed that due to emission temperature by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Then feedback response would be up to 90% of Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 after feedback has acted)7 and of the uncertainty therein8. In reality, feedback also responds to the entire reference signal9,10. In climate, that signal (the signal before feedback acts) is reference temperature, the sum of all natural as well as anthropogenic perturbations and, above all, of emission temperature. It is here demonstrated that the system-gain factor, the ratio not only (as now) of equilibrium to reference sensitivities but also of entire temperatures, is insensitive even to large uncertainties therein: in 1850 and 2011 it was 1.1. Though models7 project 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K Charney sensitivity, the revised value – the product of the system-gain factor 1.1 and the 1.05 K reference sensitivity7 to doubled CO2 – falls on 1.15 [1.10, 1.25] K, confirming evidence11 that feedback barely alters temperature and that, even without mitigation, net-harmful warming is unlikely. Mitigation entails a heavy net global welfare loss disproportionately afflicting 1.3 billion people to whom access to electricity is denied.

Projected midrange global warming outstrips observation threefold (Fig. 1) due to an erroneous definition of temperature feedback in climatology. All transport across the climate-system boundary is radiative; and, in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, flux density at an emitting surface is a function of absolute temperature, which is accordingly the proper metric for sensitivity studies. Yet climatology defines feedback response as the difference not between entire reference and equilibrium temperatures (respectively before and after feedback has acted) but between sensitivities, concluding that feedback response comprises up to 90%7 of equilibrium sensitivity, and of the uncertainty that arises therein8 chiefly because feedbacks are unquantifiable by measurement and act at resolutions below models’ (GCMs’) grid-scale. Reference sensitivity7 to doubled CO2 is only 1, p. 676, cf. 12: but in GCMs the large imagined feedback response and its large attendant uncertainty elevates Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2) to 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K 7. IPCC, whose [1.5, 4.5] K interval1,13 is as in 197914, mentions “feedback” more than 1000 times1.

Figure 1. | Projections1,7 of global warming from 1850-2011 (inner scale), in response to doubled CO2 (middle scale) and the sum of these two (outer scale) greatly exceeds warming consistent with the 0.75 K observed from 1850-2011 (green needle). Midrange Charney sensitivity7 3.35 K (red needle) implies 2.4 K equilibrium warming by 2011, thrice observation. The revised interval derived herein is consistent with observation.

Control theory, developed for telephone circuits9,10 but applicable to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, defines feedback as responsive to the entire reference signal as well as to perturbations. However, climatology1-6 considers only perturbationse.g. 1, p. 1450:

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 … 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. [Authors’ emphases]

Due to this definitional error, projected Charney sensitivity has hitherto been imagined to exceed reference sensitivity up to tenfold7-8, 15-20. A corrected definition follows (with climate-related terms in parentheses):

Feedback (in of surface equilibrium temperature ) induces a feedback response (, in Kelvin at time ) to the entire reference signal (reference temperature ), the sum of the input signal (emission temperature ) and all perturbations (natural and anthropogenic reference sensitivities ). The feedback loop (Fig. 2) modifies the output signal () by returning some fraction of it, the feedback fraction (), to the input/output node. The ratio of output to input signals is the system-gain factor (. Negative feedback attenuates output; positive feedback amplifies it.

Figure 2. | The feedback loop (a) simplifies to the system-gain schematic (b)

Given that and , , the sum of the infinite convergent geometric series under the convergence criterion . Visibly (Fig. 2), the feedback block modifies all of , not merely .

Sensitivities and absolute temperatures: Climatology obtains equilibrium sensitivities using (1), derived from the energy-balance equation via a Taylor-series expansion4,21. In (1), is climatology’s system-gain factor, a forcing; a near-invariant sensitivity parameter22, p.354; 23, 24. In (2), the corrected definition of feedback is used.

 . (1) (2)

Though (1, 2) are both valid, (1) cannot constrain , because small uncertainties in , yield large uncertainty in ; but in (2), where , exceed , by two orders of magnitude, even large uncertainties in , entail small uncertainty in . The use of (2) remedies climatology’s restrictive definition, obviates quantification of individual feedbacks and diagnoses of equilibrium sensitivities using GCMs and, above all, facilitates reliable constraint of equilibrium sensitivities.

System gain: ; due to pre-industrial GHGs6 in 1850 was . In 1850, ; 25. The Planck parameter . Net anthropogenic forcing1, fig. SPM.5 to 2011, so that .

In 2011, . Given radiative imbalance26 by 2010, from 1850-2011 (of which was observed25). Since , , as in 1850. Thus, proves stable over time: for instance, the uncertainty25 in barely perturbs , so that, where the curve of the response function is linear .

That curve passes through two points . Since , the first point is . The second is the well-constrained in 1850. If is an exponential-growth curve, the exponent . For 7, . Then , and , near-identical to the linear case.

If were derived not from but from and current estimates of , temperature in 1850 would exceed observation and would barely exceed . For the midrange 7, GCMs’ system-gain factor implies that ; but then , so that in 1850 would have been , exceeding observation by , and, in any event, , close to the linear case.

If per impossibile the response curve bypassed , it must still visit in 1850. If the second point were (, current ), the ratio of the feedback fractions due to and due to becomes impossibly excessive: e.g., ; ; (Fig. 3). Yet the same feedbacks respond to sensitivities as to emission temperature, so that in (1) is near-invariant, implying .

Figure 3. | Ratio of the feedback fractions due to and due to , for on . Beyond the plausible regions, elevated feedback-fraction ratios and equilibrium sensitivities are impossible.

For a non-exponential-growth curve of that was near-linear, would barely exceed . For a significantly nonlinear or even stochastic non-exponential-growth curve, variability in the successive feedback fractions would at some point exceed that in an exponential-growth curve, contrary a fortiori to the near-invariance of . Therefore, regardless of the shape of , Charney sensitivities cannot much exceed .

Predicted and observed feedback have diverged (Fig. 4). Feedbacks other than water vapour self-cancel1, table 9.5. By Clausius-Clapeyron, the atmosphere may carry 7% K–1 more water vapour27, but specific humidity is thus rising28 only in the lower troposphere, where water vapour’s spectral lines are near-saturated: as humidity increases, only the far wings add to infrared absorption29, which varies logarithmically +with humidity. Though GCMs predict 90% of water vapour feedback in the tropical mid-troposphere, specific humidity is falling there, so that predicted warming30 at twice the surface rate is not seen11,31. Thus, feedback response varies near-linearly with temperature, so that the water-vapour feedback is small.

Figure 4. | The tropical mid-troposphere hot spot (a) is not observed (b).

Monte Carlo processes (Fig. 5) compared the revised 2 σ Charney-sensitivity interval 1.16 [1.09, 1.23] K with the current 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K (inset); and, in an empirical campaign, authoritative estimates of anthropogenic forcing over ten periods all yielded 1.15 K.

Figure 5. | (a) Monte Carlo distribution of Charney sensitivities revised after defining feedback correctly (bin widths 0.005 K); (b) Scaled comparison of distributions of revised vs. current Charney sensitivities (bin widths 0.025 K).

No consensus: Only 0.3% of 11,944 climate papers from 1991-2011 found of post 1950-warming anthropogenic32. If some warming were natural, equilibrium sensitivities might be less than found here.

Discussion: The Stern climate-economics review33 took a mid-range estimate of warming by 2100 as driving a welfare loss of of global GDP (cf. )1. The 11 K upper bound33 drove a 20%-of-GDP extinction-level loss assuming a pure rate-of-time discount rate, giving “roughly a chance of the planet not seeing out this century”34. Adding per-capita consumption growth without climate change gave a mean social discount rate (cf. 35), against a 36-37 minimum market discount rate. Since the present result shows the probability of extinction is nil, submarket rates are unjustifiable. Even without allowing for the present result, at the mean discount rate a -of-GDP welfare loss33 would become (or assuming no net welfare loss until preindustrial temperature is exceeded by ), while a -of-GDP loss33 would become only ().

Conclusion: The World Bank cites global warming in refusing to fund coal, oil and gas projects in developing countries, where denying electricity to 1.3 billion people curtails IQ and shortens lifespans by ~20 years. Once temperature feedback is correctly defined, anthropogenic warming will be small, slow and net-beneficial. A policy rethink is advisable.

References

1. IPCC. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013).

2. Hansen, J. et al. Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. Hansen J, Takahashi T (eds.). American Geophysical Union, 130–163 (1984).

3. Schlesinger, M.E. Feedback analysis of results from energy balance and radiative-convective models. In: The potential climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide. MacCracken, M.C., Luther, F.M. (eds,). US Dept. of Energy, Washington DC, 280–319 (1985).

4. Roe, G. Feedbacks, timescales, and seeing red. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 93–115 (2009).

5. Schmidt, G.A., Ruedy, R.A., Miller, R.L. & Lacis, A.A. Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res. (Atmos.) 115, D20106, https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2010JD014287 (2010).

6. Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D., Ruedy, R.A. Atmospheric CO2: principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science 330, 356–359 (2010).

7. Andrews. T., Gregory, J.M., Webb, M.J. & Taylor, K.E. Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607 (2012).

8. Vial, J., Dufresne, J.-L., Bony, S. On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates. Clim. Dyn. 41, 3339-3362, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9 (2013).

9. Black, H.S. Stabilized feedback amplifiers. Bell System Tech. J., New York (January 1934).

10. Bode, H.W. Network analysis and feedback amplifier design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1945).

11. Karl, T.R., Hassol, S.J., Miller, C.D., Murray, W.L. (Eds.). Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere: steps for understanding and reconciling differences. U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1, Washington DC, 164 pp, (2006).

12. Cess, R.D. et al. Uncertainties in carbon dioxide radiative forcing in atmospheric general-circulation models. Science 262 (5137), 1252-1255 (1993).

13. IPCC. Climate change – The IPCC Assessment (1990): Report prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change by Working Group I. Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J., Ephraums, J.J. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990).

14. Charney, J.G., et al. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Report of an Ad-Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, Woods Hole, Massachusetts (1979).

15. Armour, K.C. Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 331-335, https://doi.org/10.1038/ NCLIMATE3278 (2017).

16. Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., Tigchelaar, M. & Ganopolski, A. Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Sci. Adv. 2 (11), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501923 (2016).

17. Johansson, D.J.A., O’Neill, N.C., Tebaldi, C., Häggström, O. Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 449-453 (2015)

18. Murphy, D.M. et al. An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D17107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009D012105 (2009).

19. Forest, C.E., Stone, P.H. & Sokolov, A.P. Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L01705 (2006).

20. Andronova, N.G. & Schlesinger, M.E. Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. (Atmos). 106, 22605-22611 (2001).

21. Bony, S. et al. How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim. 19, 3445–3482, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3819.1 (2006).

22. IPCC. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, J.T. et al. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001).

23. Ramanathan, V., Cicerone, R.J., Singh, H.B. Kiehl, J.T. Trace gas trends and their potential role in climate change. JGR (Atmospheres) 7:90(D3), https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD03p-5547 (1985)

24. WMO. Atmospheric ozone: 1985 global ozone research and monitoring project, ch. 15, Geneva (1986).

25. Morice, C.P., Kennedy, J.J., Rayner, N., Jones, P.D. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08101 (2012), http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.5.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt, accessed 10 September 2018.

26. Smith, D.M. et al. Earth’s energy imbalance since 1960 in observations and CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42 (4), https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062669 (2015).

27. Wentz, F.J., Ricciardulli, L., Hilburn, K. & Mears, C. How much more rain will global warming bring? Science 317, 233–235 (2007).

28. Kalnay E. et al. The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis 40-year Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 437-471 (1996).

29. Harde, H. Radiation transfer calculations and assessment of global warming by CO2. Int. J. Atmos. Sci., https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9251034 (2017).

30. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon S. et al. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007).

31. McKitrick, R., Christy, J. A test of the tropical 200- to 300-hPa warming rate in climate models. Earth & Space Science, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000401 (2018).

32. Legates, D.R., Soon, W.W.-H., Briggs, W.M., Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. Climate consensus and misinformation: a rejoinder to “Agnotology Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change”, Sci. Educ., doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 (2015).

33. Stern, N. The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006).

34. Dietz, S., Hope, C., Stern, N., Zenghelis, D. Reflections on the Stern Review (1): a robust case for strong action to reduce the risks of climate change. World Econ. 8(1), 121–168 (2007).

35. Garnaut, R. The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Australia, ISBN 9780521744447 (2008).

36. Murphy, J. Some Simple Economics of Climate Changes. Paper presented to the MPS General Meeting, Tokyo (2008 September 8).

37. Nordhaus, W.D. A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press (2008).

38. Jouzel, J. et al. Orbital and millennial Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 years. Science 317, 793–796 (2007).

39. Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. The temperature feedback problem. Energy Envir. 26 (5), 829–840 (2015).

## 286 thoughts on “Reporting the fraudulent practices behind global warming science”

1. “I wrote back to say that, unless we were given the opportunity to appeal against the editor’s decision, we proposed to report him as a participant in what Professor Mörner has justifiably described as “the biggest fraud in human history”.”

A great way to establish scientific truth. Call the police!

• Ed Zuiderwijk says:

How eminently predictable you are.

• Vuk says:

Government’s policy on the climate change is not about science, it is not even about facts, it is about the force of persuasion, and there is no more powerful persuasion for any government, than the incessant dynamic pressure on the people in power to collect additional taxes on account of the cause that can’t be verified.
The fact that fraction of the money is returned in form of research grants, commercial subsides etc. etc to those exerting the pressure, creates ever stronger positive feed back loop, that the sceptics regretfully have failed to break.

• tim maguire says:

Still, though, do we really want the police settling scientific questions?

• J Wurts says:

We want the police to intervene and stop fraud.

• Greg says:

Exactly.

A great way to establish scientific truth. Call the police!

Well the normal way to establish scientific truth would be to publish a paper and let academics thrash it out. However, we see that there are some very non scientific forces at play to prevent that happening.

There is no doubt that the 97% claim is a politically motivated fraud.

Christina Figuras has openly declared that the ultimate aim is redistribution of wealth irrespective of whether they are are “right ” about AGW. The intent to “redistubute wealth” is one of the parts of the fraud.

Of course anyone who is an “official of the UN” is immune from prosecution in every jurisdiction on the planet.

• Greg Cavanagh says:

They aren’t answering the “scientific question”. Read the first 18 paragraphs again. This is about silencing of opposing views for dubious reasons (or no reason as per the second reviewer, other than they don’t want it to be true).

• RW says:

We want the police to investigate and prosecute fraud. M claims he was advised in a way which at the face of it is emintently reasonable.

• Javert Chip says:

Well, Tim, are you going to step in and mediate the situation?

When reasonable avenues of civil discussion are shut down, and the damage alleged by Monkton continues, eventually you end up pursuing a legal remedy, which sometimes does involve the police.

I’m supportive as long as this qualifies as a “last resort” (as opposed to “first resort”) approach.

• ATheoK says:

Which part of the 97% fraudulent claim or journals refusing to treat papers equally involve scientific questions?

Fraud is well defined as a legal issue.

• Alan Tomalty says:

There has been massive fraud in the surface temperature data and the fraud was admitted even in the climategate emails.

• Stu says:

But we do want them to investigate crimes.

• pbweather says:

You could point out where his paper is wrong here and show why it should not be published….if you can?

• I pointed out, extensively, in previous threads. One refutation that has never been answered, is here. You can get exactly the same answer as Lord M does with his feedback nonsense by just the very primitive (and obviously inadequate) calculation of sensitivity by dividing the observed temperature rise over a period by the forcing change, ignoring any dynamics. The feedback hoopla adds nothing.

• Ha ha,

But YOU don’t want others to have a chance to post official “refutations” on a published paper.

Again, you make no sense here since you are advocating a way to deprive others to give it proper assement AFTER it is published.

What are you afraid of?

• CB says:

That’s not accurate, Nick. Your “refutation” was answered and shown to be invalid.

• ATheoK says:

Specious distraction.

• Andrew Kerber says:

I dont see your point here. I read both your comment here, and your ‘refutation’. But you dont refute anything. You just point out what anyone could tell you, and what is a direct result of the calculation being linear rather logarithmic. That it can be calculated without calculus. In fact your statement is blinding obvious just from reading the article above. Why exactly do you consider it to be a refutation?

• It’s nothing to do with linear/logarithmic. Lord M claims that CS is omitting a basic feedback. So he does a calculation of sensitivity with lots of extra feedback terms. And he gets an answer which, to umpteen decimals, is exactly the same as the most primitive calculation you can do. All his feedback stuff, right or wrong, just cancels out.

• Jan E Christoffersen says:

Nick,

But, doing that sensitivity calculation. one would have to believe “the observed temperature rise over a period”. What UHI effect would one choose for a downward temperature adjustment – Phil Jones’ estimated 0.05-0.06C per century or 0.20C+ per century as measured by other investigators?

• whiten says:

Nick, me still biting my fingers in the long expecting of your feverish the soon to come “step up warming” claim…
Where do you think we are or happen to be with that one, at this point in time, with this so proclaimed “scientific” stand of yours, at this point in time!?
Any time soon???….
that you may consider to answer this one Nick!!!

Yes, no, maybe, likely, very likely or even unlikely, or not any more possible…
guessing not possible at all, quite impossible Nick…
What would or could you say!
What could you say…possibly, or not possibly, that is the question Nick!
You not akin to get to answer it yet…for some weird reason.
what keeps you from just do in it Nick???

Try it, give it a go, take the chance, if you got the guts to stand by your claims, Nick.
Don’t hold back, be brave!!!

cheers

• In other words, you can determine the actual sensitivity by using actual observed data – and it happens to match the number obtained by Lord M.

While at the same time, you cannot determine the actual observed data by applying the sensitivity assumed in the “models.”

We are to believe in you and climate “scientists” – not in our own lying eyes, right? Reminds me of the “Professor Hill Method for Musical Education.” Unfortunately, you are unlikely to receive a miracle like Robert Preston’s character – the con will unravel in the end.

• John Endicott says:

If he could he would, but he didn’t. speaks volumes.

• Here is just one statement from the current post that makes no sense:
“Control theory, developed for telephone circuits9,10 but applicable to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, defines feedback as responsive to the entire reference signal as well as to perturbations. However, climatology1-6 considers only perturbations e.g. 1, p. 1450:”
But a signal is a perturbation. If there isn’t a perturbation, there isn’t a signal. Climatology didn’t invent that. Says Wiki:
“In its most common usage, in electronics and telecommunication, this is a time varying voltage, current or electromagnetic wave used to carry information. A signal may also be defined as an “observable change in a quantifiable entity”.[2] “

This stuff is basic.

• Paul Penrose says:

Bollocks. Just because a signal is a perturbation, it doesn’t mean any particular perturbation is the entire signal.

• The “signal” that Lord M is claiming CS omits isn’t a perturbation at all. It is a “reference temperature”. It hasn’t changed.

• D. J. Hawkins says:

Nick, the signal is NOT only the time varying portion. If I have a DC input of 50 volts with a 60 Hz AC ripple of 0.5 volts on top, the signal is the steady input PLUS the ripple, not just the ripple. Where the heck did you learn control theory???

• ” If I have a DC input of 50 volts with a 60 Hz AC ripple of 0.5 volts on top”
So if you then broadcast the signal, do you broadcast the 50 volts? How?

• RW says:

The signal can be the thing controlled. A thing that depends on other things, like perturbations. Calling a signal at time t+i a perturbation due to it having been perturbed at t+i-j is counterproductive. A feedback can be a function of all purturbations along with the reference signal. It can also be a subset of them. I don’t find anything odd with M’s statement.

• “The signal can be the thing controlled.”
Then it has to be at least perturbable. But The reference temperature, as defined by Lord M, is the pre-existing temperature. It by definition can’t be controlled.

• RW says:

If the thing you want to control was not purturbable, then you would not need feedback.

The ‘reference’ temp is the initial temp (input) and the ‘controlled’ temp is the resultant temps at each iteration (output). Controlled temps can be functions of the reference temp subjected to feedback control. So I still don’t see a problem with M’s statement.

• Kurt says:

“Nick, the signal is NOT only the time varying portion. If I have a DC input of 50 volts with a 60 Hz AC ripple of 0.5 volts on top, the signal is the steady input PLUS the ripple, not just the ripple. ”

I think you’re missing the point. Using your analogy, Monkton is trying to argue that the 50V bias voltage around your 60Hz AC signal has some amount of that voltage attributable to “feedback” as well as the 60Hz AC input around the bias voltage, while “climate science” incorrectly only applies feedback to the time-varying signal.

Monckton has it wrong. Feedback is only relevant to whatever change is instantaneously applied to an input – the feedback amplifies or dampens that change. That’s why feedback analysis is most easily performed in the frequency domain. Feedback systems care nothing about what historical changes were made at an input to get to the current state, from which instantaneous change is amplified or dampened, and know nothing about what future changes may be in store at the input. All that matters is the instantaneous state of change at the input.

I’ve agreed with a lot of things Monckton has said, but not this paper. He’s off on a wild goose chase here.

• Roy says:

If it’s fraud then you bring in the police, Nick. Simple.

• boffin77 says:

Nick, I think the above reference to telephone circuits may have thrown you off. In modern telephone circuits (and in most digital signals), the DC offset is irrelevant – the only thing that matters is the AC component (typically digitally multiplexed.)
Perhaps Lord Monckton should reference something other than telephony… for example I was taught control theory with reference to a toilet tank, where the float and valve ensure that the final height of the water does not depend on water pressure or water flow rates. Thus in a toilet tank the “signal” is the height of the water, not the height of ripples in the water. Monckton is pointing out that climate feedback mechanisms do not track the rate of change of CO2, nor the deviation of the CO2 from its 1850 level (how the global climate remember that reference value?) but rather the current quantity of CO2. It’s an important point. Hard to imagine why a scientist would not want to review his paper, just for the chance of giving a scientific answer.

• “Thus in a toilet tank the “signal” is the height of the water”
It’s the height above (or rather below) the equilibrium level, and so a perturbation. Lord M’s version is like feeding back height above floor level. Or maybe sea level.

Toilet is not a very good analogy, because it is highly non-linear. Once the level is a little below equilibrium, the tap is open and flow is not dependent on how much below. But used here is linear feedback theory. Responses and feedback are proportional to perturbation. And or states these reference levels matter. RW said what about the 50V DC component. Well, what exactly gets fed back? A fraction of 50V? Really? But what means 50V? It is voltage relative to a conventional point, the negative rail of the power supply. That isn’t anything physical. What if you said it was -40V relative to the positive rail. So do you feed back -40V? None of this makes sense.

• Dave Fair says:

All of this has nothing to do with atmospheric feedbacks, Nick. If you can tease out the various theoretical feedback responses to any assumed perturbation of any given climatic parameter, we’ll give you a Nobel.

UN IPCC climate models are bunk. They are full of unproven feedback assumptions. Prove me wrong, Nick. [And let’s not even get into modeled aerosol assumptions.]

• Crispin in Waterloo but really in Johor says:

All of the above, right up to the first comment by Nick, fails to hit the nail on the head.

GHG’s increase the near surface air temperature and increase the potential to cool the atmosphere by radiation. These go together. The equilibrated temperature near the surface in 1850 consists of contributions from radiative heating by the sun, back-radiative heating by the surface, convective heat transfer from the surface, and feedbacks.

The IPCC agrees with this list of contributions, but only for increases in GHG concentration after 1850. They claim, incorrectly, that there is no feedback component in the 1850 temperature – claiming it is the result of GHG’s only. Monckton is correcting their omission.

What the IPCC has done is to calculate an ECS based on the presumed warming “caused by GHG’s” and derived some number for temperature increase that will apply going forward, should the GHG concentration increase, which of course it did. To this anticipated warming from GHg’s they add “feedbacks”, ignoring the fact that the 1850 temperature included feedbacks as well as GHG effects.

Obviously if one pretends that the warming to 1850 was solely created by GHG’s, then the projection of an increase in concentration plus additional warming from feedbacks will over-estimate future values, something consistently observed when comparing IPCC predictions with observations.

Nick’s statement that the same answer as Monckton’s can be obtained using empirical observations of temperature is a distraction. That is exactly what the IPCC has failed to do – use observations. They prefer using derivation from first principles while making a fatal omission of fact: that the temperature in 1850 included feedbacks that apply both before and after that year. All increases in GHG concentration (signal) provoke feedbacks, should any feedback mechanism exist. The IPCC says they exist. So be it.

When Monckton correctly derives from first principles the temperature in 1850 and the current temperature in 2019 is show the math is sound. Similarly it exposes the error of the IPCC calculation which persistently over-anticipates temperature rise for a given GHG concentration increase.

The implications are significant. A rising CO2 concentration brings well-known environmental benefits, and quantifiable anticipated warming which is only one third of that projected by the IPCC. Global warming cannot be the existential terror proposed by the UNEP, NASA, the Potsdam Institute and others.

Publication of Monckton’s paper showing the conceptual error in the IPCC’s approach will be fatal to the climate catastrophe narrative.

If the article is correctly formatted and referenced, it should be accepted. If the publishers are corrupt or mendacious they will refuse to allow Monckton to join the conversation (which is what journal articles are) thus failing in their primary purpose which is to facilitate such exchanges of themes in Science.

As numerous contributors to the IPCC reviews have demonstrated, articles and claims do not have to be true to be published. Thus, editors do not have standing to publish what they prefer to be true, only to see that the framing of the argument made meets their criteria. No reviewer has pointed to an error in the analysis, only their preference that the public not be made aware of the inevitable conclusion.

• “That is exactly what the IPCC has failed to do – use observations. Th”
There are no observations in Monckton’s current math at all. His ECS now comes down to
E=(288/265)*1.05
288 is present surface temperature. OK, it’s a kind of observation, but the answer would be much different if it was 285 or 290. 265 is his entirely theoretical reference temperature, mainly derived from GCMs. Again that could differ by several degrees with no real effect on the answer. And the 1.05 is the long-standing figure for sensitivity with no feedbacks. Also theoretical, with input from GCMs.

And of course it is based on the absolute nonsense of trying to feed state variables through an amplification/feedback process.

• Leonard Weinstein says:

How would you correct the criminal activity by those stopping reasonable discussion from being seen. Beg?

• So declining to publish a paper which makes no sense is criminal activity?

• Man Bearpig says:

If its too confusing, could you pass on to someone that can understand, and either refute it or concur with it?

• Marcus says:

YOU couldn’t understand it, so it makes no sense ? ROTFLMAO…..What a cop out…..

• It made no sense to the journal, so they declined to publish it. That is normal for journals.

• RACookPE1978 says:

Nick Stokes

It made no sense to the journal, so they declined to publish it. That is normal for journals.

That is normal practice for a “journal” whose politically-corrupt editor only seeks to print what the editor desires to be seen by others.

• Tom Halla says:

Why, pray tell, does the “paper makes no sense”? Get specific, Mr Stokes.

• Roy says:

So tell us where the paper makes no sense. Where are the errors?

• Mr. obtuse is back!

Gee Nick did you forget to read the idiotic run around Monckton was getting over the paper review process? It is right here at the top of this blog page.

It has the appearance of a DELIBERATE censorship all over it. The appearance of trying to keep it bottled up over bogus review excuses, you didn’t miss this part in Monckton’s article here?

You are now into censorship against HIM because you don’t like him?

• No-one has the right to demand that their paper be published. Journals reject papers quite frequently. They have standards. Trying to call in the police when your paper gets rejected just makes you look nutty.

• I didn’t say they MUST publish it, I was talking about the run around they gave him as their way to avoid publishing it. It shows indication of bottling it up in the possible INTENT of not publishing it, knowing their reason for not publishing is invalid.

Here is what you must have forgotten, since it was in the article you allegedly read:

I went on to tell him how certain parties have wilfully and, as we see it, fraudulently thwarted our attempts to get one of the leading learned journals of climatology to publish our paper demonstrating that a single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics is the sole cause of the absurdly overblown predictions of warmer weather on the basis of which scientifically-illiterate governments have been panicked by downright evil lobby groups and profiteers of doom into causing untold death, disease, educational disadvantage, industrial destruction and financial ruin worldwide.

His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.

There is more, if you want to convince us that YOU are an honest person…….

You hypocritically talk about standards, huh? What about the “Hockey Stick” paper that was published very rapidly, with no data and code available behind it? That was later exposed as garbage, that honest competent reviewers could not have missed from the start. That McIntire had a hard time publishing in the SAME journal that HS paper was so quickly published in, to point out problems with the paper…..

Did you actually read the article at all?

• RW says:

Submssions deserve a fair shake tho. Who demands the paper be published? M is asking for a fair shake. A fair shake entails reviewers who are experts in the question addressed in the submission and in how the authors addressed it; and an editor who should have a good deal of familiarity in these tbings too, to be in the best position to adjudicate. To be an editor. Nothing more ridiculois than an editor relying entirely on the reviewers, because the reviewers can make brutal errors, innocent or otherwise. So they need at least one reviewer, possibly two, who are have demonstrable expertise in control systems theory.

• MarkW says:

As always, the standard of scientific proof is, does it support the CAGW myth.

• meltemian says:

+1

• Bellman says:

“So declining to publish a paper which makes no sense is criminal activity?”

It shouldn’t be criminal to decline any paper, even if it does make sense.

• Gerald Machnee says:

They are afraid that the papers they already approved make less sense than Moncton’s.

• Dave Fair says:

Then-current consensus experts should have prevented Einstein from publishing any of his papers because they made no sense, Nick?

It seems the science here is not at issue; it is the conclusion. In other words, ideology trumps science in CliSci.

• Einstein’s papers made sense and were published.

• Dave Fair says:

In hindsight, Nick, every evolution of science makes sense; it is only in then-time that the evolution makes no sense. Think the “100 Scientists Letter.”

Anyway, why should editors be allowed gatekeeping based on ideology? The various CliSci garbage that gets through is allowed because of ideology.

• tom0mason says:

Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 at 12:58 pm

“Einstein’s papers made sense and were published.”

Not at the time (also they were not peer reviewed in a formal sense), and Einstein’s papers did not meet with the approval of many scientists of the day.
Around the time of Einstein’s publish papers —

Some criticized Special Relativity for many reasons, such as lack of evidence, rejection of mathematical physics, philosophical reasons. Examples people who criticized him are: Max Abraham, Friedrich Adler, Henri Bergson, Herbert Dingle, Harald Nordenson, Hugo Dingler, Louis Essen, Herbert E. Ives, Emanuel Lasker, Hjalmar Mellin, Albert Abraham Michelson, Menyhért Palágyi, Walter Ritz, Georges Sagnac.

https://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/einsteis-theory-special-relavtivity
Many other scientist disagreed with him (Einstein), and other voiced the opinion that he made little sense and was wrong.
However he was published and his ideas in some quarters are still disputed. But that is how the scientific method works.
Darwin’s detractors at the time of his publication were legion, and yet despite his unconventional views (at the time) he was published.

The Scientific method fails when controversial papers and theories are not published, then they can not be properly considered or judged. They can not be shown to be failures by the logic and reason of others, by the judgment of their scientific peers.
IMO by not allowing proper scientific peer review and by using this method of suppression (aka soft censorship) scientific endeavors in this field are cheapened and impoverished.

• Dave Fair says:

The raw deal is that the UN IPCC will not consider scientific work that is not peer reviewed and published in “approved” journals. That is, unless you are one of them; then they take late, unreviewed papers. Look it up.

• Paul Penrose says:

More lies from Nick. The journals never claimed the paper it made no sense. One reviewer referenced a page that didn’t exist, another didn’t even bother to read past the conclusion to see if it made sense. A third supposed reviewer provided no written feedback at all. That is not any kind of honest attempt to review the paper. If I tried that at my job, I’d be sacked. Have you no same, Nick?

• “The journals never claimed the paper it made no sense. “

A few reviewer quotes, via Lord M, from here:

“Simply inserting emission temperature in place of anthropogenic surface warming in the equations, and proceeding as before, is a massive violation of energy conservation.”

“Instead of feeding in the perturbation temperature and asking what the perturbation in the top-of-atmosphere energy budget is, they shove the whole temperature difference from absolute zero into the equation by fiat and without physical justification. It’s plain rubbish.”

“The analysis given is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed and I cannot recommend publication by a reputable journal.”

I think they are not finding much sense there.

• RW says:

Depends on the reviewers’ qualifications. If their claims are invalid and M has shown this then the reviewers and the editors have failed to do their job. If this failure persists and persists for three journals then an investigation lf frqud might be in the cards. What is the problem with this? If M cannot show the critiques to be invalid then the claim of fraud is rejected before it gets off the ground.

• Greg Cavanagh says:

We’ve seen a lot of papers that make no sense. Feminist glaciology for one, as well as several hoax papers shown on WUWT.

• Geoff Sherrington says:

Nick,
Maybe it has not been wise to close off or make too difficult, customary methods of showing a dissenting opinion.
The run-around that Lord Monckton has described is different in scale, but similar in principle, to my interactions with our BOM, who for 15 months have declined to state the error terms applicable to their customary daily temperature observations. Some hard scientists might take a refusal to state error, by a public authority, as a form of fraud.
So I, for one, am with the LM thinking and the widespread future investigation of fraud. Geoff

• TIm Groves says:

All in all it would be much better for the suspects to be investigated and potentially prosecuted, convicted, fined and/or jailed, and lose their pensions, than for them to be hung from lampposts, which is what may well happen when the public everywhere, increasingly angered and embittered by having to pay through the nose for intermittent electricity, finally catches on to the magnitude of the fraud—a fraud beyond the dreams of Professor Moriarty—that this group of insiders has been perpetuating.

• M Courtney says:

Well, it’s more a way of establishing that the scientific method is being followed.

If it is and the paper is rejected then we are getting closer to the truth – the paper is wrong.
But if the scientific method is not being followed and the paper is rejected we are getting further away from the truth. Because we will think we have learnt something when we haven’t.

Not sure this is a good idea. It probably isn’t.

But it might force the IPCC to defend their arguments in debate.
And that would only be good for science. Thus also bad for the IPCC with its principle of political consensus led investigation.

• commieBob says:

Based just on dispassionate science, CAGW should have been dead a while ago. If there is evidence of fraud, it should be properly investigated. On the other hand, that could be remarkably difficult.

It seems to me that M&M have thoroughly debunked Dr. Mann’s hockey stick. On the other hand, Mann is able to present arguments that his hockey stick is valid. Similarly, I am sure that people will present evidence showing that the 97% figure is valid.

The courts aren’t equipped to deal with differences in scientific opinion or to evaluate scientific evidence. In that light, it would appear that you are correct. We have to keep our eyes on the ball though.

CM has asserted that there’s evidence that his paper was rejected for non-scientific reasons. As far as I can tell, the reviewers did not refute his science and, again as far as I can tell, a reasonable person could reach that conclusion based on the evidence.

It is quite possible that the courts could find fraud without having to adjudicate scientific truth.

• Geoff Sherrington says:

CommieBob,
Nah. Come off it.
Some issues can be resolved by little more than adding up and taking away numbers. Not beyond the average Judge.
The difficulty has always been the persistent gagging to prevent these simple numbers from going public via customary scientific routes.
Geof

• Greg Cavanagh says:

Agree. If the courts can’t follow the argument here, then they have no business judging murder cases.

• lee says:

It seems more about publishing than “scientific truth”. 😉

• Craig says:

Actually Nick, yes, it is! Please demonstrate why the paper should not be published….

• John Endicott says:

No, he brought up some “points” that were more than adequately rebutted in that link. Nothing he wrote there “demonstrate(s) why the paper should not be published”.

• Anthony Banton says:

I disagree.
But anyway, I’ll play along.
Such as?

• John Endicott says:

Such as all the rebuttals to all his posts that you can read in the thread that you linked to. If you think you can show that there’s any that were not rebutted then by all means repost them here. But you won’t because you can’t repost what doesn’t exist.

• Anthony Banton says:

I read many of the rebuttals – the vast majority adding up to angry hand-waving with precious few adding any semblance of science argument.
They were rebutted by Nick in turn.
No surprise then, you chose to believe any rebuttal to those.
BTW: weight of numbers “rebutting” Nick, on this, a sceptic Blog, in no way correlates to being correct. (by virtue of bias).
Though that is, I know the measure here of “winning”.
No, sorry.
This bit of snake-oil selling to the gullible, actually boils down to common-sense anyway…..
That is the concept of a feedback to be attributed to a temperature (Monckton’s “entire reference signal”).
There is not and cannot be a feedback to a temperature alone (why is this not obvious??).
Only to a change of forcing…. which will results in a change of temperature, can cause a feedback.
An equilibrium is not in dis-equilibrium.
Were that the case, then what would stop the climate wildly veering all over the place?

• John Endicott says:

They were rebutted by Nick in turn.

which were in turn rebutted by others. It’s called a discussion, that’s what happens in discussions.

Though that is, I know the measure here of “winning”.

It’s not a matter of “winning”, you claimed nick did “demonstrate why the paper should not be published” without providing any evidence he did so. and the only evidence you provided was a link to a thread where every point nick brought up was rebutted (by multiple people by your own admission). That’s not a demonstration of why a paper should not be published, it’s a discussion that you choose to believe one side on while dismissing the other as ” angry hand-waving” because what they say doesn’t line up with what you want to believe. If Nick so soundly “demonstrated why the paper should not be published” then you should have had no problem reposting the specific demonstration here , but you didn’t. instead you “angily hand-waved” by posting a link to an entire thread and said “it’s in there” as if saying it makes it so and also ignoring the fact that all of his points in that thread were rebutted (as well as his rebuttals to those rebuttals).

• craig says:

Anthony,

Seriously, if you want me to look at the story, that’s fine but I’m not reading 946 replies to see what Nick did or didn’t say. Either place his quote in a seperate post and then link the story or stop wasting my time!

• Nick Stokes,

I take it you accept censorship……, over a paper you and several others thinks is bad, yet you are terrified that it be published, which would then allow for devastating counter to a paper YOU and a few other thinks is bad.

That makes no sense to me.

• Izaak Walton says:

Sunsettommy,
rejecting a paper is not censorship. That is what all journals do. Similarly
newspapers do not have to publish your letter to the editor.

Mr. Monkton has published his paper numerous times on the web at this site
and others and anyone with a web browser and who knows how to use google can find
it. The paper is rubbish for reasons that have been stated again and again. For example in Fig one the emission temperature is defined as the input signal when there is not a signal since it can’t change as long as the sun’s energy remains constant.

• TRM says:

The normal scientific process has several “rungs on the ladder” missing for those who don’t adhere to the “consensus” view. That by itself is very unscientific unless you can show me where in the scientific method it says “and then consensus was reached”. You can’t because it isn’t in there.

This is not a way to “establish scientific truth”. This is the best way to deal with fraud. If you were at all interested in “establishing a scientific truth” you would follow the scientific method.

• Bob Greene says:

Why not? Seems to be the way believers in so-called “climate change” go their targets.

• Joel Snider says:

But they did it didn’t they?

I seem to remember Nuremberg trails being recommended against us.

But I don’t remember Nick complaining about that.

• Rod Evans says:

What would be your way of investigating fraud then Nick, if the police are now allowed to get involved once the evidence of said fraud is overwhelming?

• GCSquared says:

We have something like this in youtube, who is “policing” their content to keep out “offensive” and “fraudulent” content. It’s not working out well. Consider the C16 human rights law in Canada, administered by a politicized human rights council.

There’s no guarantee that the authorities, police & courts themselves won’t be politicized, so that a system established with the intent of maintaining honesty won’t become something else. In this case, I can easily if horrifyingly picture Michael Mann as commissioner on an expert panel set up to determine fraud.

I’d much rather go the other way, and practice as radical a version of free speech as possible. I think we need to lift controls, not make more.

• Clyde Spencer says:

Stokes
In an ideal world, one would not have to involve the police in science. But, it it less than an ideal world! Had Einstein attempted to publish in an environment that is currently as hostile to non-consensus ideas, his work probably would never have seen the light of day. As he famously said, “Why 100? It only takes one to prove me wrong.” If a formal reviewer could demolish Monckton’s thesis, then it would be justified to reject the submission. However, it appears that the reviewers are responding on an emotional level, not an objective, rational level.

There are different ways to implement feedback in a model. If done explicitly, as is common in system dynamics modeling, it also incorporates lags, and is easy to see what the relationships are. If done implicitly, as seems to be the case in GCMs, it is harder to untangle. But, more importantly, despite the pious claims that GCMs are based on physics, that is only a half-truth. The biggest problem is the parameterizations, which makes assumptions that may not be correct. They modify the ‘Physics,’ leading to the classic GIGO! It would probably be better to try to simplify the GCMs by using only empirically verifiable relationships and avoiding the mixing of the differential equations of ‘hard science’ and the assumptions of parameterizations.

• Clyde,
“There are different ways to implement feedback in a model….If done implicitly, as seems to be the case in GCMs”
It is not the case in GCMs. They do not use feedback. You can use feedback, as in the real world, as a diagnostic, to try to interpret the relationships. But they are not part of the implementation.

• Alan Tomalty says:

They don’t use feedback in the empirical sense because the models are not based on the Navier Stokes equations when calculating radiation because they can’t model clouds on a global basis. Tapio Schneider, a climate scientist admitted as such recently.

• Dave Fair says:

Oh Nick, Nick, Nick: Feedback assumptions are fundamental to UN IPCC climate modeling. How, otherwise, do modelers get tropical tropospheric water vapor amplification other than feedbacks?

Man, you need to get your physics arguments consistent with one another. I understand physics, and it does not support CAGW. Show me the physics that support runaway CO2-driven temperature speculation.

• whiten says:

In the case of a crime and fraud supposedly committed, that is the main and the easier way to deal with…in the end!

cheers

• whiten says:

I am not sure why, but my above comment is literally out of place…I did posted earlier and before my other following comment above…
The first one directed at Nick!!!
Oh… whatever…it was meant as a reply to the Nick Stokes first comment in this blog post…
Very much directed and meant to the Nick’s first comment in this article of the Lord M…
hopefully this somehow makes sense.

cheers

• tonyb says:

Nick

What would you suggest be done to get the information properly reviewed and I am not saying here whether it is right or wrong?

tonyb.

• Tony,
I think it has been properly reviewed, and the reviewers were correct. But if people are dissatisfied with a journal rejection, the normal next step is to try another. And if you really think there are no suitable outlets, you could start one yourself. The basic function of a journal is to recommend papers to its audience. This function is not improved by the intervention of the police.

• You are serious, Nick?

You write:

“I think it has been properly reviewed, and the reviewers were correct. But if people are dissatisfied with a journal rejection, the normal next step is to try another. ”

Now I know you didn’t read the article Monckton wrote since he showed that it wasn’t properly reviewed, I wonder if you are here to lie on this, because of your personal dislike of the man?

Here is what you didn’t read:

“His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.”

Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber in my review.

• I said it has been properly reviewed, and I quoted, via Lord M, some of the reviews above. Again, just highlights:

“Simply inserting emission temperature in place of anthropogenic surface warming in the equations, and proceeding as before, is a massive violation of energy conservation.”

“Instead of feeding in the perturbation temperature and asking what the perturbation in the top-of-atmosphere energy budget is, they shove the whole temperature difference from absolute zero into the equation by fiat and without physical justification. It’s plain rubbish.”

“The analysis given is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed and I cannot recommend publication by a reputable journal.”

• Nick,

TWICE I read through the article Monckton posted, the quotes you posted are not visible in it. Where did you get them?

Meanwhile you have now TWICE dodged these statements about Reviewer reactions:

Here is what you didn’t read:

“His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.”

===============================

It looks like a run around to me, they could have simply said they think it is bad and drop it, but no they don’t appear to have a decent reason to drop it, hence the run around.

• I found the link YOU failed to provide.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/

It is interesting that you failed to post Monckton’s replies to the quotes you SELECTIVELY posted:

The first one the Reviewer never backed up their statement at all:

“Besides, the reviewer had provided no evidence or argument whatsoever to justify the nonsensical assertion that our method was a “massive violation of energy conservation”.

The third quote you chose, which Monckton replied that destroyed the reviewers argument since it was demonstrably false!

“See the analysis of the water vapor feedback, earlier in this article. The magnitude of that feedback has not been “proven beyond doubt”: it has been disproven beyond doubt. Consider, for instance, John Christy’s fascinating graph of predicted tropical mid-troposphere temperature change in 73 models from 1979-2012. All 73 models showed tropical mid-troposphere warming at a mean rate about four times the observed rate, and no model’s prediction was below the observed outturn –

It is very likely, therefore, that the chief reason why the corrected value of the system-gain factor, and hence of equilibrium sensitivity, is so much below all official estimates is the overegging of the water-vapor pudding in the models. But we don’t need to know what the models got wrong – it is sufficient to demonstrate – in our submission irrefutably – that wrong they were.”

====================================

There were many other reviewer statements you left out some that are well answered for even caveman visitors can understand.

Meanwhile how do you know these are the SAME reviewers Monckton is complaining about in THIS article. The quotes you lifted was from nearly a year ago, they might be from a different set of reviewers, than the ones in THIS article. I think they are different because the reviewers in THIS article are giving him a run around, while the reviewers LAST year gave specific objections, that he answers.

Readers, suggest that you go to that link and see the replies Monckton made to Nick Stokes, who make a lot of slippery replies there.

• “I found the link YOU failed to provide.”

Of course Monckton replied, at length. But he’s wrong, and the reviewers were right. It was properly reviewed.

• Nick,

Once again you dodge questions I bring up, you still have yet to address THIS article set of reviewers who seems to give Monckton the run around. I don’t think they are the same reviewers as last year, thus your use of quotes NOT attributed to Reviewers in THIS article are profoundly dishonest.

Why is it so hard for YOU to present honest replies?

The reviewers in your link were obviously wrong in several places, which YOU also dodged here as I pointed out two OBVIOUS errors on the reviewers part on two of the three quotes you posted.

• John Endicott says:

Why is it so hard for YOU to present honest replies?

There’s an old adage that helps explain that: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

• Rudi Joe says:

John Endicott has a good point. It’s ethical you call Nick out on his bias and fraudulence but at some point we have to realize our energy is wasted on Nick whose salary depends on you being wrong. He will continue to be funded so he can waste your and our time. This keeps you from constructively using your time intellectually fighting against the globalist catastrophic climate change slavers as you’re arguing with this well paid shill. The first time he dodges your questions and gives you links that are incorrect maybe you should move on. We have a long way to go in getting the truth out and even cavemen like me can understand that.

• Tonyb says:

Nick

Whether we always agree or not I think you are a sincere and competent person. What would it take for someone like you to properly review the item and make constructive, objective comments?

I have no view either way as to it’s accuracy or value as the maths are beyond my pay grade

Tonyb

• Tony,
I have made many specific comments on previous threads. It’s hard to be constructive when the beginning point is a basic misunderstanding of feedback and signal analysis. Amplification and feedback relate to, and are proportional to, perturbations. Lord M claims that “climatology” should include the reference temperature itself, which is basically the pre-existing state. But that isn’t the signal, and it doesn’t make sense to take a proportion of a state and feed it back. Often the notion of the state doesn’t even give a base for proportioning. Here Lord M uses Kelvin – ie difference from absolute zero. But there is no reason why that difference should have a physical significance that makes it sensible to feed back a fraction.

But as said above, I think the clearest demonstration of nonsense is in my comment here et seq. The showpiece M result is the climate sensitivity estimate. But after all the feedback talk, the answer is exactly the same, to many decimals, as what you would get by just dividing the observed T change by the forcing, as many have done before. It’s the most primitive calculation you can make. And there is a basic reason why it all cancelled out. As a black box, with just input and output observed, you can’t deduce anything about the feedback operating inside. An amplifier with big gain and negative feedback would look the same as an amplifier with modest but stable gain and no feedback.

And as noted below, when a paper is loaded up with stuff (in the abstract!) like
“Mitigation entails a heavy net global welfare loss disproportionately afflicting 1.3 billion people to whom access to electricity is denied.”
with absolutely no substantiation in the paper, that is inviting a journal editor to give it short shrift. Not because he doesn’t agree with it, but just because it has nothing to do with the supposed subject of the paper.

• Dave Fair says:

Nick, you just said that the method was wrong, but it got the right answer.

• Dave Fair says:

Har, Har, Har, Nick: You say if properly reviewed! The fix is in. Discerning reviewers know that the politics of CliSci are rampant.

• HotScot says:

Nick

I was the Police. Fraud is fraud. Scientific or otherwise.

Perhaps you might like to submit your ‘observations’ and be considered part of the potential fraud.

No?

Thought not.

• “I was the Police.”

• RW says:

Sophist.

• RW says:

I’ll add a particularly cheaky one…

• HotScot says:

How about you stick your neck out like Chris Monckton and risk being attacked incessantly by people like you?

As far I can see, that’s all your good for, rubbishing other peoples work.

If a criminal lawyer states there is a case to be made for fraud, there must be evidence for it. Or are you an ‘expert’ in Criminal Law as well as climate change science?

• Swampy says:

Good move on not falling for Nicks deflection and disrespect here. He loves to trap and troll.

• J. Butts, Ph.D. physics says:

I agree. And I could not get through the abstract –appears to be total rubbish.

• Anna Keppa says:

The obvious question: WHY is it rubbish, learned Ph.D, physics?

• RW says:

He deserves a fair shake, like all of us do. If M is correct, then neither the editor nor the reviewers did their job.

• F1nn says:

A fraud is a fraud, whoever does it. And you don´t have the truth on your side, so…

• Charlie says:

Nick . Unless we know how much phytoplankton is in the oceans and how much CO2 it absorbs along with other forms of photosynthesis I habe doubts about feedback mechanism. The Cretaceous had 6x times present CO2 levels, fluctuations in temperature over the last 5 million years have been immense.
The reality is that many scientists prefer running computer models rather than uncomfortable time consuming field work. The reality is that most scientists lack the humility to say we do not know.
We have had drying out periods about 8600 years and 5900 years ago- why ?

If people are concerned about climate then they should ask how much a decline in temperatre and rainfall would getaly reduce the wheat output of the World’s Bread Baskets.

2. AndyE says:

Go for it, Christopher Monckton. What an interesting idea. It will be expensive – but there will be thousands of $20 notes coming your way if you ask for it through WUWT. • Arjan Duiker says: I agree, I will be the first one to pay. 3. Pablo says: Is this just another way of saying that is unwise to average out the incoming solar energy for the entire sphere of the Earth to balance the outgoing in any radiative balance equation? 4. Bob Tisdale says: Thank you, Christopher. For the past half-dozen years or so, I’ve wondered when someone would take legal action against the propaganda wing of the United Nations and their paid-propagandists (the climate science community) for, in effect, crying fire in a crowded theatre when no fire exists. Best of luck. Regards, Bob 5. ozspeaksup says: Im crap at math but the effort alone deserved upvote . getting it open and looked at instead of the groupthink refusals to publish would be huge step forward;-) • Derg says: The IPCC looks at Christopher like he is a flat earther 🙁 They see no point in publishing his team’s work. A conundrum indeed. • DrDweeb says: Bizarrely, “climate science” is based on the earth being flat. So I submit that LM is in fact closer to reality than the “ Climate Industrial/political complex” • Greg Cavanagh says: LOL. You did remind me of those long discussions many years ago when they discussed how the models modeled the earth. A non-rotating flat sphere with no water and no convection. • Willis Eschenbach says: DrDweeb June 3, 2019 at 5:39 am Bizarrely, “climate science” is based on the earth being flat. Say what? I have no idea what this claim means. I have NEVER heard a single climate scientist or investigated any climate model which said the world was flat. An example or a link from you would go a long way … w. • JB says: Willis, after that many years it might as well be spelled out here. The hypotheses of the green house effect, and lets take Kiehl and Trenberth as example, is spreading out a solar incoming power over the full surface of the Earth, which neglects entirly the fact that the Earth only receives energy on the day side of the planet. This by the way, is at double the power, than what Kiehl and Trenberth or so many other caricatures of the so called “energy balance” want to make us believe. This is the same as saying that the sun is shining every second on every square meter of the surface of the Earth. This is only possible when the Earth is flat. Its worrysome that you would not understand this yet. But you better do, because this is the argument that destroys the green house hypotheses. • Willis Eschenbach says: JB June 4, 2019 at 2:35 am Willis, after that many years it might as well be spelled out here. The hypotheses of the green house effect, and lets take Kiehl and Trenberth as example, is spreading out a solar incoming power over the full surface of the Earth, which neglects entirly the fact that the Earth only receives energy on the day side of the planet. JB, What is the global average rainfall? Well, to figure that out, you take all of the rainfall measurements around the planet and you average them. It gives you a figure of about one meter of rain per year. Does this imply that the world is flat? After all, there are areas where it doesn’t rain for half the year, and there are always areas where it isn’t raining. This is just like there are areas where the sun doesn’t shine for half the time, and there are always areas where the sun isn’t shining. The answer, of course, is no. Neither average implies that the earth is flat. They are just averages. They don’t imply anything of the sort. w. • JB says: Bizzarly Willis, With your averaging skills you will never be able to get floods from heavy rainfall. But since we have floods the averaging will be wrong. You also therefore underestimate the temperatures on Earth. This is a fine example were averaging will not work! • Willis Eschenbach says: JB June 4, 2019 at 5:35 pm Bizzarly Willis, With your averaging skills you will never be able to get floods from heavy rainfall. But since we have floods the averaging will be wrong. You also therefore underestimate the temperatures on Earth. This is a fine example were averaging will not work! JB, there are thousands of places where averaging won’t work. There are also thousands of places where you MUST average to do any meaningful work. w. • JB says: Willis, down to semantics then! Fact is that the “energy balance” graphic as being used in “climate science” depict Earth as a flat disc, that receives energy over the whole surface every single second. If you call this meaningful, maybe, but it is a flat Earth argument. • AndyE says: Don’t worry whether you are good at math or not. Leave that to the folks who have a head for that. Christopher Monckton is here talking about justice, legalities, common sense. You need no knowledge of mathematics here. 6. Perry says: Please do it. 7. RStabb says: Great work. Morano exposes 97% consensus before Congress: ‘Pulled from thin air… tortured data’ • Wiliam Haas says: According to their own abstract, only 32.6% endorsed AGW which is not a consensus. Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so all this talk of consensus is nothing but speculation. Even if they had voted on the AGW conjecture, the results would have had no significance because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. If someone has to quote consensus as a reason to believe in a “scientific ” theory then there mus be something really wrong with it. AGW sounds quite plausible at first until one closely examines the scientific details and then it becomes obvious that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. 8. Mark Pawelek says: The prison door will not shut on them. In nearly all cases, their error is ignorance, and confusion over what science is and isn’t. Federals should restrict funds for modeling to no more than 1% of research funds in anyone discipline. Modelers should be pay for it themselves. • commieBob says: … their error is ignorance, and confusion over what science is and isn’t. That’s probably not a valid excuse. What we’re looking at is the banality of evil. 9. Nial says: “However, climatology1-6 considers only perturbationse.g. 1, p. 1450” Checking this out it says… “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. See also Climate Feedback Parameter” If they’re using the global mean surface temperature then they’re not just looking at pertubations. ? • Yes, they are “the climate quantity that is perturbed is the global mean surface temperature” • Dave Fair says: Just for grins, Nick, explain to me how “global mean surface temperature” is a quantity. 10. Keitho says: “It’s not for wimps”, that is a classic example of British understatements. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the observed world conforms far better with your mechanism than with the “consensus” stand point. As for the mathematics and physics, that is well above my ever diminishing abilities. Thanks. 11. Alexander Vissers says: Given the immunity of the United Nations as laid down in their charter there is little hope there I am afraid. • Greg Cavanagh says: The diplomats might be immune, but I remember soon after the Himalayan ice melting fiasco broke, the IPCC applied for immunity also. To my recollection, that bid failed. 12. Independent_George says: The Monckton blaster is in da house! I won’t be reading that maths again. I tried sketching out a couple of those equations and didn’t hit the answer by a mile. I am pretty sure however that i just summoned a genie 😮 13. Wiliam Haas says: The peer review process that you have encountered is largely political as you experience shows. If the journals that you are submitting your work to were really scientific journals, they would accept papers from all sides of the AGW controversy. You work shows that based on surface temperature measurements since 1850, the climate sensitivity of CO2 cannot be more than 1.2 degrees K assuming that all the warming since 1850 has been caused by mankind’s adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere. But if we look at natural global warming that occured before 1850, one would conclude that the more likely value of the climate sensitivity of CO2 would be significantly less than 1.2 degrees K, The theory is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. However this theory neglects that fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere, The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less that the dry lapse rate. So the H2O feedback effect is really negative and hence attenuates any warming that CO2 might provide. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate over at least the past 500 million years, enough so that mankind might evolve for we are here. The IPCC will never accept a lower value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 than what they have already published for fear of losing their funding. The IPCC is largely a political as opposed to a scientific organization. • Mark Pawelek says: Climate sensitivity of CO2 cannot be 1.2K. Because CO2 is only 5% of the GHGE. The 95% that counts is water vapour and clouds. Divide climate consensus number by 4 or 5 to get a better picture of CO2 ECS: 0.24 to 0.3 K. • Wiliam Haas says: Radiametric calculations performed decades ago came up with a climate sensitivity of CO2, not including feedbacks, of 1.2 degrees C. A researcher from Japan pointed out that these calculations assume that a doubling of CO2 will not affect the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such is not so. A doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. This slight decrease in the dry lapse rate will decrease the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 from 1.2 degrees C to less than .06 degrees C. The feedback idea is that CO2 based warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will in turn cause more warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. But H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate hence H2O can only act as a negative feedback reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 even further. Applying an attenuation factor of 3 we come up with a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C. That is to say if CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere increased from the current 400 ppm to 800 ppm such would cause an increase in global temperatures of less than .02 degrees C which is too small to even measure. • David L Hagen says: William please provide technical and popular references for “wet lapse rate is significantly less that the dry lapse rate” so readers can follow up. Thanks • Wiliam Haas says: I apologize for I have not been good about supplying references. One can always to an Internet search on either ” lapse rate”, “wet lapse rate”, or “moist lapse rate” to find more than one would want to know about the subject. 14. Joe Born says: I invite you to take a look at the last slide in the seventh post that Anthony Watts ran on this subject for Lord Monckton, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/, where Lord Monckton says, “Here’s the end of the global warming scam in a single slide.” That slide shows that Lord Monckton has made an error in high-school math. I hasten to add that this is only one of three fundamental errors in his theory. The first error is that the large ECS estimates bruited about are not arrived at in the way that Lord Monckton claims as the “grave error.” Roy Spencer points out Lord Monckton’s own error in this regard, and I’m pretty sure Dr. Spencer is right. But I don’t have the wherewithal to make that case myself. The second error is that, even if the earth could be characterized by such a thing as equilibrium temperatures, the values Lord Monckton uses for his with- and without-feedback equilibrium temperatures aren’t correct. If Lord Monckton’s accuracy on other things is any guide, I think this is indeed an error, and I believe others have made that case somewhere. But it’s not one I can creditably make myself. However, the third error is one that requires no particular expertise to detect. It’s just math; all it takes is a certain analytical ability. The reason most people seemed to find it hard to detect is that Lord Monckton so effectively hid what he was doing (even from himself, I believe). But that slide finally boils things down to their essence, and it reveals that what he was doing is bad extrapolation. The slide sets forth the correction he proposes to what he calls climatology’s “startling error of physics.” $E$ and $R$ in that slide are the with- and without-feedback equilibrium temperatures that he previously referred to as $T_\mathrm{eq}$ and $T_\mathrm{ref}$. That slide’s $A$ is the (large-signal) slope of $E$ as a function of $R$, a slope that he previously referred to as $1/(1-f)$. (Here $f$ is the “feedback factor,” i.e., the product $\mu\beta$ of the open-loop gain $\mu$ and the feedback coefficient $\beta$.) In a post I proposed (but Mr. Anthony wouldn’t run), I graphed $E$ as a function of $R$. That is, I plotted the points $(R_1,E_1)$ and $(R_2,E_2)$ that the slide sets forth. What the slide does is tell how Lord Monckton would extrapolate the $E$ value, call it $E_3$, for what we’ll call $R_3\equiv R_1+\Delta R_2$. The resultant $\Delta E_2\equiv E_3-E_1$ is what he concludes ECS is. Specifically, he would use the large-signal slope $E_1/R_1$ or $E_2/R_2$ as the extrapolation slope. The “grave error” he says “climatology” made was instead to use $\Delta E_1/\Delta R_1\equiv (E_2-E_1)/(R_2-R_1)$ as the extrapolation slope. (Of course, he obscured this by not describing it in terms of extrapolation or slopes.) But what his approach implies is that the slope of $E$ (a.k.a $T_\mathrm{eq}$) as a function of $R$ (a.k.a $T_\mathrm{ref}$) is expected to fall abruptly from the 1.43 value it’s known to have in the first, $[R_1,R_2]$ interval to 0.50 in the contiguous, $[R2,R3]$ interval. In contrast, what he characterizes as the climatology approach would employ the known slope as the contiguous interval’s slope. In other words, the climatology approach is standard linear extrapolation, whereas his theory boils down to bad extrapolation. • Craig says: whether you are right or wrong Joe, full marks for at least demonstrating where it could/is wrong unlike say…..Nick Stokes who just pretends he’s a clever boy by making unsubstantiated remarks in general. • Derg says: I don’t know Craig the following sure seems to be emotional. He refers to Mr Monckton as Lord to set him up as a higher power before referring to the error made in high school math. Very deceitful indeed. “That slide shows that Lord Monckton has made an error in high-school math.” • Harry Passfield says: Oh dear, oh dear! Here we go again. If one is courteous one will observe the usual conventions of address and be polite in your address. Christopher Monckton – that is his name, and he responds to it – is entitled to the address of ‘Lord’ (he is a Viscount) in as much as you, Derg, are entitled to be known as ‘Mister’ (I assume much here). If you call Chris Monckton, ‘Mr Monckton’ you are being discourteous in much the same way it would be for someone to merely call you Derg if the situation called for you to be addressed properly. • Derg says: I was more interested in the derogatory high school math error 😉 • Willis Eschenbach says: Oh dear,oh dear! Here comes a representative of the professionally offended class. Harry, Christopher Monckton is a grown man. He doesn’t need someone to get offended on his behalf. Me, I never deal with what I call “Third-Party Offense”, where someone gets all offended by what someone else calls a third party. If Christopher is upset, he is more than capable of saying something, and he just might take off a strip of your hide in the process in the most delightful English fashion. w. • RW says: C’mon. A call for decency, good faith argumentation, and/or civil discourse is not being part of a professional offended class. • Willis Eschenbach says: RW June 3, 2019 at 3:37 pm C’mon. A call for decency, good faith argumentation, and/or civil discourse is not being part of a professional offended class. I see. RW is also one of the professionally offended class. Look, if Christopher (I can call him that because he’s a friend of mine) wants to complain about not being addressed as “Viscount Monkton of Brenchley”, which I believe is his “style”, as it’s called, or as “Lord Monckton”, he will assuredly tell us. He is not a man to sit on a perceived slight, and more power to him in that regard. So when you are getting upset about what someone calls him, you are indeed engaged in taking third-party offense. And unless Christopher has appointed you his spokesdude, I pay no attention to such third-party whining, other than to point it out. If I want to find out if a given form of address is offensive to Christopher, I’ll talk to the organ grinder, not to the monkey … Finally, there was no “call for good faith argumentation” in what Harry said, just whining about him being offended by the form of address. My rule of thumb, which I am able to follow at least a good percentage of the time, is: “The fact that I am offended is NOT evidence that you are offensive.” Regards to all, w. • John Endicott says: Me, I never deal with what I call “Third-Party Offense”, where someone gets all offended by what someone else calls a third party. And yet, ironically, your post Willis, from which that above quote comes from, is very much a “third-party offense” post (as you say Lord M can handle it for himself, he doesn’t need you to chastise others for him). Incidentally, pointing out the conventions for using titles/honorifics (such as “lord” or “mister”) isn’t necessarily being “third party offended” (and certainly wasn’t in Harry’s case from my reading of the posts) particularly when it’s in response to someone who was being third-party offended over the use of such (it’s called educating them on why their offense was misplaced), so you Willis are being third party offended over something that wasn’t even a third-party offending remark. your ranting about “third party offenses” would have been better directed not at Harry’s post but rather the one it was in reply to, ie the one in which Derg took third-party offense over the use of Lord instead of Mr. just saying. • John Endicott says: Or to put it another way, willis, it is *you* who is showing himself to be “one of the professionally offended class” with this series of posts. • Harry Passfield says: Willis, as you were particular in your response: (Finally, there was no “call for good faith argumentation” in what Harry said, just whining about him being offended by the form of address.) can I point out, I was not ‘whining’ about (Chris) being offended, I was merely calling for courteous dialog (knowing full well that I can go off on one, as I have often seen you do so). But, no matter, I get your pov. Cheers. • RW says: Nonsense. You’re muck raking. It’s incumbent on everyone to adopt a high standard for good faith argumentation, decent discourse, etc. There are better ways to express objection. • I respect Dr Roy Spencer for his work with Satellite measurements although it is actual John Christie that has worked out the formulae and does the calculations. However, I do not respect Dr Spencer’s knowledge and understanding of thermodynamics and heat&mass transfer. If Spencer read some engineering texts on these subjects he would find that there is no such thing as back-radiation. Secondly, I find Monckton’s opinion of CO2 sensivity wrong. Engineering science measurements which have resulted in outcomes for equipment designs and property measurements show that CO2 has no affect on atmospheric temperatures. Experience of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of engineers since since the late 19th century have confirmed the theory. Finally, actual well known facts from meaurements is that temperature changes lead CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere. These facts all indicate that the so-called sensitivity is zero or more correctly sensivity does not exist. • David L Hagen says: cementafriend Radiation to/from molecules is no respector of direction or location. Chemical physicists quantify radiation across 5000 lines. Look at the NET radiation, summed across all sources. That can be positive or negative. Study Line By Line models and how they have been validated. e.g. Kratz, D.P., Mlynczak, M.G., Mertens, C.J., Brindley, H., Gordley, L.L., Martin-Torres, J., Miskolczi, F.M. and Turner, D.D., 2005. An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 90(3-4), pp.323-341. http://klimaszkeptikusok.hu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/11_JQSRT_Vol90_2005.pdf Your argument has no basis. Study what Spencer actually says. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/? Please stop wasting time and attention with your anti-scientific comments. • I do not want to make nasty comments but are any of you familiar with the work of Prof Hoyt Hottel which is to a small extent outlined in the chapter called Heat and Mass transfer in the Chemical Engineering Handbook or called Heat transfer in the Mechanical Engineering Handbook? Have any of you had some actual experience with heat transfer from gases or flames? I have designed burners for various fuels such as coal, waste oils, natural gas, pulverised waste carbon anodes. I have made hundreds of heat balances. I have measured CO2 in many process and have even measured CO2 in the atmosphere. The wavelength lines are a factor in the emissivity of a mixed gas in a temperature range. Partial pressure of radiative gases in the mixture is another factor. One can not look at the properties of a pure gas to determine the emissivity. Finally look at the original work on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (in original German text) The S-B applies to surfaces in a vacuum. Gases do not have a surface but as Hottel found estimates can be made by using volume consideration. Please stop talking about pseudo-physics. Heat transfer has been an engineering subject since around the 1800 from the work of Lazare Carnot the father of Sadi Carnot after whom the Carnot cycle is named. Willis, below, I normally find your posts interesting but you are not correct about everything and I have in the past found that you have pointed to articles that have no relevance. As well as I recall you have no qualifications in chemistry or engineering and I also recall you do not understand dimensionless numbers which are used in engineering including in heat transfer. • Hugs says: ‘ If Spencer read some engineering texts on these subjects he would find that there is no such thing as back-radiation.’ Tell me what exactly happens to the infrared shine of the Earth that happens to point towards the Sun? • Willis Eschenbach says: There is indeed back radiation. Care for an odd fact? If you light a candle outside in the day, the sun gets warmer. Go figure … w. • Joe Born says: Without thinking it through completely, I think your previous comment’s A3 = A2 + A2 – A1 roughly approximates using the local slope–i.e., approximates the standard extrapolation that Lord Monckton labels an error–but I think the difference between the R intervals makes the result different. Anyway, I’ll await further elucidation. 15. noylj says: Since there have been e-amils showing intentional fraud and there have been numerous “corrections” to historical data, who needs math to KNOW fraud? If Australia does not report temperatures below 10°?, isn’t that prima facia evidence of fraud? If they can’t even predict the output of the sun, how can they predict climate which is controlled by the sun? Have they explained all the ice ages and hot ages the Earth has gone through using their models? • lee says: The reasons BoM gives for ACORN2 adjustments – “Reason for adjustment Maximum temperature Minimum temperature Statistical 209 244 Site moves (all) 176 170 Screen change or condition 79 77 Site condition (without move) 9 5 Observation time change 2 24 Total 450 491 Table 7 ACORN-SAT version 2 adjustments by cause. Totals do not add as some adjustments have multiple causes. ” http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf Statistical no logical or physical reason for change. 16. Neville says: Christopher has anyone asked Nic Lewis to review your study? Or perhaps Roy Spencer, John Christy, Steve McIntyre etc? Also what are we to make of the Royal Society + NAS report question 20 that tells us that there is little we can do to mitigate so called CAGW even if we stopped all human co2 emissions today? Here’s the link to question 20 and that incredible lag time before co2 levels would fall is very confusing. Don’t forget this is if we stopped all co2 emissions today and they claim there would be no change in co2 levels for thousands of years and temperature would also take a long time to fall according to their calculations. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/ 17. Nik says: Tally ho! I’m making popcorn for the show, and I’ll gladly contribute to the funding. 18. Dodgy Geezer says: Um. Your problem here is not unlike the Brexit fiasco. You are trying to get people to comply with a set of rules (such as implementing the Brexit referendum decision) when they REALLY do not want to. In such cases the opportunities for evasion are too numerous to mention. In your case i would simply defend against exposure by ensuring that the Crown Prosecution Service ruled such a prosecution as not being in the public interest. And I would waffle a bit about scientific freedom to decide what to publish. Your legal adviser is incorrect when he says that “…Once the police realized that we were telling the truth, they would begin to investigate…”. Though inexperienced in this field, I predict that what would happen is: 1 – the police would ignore you. As they do most complaints. 2 – if pushed, they would realise that they are dealing with a sensitive political topic here, and push the decision up the chain 3 – direction would come down to delay justice, and then deny it. • Rod Evans says: The Blair defence would be invoked to stall or stop any action. The Blair defence is Deny and Delay then Deny and Delay then Deny and Delay, this works for well over 10 years, and results in documents being released that are so heavily redacted they are worthless to the public. 19. Sara says: Suppressing the truth. How medieval can you get? Hang in there. • Photios says: Hang together or hang separately. The choice is ours. 20. Dodgy Geezer says: “….If that second journal failed either to publish our paper or to provide a legitimate and robust scientific refutation of our argument…..” Ah. I see your problem here. Let me refute your paper. A=B and x=y – therefore your paper is wrong. Your problem is, I believe, that the courts have explicitly stated that they are not the places to determine the truth or otherwise of scientific hypotheses. So ANY refutation which ‘appears’ scientific will be all right with them. You might be on stronger ground following the precedent of that judge who ordered that errors of fact in Al Gore’s film should be mentioned in notes if the film were shown in schools. Perhaps there is some ability to require errors of fact to be corrected in policy submissions to ministers? Then again, perhaps not…. 21. ggm says: I have a question for you. We know the average temperature of the Earth is 15 degrees C, and that without the atmosphere it would be -17C. So the natural GH effect warms Earth by 33C. This is old science. I believe the 15C is an actual measurement, and the -17C (and 33C) is a calculation based on the science. My question is this. If the AGW theory says there is a massive feedback in going from 300ppm to 400 or 500ppm, then there MUST also be a massive feedback in the steps from 100ppm to 200ppmm and 300ppm. And was this taken into account when they calculated that Earth’s atmosphere warms Earth by 33C. If not, then either the AGW theory is false, OR, the original science behind the natural 33C warming is false. • Joe Born says: No brief for massive positive feedback here, but the fact that the small-signal feedback is low at lower temperatures does not necessarily imply that it can’t be much higher at higher temperatures; we’re dealing with things like evaporation, cloud formation, and emergent phenomena like thunderstorms, that are highly nonlinear. Me, I don’t think there’s much if any positive feedback, but simplistic approaches like Lord Monckton’s aren’t the way to prove that my opinion is right. • ggm says: But CO2’s absorption is not linear, it’s logarithmic. Most of CO2’s IR absorption happens in the first 50ppm and then it’s all downhill from there (or more accurately, less uphill !). • Joe Born says: Yes, the relationship’s essentially logarithmic, but that’s irrelevant here, because Lord Monckton’s equations don’t deal with CO2 concentration. They deal with feedback to temperature, not to CO2 concentration. He provides as given values the equilibrium with- and without-feedback responses to pre-industrial and current CO2 concentrations, and he also gives the without-feedback value for doubled CO2. But, again, those are givens, so the logarithmic relationship is already baked into the data; his equations don’t deal with it. All he does is extrapolate the with-feedback temperature for double CO2 from the five given temperature values. It was feedback to temperature that I said could be seriously nonlinear. Again, I don’t personally think there’s much net positive feedback. But nothing in his work bolsters my opinion. And the fact that there’s a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and forcing isn’t relevant. 22. George Mihailides says: Lord Monckton, you need to dumb down the language if you want people to follow your argument, and I personally found your logic difficult to follow (and I want to)… example.. “due to an erroneous definition of temperature feedback in climatology. All transport across the climate-system boundary is radiative; and, in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, flux density at an emitting surface is a function of absolute temperature, which is accordingly the proper metric for sensitivity studies” …what is the “climate system boundary”? …What is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and why should I care? If you are pitching your paper at the few who are familiar with this stuff, that’s one thing. If you want a broader audience to follow, they will need to be hand held….and btw, my undergraduate degree is in mathematics..so I suspect if you are losing me, you are losing many, many more… • Greg Cavanagh says: He has posted simpler layman’s versions of his idea in the past. The site search feature may find some of those if you want to read them. Try a couple of common terms in Lord Monckton’s text and see what you can find. Google probably has them archived too. • Joe Born says: Actually, he has “dumbed it down.” It’s condensed into a single slide at the end of the post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/. There he gives two values 287.55 K and 288.55 K of what he says are the with-feedback equilibrium temperature E as a function of his values 254.80 K and 255.50 K for the without-feedback equilibrium temperatures R that would respectively result from the pre-industrial and current CO2 concentrations. From those values he extrapolates a with-feedback temperature 287.55 K + 1.17 K = 288.72 K, which according to him corresponds to the without-feedback equilibrium temperature of 254.80 K + 1.04 K = 255.84 K that he says would result from doubling the pre-industrial CO2 concentration. But, instead of conventionally extrapolating in accordance with the ratio of the with- to the without-feedback differences (“perturbations”) between those purported pre-industrial and current values, as he (erroneously) says “climate science” does, he arrived at his result by using the ratio of the purported with- and without-feedback values themselves, as high-school math will tell you would rarely yield a good result. (It would if the function were nearly linear—but then so would the “climate science” approach he says is a “grave error.”) 23. fah says: I am never sure of the claims of fraud. One element of fraud is that the perp knows the claim to be false. Feynman, as usual, had something to say about being careful about this: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” Having fooled myself a number of times, I often give others the benefit of the doubt in that department. One really needs to find evidence that the perps actually believe that they are wrong and yet persist, instead of live in a world of fooling themselves. • Willis Eschenbach says: Thanks, fah. I wanted to make the same point but you’ve done it much more clearly than I would have. w. 24. johnny says: Definition of the feed back factor at Fig 2 is backward/reciprocal of what it should state. I will be absorbing this for days. Thank you! 25. Lloyd Martin Hendaye says: Quite right– by numerous private and public investigators’ well-publicized admissions over some four decades, chiliastic AGW Catastrophism is not an empirically falsifiable (Popperian) hypothesis but a psychogenic idée fixe, akin to thanatist death-cults described in Will James’ classic “Varieties of Religious Experience” (Gifford Lectures on natural theology, Edinburgh 1901 – ’02). Detailed technical arguments aside –which deviant collectivist/Statist (“One World”) ideologues assiduously misrepresent– why not just note that physics’ fundamental Conservation Laws render disproportionately escalating feedback mechanisms energetically impossible? At root, these mundane chemical –not nuclear– processes do not self-reinforce by some iterated, sloshing-bucket type reaction, but cancel to equilibrium as kinetic differentials dissipate As for engaging one’s local constabulary as well as governing authorities’ Grand Theft investigative teams, by all means seek remedies for “fraudulent enrichment” by all manner of peculating coteries whatever their obscurantist academic, professional, or sanctioned organizational credentials. Clausewitz calls war “politics by other means”, Sun Tzu treats politics as war… when so-called “climate science” degenerates to deathly-serious assaults on naive populaces’ literal survival, then War it is: Make Offense your best Defense, storm Warmist citadels, gnaw their deadhead skulls. • Phil R says: Hey, now. Don’t go insulting Deadheads! 🙂 26. Yooper says: Neville said: “Christopher has anyone asked Nic Lewis to review your study? Or perhaps Roy Spencer, John Christy, Steve McIntyre etc?” Lord Mockton said: “Is our argument sound? Is it definitive? Or is it erroneous or in some respects deficient? And should we follow the eminent lawyer’s advice? I shall read your comments with interest.” Looks like LM is using WUWT to get the peer review he couldn’t get from “the jounnal”… 27. JohnJohn says: I saw an article in a popular TV magazine the other day. It read: “Climate Change by the Numbers. 650,000 – number of people killed in extreme weather events since 1995… ” This thing is now all-pervasive. Scientific fraud or not, it has it’s own momentum and you’ll never kill it. • Jan E Christoffersen says: Johnjohn, Let’s see. 650,000/24 = 27,000 deaths per year due to extreme weather events annually out of a global population of roughly 7,000,000,000. Sounds reasonable and not too alarming, but for the tragedy for those affected. • Yirgach says: Looks about the same value for that time period as Joe Bastardi’s graph on Climate Related deaths. Of course back in the 1920’s it was more like 450,000 per year. https://tinyurl.com/y2a5ulhk 28. Steve Richards says: I agree that courts are not the place to decide scientific truths. However, I suspect here, the issue will be the deliberate breach of process. With collusion or conspiracy as a multiplier effect. Journals pride themselves in the way they publish ground breaking papers. Remember: the fat/sugar debate, which is still ongoing, Red wine is good/bad for you – still ongoing, Your ideal weight – still ongoing, Speed of light is still being refined – ongoing, Cold fusion – a bit dodgy – but still ongoing, Hot fusion – lots of breakthroughs every 30 yrs -= still ongoing, String theory – still ongoing, Climate change – they know it all (or at least enough) – science is settled. Of all the issues facing us today, it seems peculiar the it is only climate science believes that, as self declared, its settled, they no need to publish all sides of the science on climate. We have the wilful refusal to publish data, the refusal of the media to cover all aspects of the debate. There is so much to choose from, however, it will be hard to get sufficient detailed evidence that will stand up in court. • Clyde Spencer says: Steve Richards Inasmuch as the issue is so contentious, and there are experienced, well-educated individuals on both sides of the argument, I think that the journal(s) would be doing a much needed service to bring it out in the open and let the ‘big guns’ in fields outside of climatology weigh in on whether or not Monckton has “gone off the rails.” Taking what Monckton has said at face value, there has been no reviewer who have provided a reasonable justification for rejecting publication. It appears to only be a personal disagreement with the thesis and conclusion. Fortunately, Einstein was not faced with the same barriers of prejudice. • Willis Eschenbach says: Steve Richards June 3, 2019 at 7:01 am I agree that courts are not the place to decide scientific truths. However, I suspect here, the issue will be the deliberate breach of process. With collusion or conspiracy as a multiplier effect. Deliberate breach of WHAT process? There is no law concerning when a reviewer can reject a piece. He (or she, of course) can reject it just because of a gut feeling that there is something wrong that he can’t put a finger on. Nor is there any law saying the reviewer cannot get together with other reviewers to discuss the case, which is what you seem to be calling “collusion” or “conspiracy”. I happen to have some knowledge of this, as I am occasionally involved in advising on whether to publish something on WUWT. And while I do my best to be as scientific as possible, sometimes the whole piece just doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Or it goes somewhere and despite my best efforts I can’t follow it. Or even though I can’t directly falsify them, the claims involved are far too overblown to sustain close scrutiny. Or everything is right except for one single claim, and I think that error propagates throughout the whole piece. So … when I advise rejecting a piece, I’m sure the writer will not be happy. But would I be guilty of “fraud”? Hell, NO! I can recommend rejection simply because the paper has too many errors and typos that are distorting the meaning, and I don’t have the patience to guess what each one of them is supposed to mean. So y’all should understand … if you are arguing that it’s OK to involve the judicial system and that the scientific journals should be accused of criminal fraud if you don’t like what they publish … … you are making the same argument regarding WUWT. There is no “Right To Be Published”, either here or in the journals. Joe Born had a proposed post discussing the errors made by Monckton turned down by WUWT … is he entitled to sue for fraud in a criminal court? Don’t be daft … w. 29. chris says: making the extraordinary claim of a fundamental mistake in Physics requires, as the saying goes, extraordinary evidence. Given the ubiquitous inter dependencies in Physics, I would expect that this alleged fundamental mistake would have become obvious in many branches in Physics and not require a single journal to publish a paper that – evidently – did not pass peer review. The claim of fraud – implying monetary reward for a cover-up – suggests that there is a lot more money to be made in exposing such a fundamental mistake in one or more of the many non-climate Physics journals. In fact, discovering a fundamental error would seem to be grounds for a Nobel prize. so I’m a it puzzled why this boils down to the opinion of a retired Scottish lawyer. hmm … • I could easily ask you WHY The “Hockey Stick” paper QUICKLY passed review that badly misused math/statistics. Then for years after wards resisted giving up the code/data to others who challenged the paper. How did the “expert” reviewers missed it so badly? Snicker…….. 30. James in Perth says: There was an error in this post. You stated above that: “all the ice in the Himalayas would melt by 2050.” I am pretty sure that the IPCC claimed that all the ice in the Himalayas would melt by 2035. Even though the world is ending in 11 years, 9 months, those extra 15 years could be important in saving a remnant of humanity on the Indian subcontinent. Please correct. /sarc 31. Alexander Vissers says: Offences classified as “fraud” in general are territorial offences (as opposed to e.g. genocide) , i.e. the act or the effect must be localised in the territory of the state where the act is forbidden. Therefore it is hard to assess if the advise of the lawyer is accurate, but i believe, by all standards, that at least under European continental punitive law this seems very far fetched. If the answer would be affirmative, lobbying and even politics would be made impossible. 32. Nick Schroeder says: Greenhouse effect theory assumes that the atmosphere warms the earth, to wit: by 288 K with – 255 K without = 33 C warmer. The 255 K is calculated assuming the naked earth keeps its 0.3 albedo. That’s not a mistake, that’s fraud. Refer to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average S-B temperature of 255 K. That is just flat ridiculous. NOAA says that without an atmosphere the earth would be a -430 F frozen ice-covered ball. That is just flat ridiculous^2. Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind. The erroneous claims cited above are not errors but deliberate misrepresentations, i.e. fraud. 33. Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) says: 1. Yes there has been fraud, but if going to court, stick to something simple like the 97% figure which is easily understood by a judge & jury. 2. As someone who has studied control theory, physics and climate I find the way the argument is put forward is extremely difficult to follow – although an improvement from the last time. For example what on earth is “R” – is it a temperature? If so why isn’t it written “T” which is the conventional way to do these things. YOU HAVE TO DEFINE TERMS particularly given this is a cross-discipline paper, there is a high risk of using terminology that is not understood by either – or in this case – both disciplines. 3. What I think you are saying is this: That the scientific modelling of the effect of adding CO2 on the direct temperature is about 1C for a doubling of CO2. Although you don’t explain this in the argument, I believe you are just showing that the change in CO2 between 1850 and various dates equates to a CO2 ONLY effect on temperature (but you don’t give the figures) and that this should cause a change in temperature – I presume in the next time period (although this is not stated), and from what actually happens you work out the likely feedback. This argument however is extremely difficult to follow. In effect you have an equation: T1 = T0 + a.CO2_level But at any point, although we have CO2 levels we only have one temperature. WE ARE MISSING A KNOWN in order to work out the unknown “feedback-related” parameter a. One way to approach this is to pick time periods and say “the temperature in the next time period is the previous time period plus something due to CO2”. This gives two known temperatures and from this it is possible to derive a figure of a. But this value will vary depending on how you define the periods. Also, in any system there are time lags so a is not a simple constant but varies with time. In short, any calculation of feedback requires a very clear definition and model of how you have two temperatures which relate to any one period under consideration. You don’t have this and it makes it impossible to understand. 4. However, whilst it’s like wading through River Forth mud to understand the argument, the conclusion that the feedback is too high is undoubtedly true. No natural system would have feedbacks around 4 without showing the vary characteristic signal of a system with such massive positive feedbacks. The climate does not show this (except perhaps going into and out of the ice-age). So, there is no doubt that during the interglacial, the feedback levels are very low and likely negative suggesting a total reponse to doubling CO2 of <1C. 5. The main problem with the feedbacks, is not the crazy estimates of the scale of feedbacks which just aren't credible, but that the feedbacks do not take into account the large amount of natural variation that exists in the climate. And without knowing the level of natural variation, you are bound to get outrageous figures for supposed feedback – and they do. So, in effect the equation should be Future_temp = Current_temp + a0 . CO2_Effect + a0.Current_Natural_variation effect. But the level of current natural variation is unknown – and the real fraud is to pretend it does not exist. That then leads to the fraudulent argument: "because nothing else can explain why temperature changes – it must be man-made CO2" (which I put that way as it's clearly total BS). • Joe Born says: Believe me, the post’s confusing nature is a feature, not a bug from Lord Monckton’s point of view. It prevents readers from realizing that he’s merely extrapolating—incorrectly, as it happens. $R$ is what the equilibrium temperature would be without feedback, and $E$ is what it would be with feedback. (You’re right if you’re thinking that we don’t have reliable values for any of these, but let’s indulge him on that point.) Say we have pre-industrial and current values of those quantities as well as a doubled-CO2 value for $R$. He’s merely saying that the coefficient we should use to extrapolate the doubled-CO2 value for $E$ is not the local slope of the R-E curve as in standard extrapolation but rather the average slope. Let’s also say for the sake of argument that the relationship between those quantities is given by $E(R)=k_1R+k_2R^2+k_3R^2$, where $k_1$ = 1090.25684089, $k2$ = -8.53834812, and $k_3$ = 0.01673432. Then you get the $E_1$ (pre-industrial) and $E_2$ (current) values he gives in the slide at the end of his post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/, but the $\Delta E_2$ value (i.e., the difference between pre-industrial and doubled-CO2 values for equilibrium temperature with feedback) is 3 K rather than the 1.17 K he gets by using average slope. Of course, I’m not saying that the actual function is the one I just cooked up. But that function does show that using the average slope instead of the local slope rarely gives you a good answer unless the function is nearly linear. And maybe it is nearly linear. But his mathematical basis for saying so is only that the average slope doesn’t change much over the course of a domain change of a degree or two. And that’s faulty reasoning; the average slope of my cooked-up function doesn’t change much, either, in so short an interval, yet using the average slope wouldn’t work for it. He also makes physical arguments for linearity, but they aren’t any more compelling than the alarmist ones for non-linearity. The more-compelling arguments come from heavy hitters like Richard Lindzen or Nic Lewis. • Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) says: The simple problem is that we have a system which we know has large amounts of noise in the system of the same size as the supposed “signal” from human CO2. And unless or until you address the megalosaurus in the room: natural variety, it is total BS to attempt to do any kind of assessment on feedbacks. I would confidently say that if any student attempted to state the gain/feedback on such a system they would get Null points. So Monckton is highlighting a mistake in something that no intelligent person should be attempting to do in the first place. Indeed, as the system clearly has negative feedbacks for warming – and the response must be non-linear with different feedbacks when coming out an ice-age compared to an interglacial, even the idea there is “one feedback value” is a total load of BS. • Joe Born says: You’ll get no argument from me that we should have confidence in our ability to tease what the feedback is out of the noise or to determine what the equilibrium values are–if such quantities exist–in this dauntingly complex system. But Lord Monckton has purported to accept that exercise (“something that no intelligent person should be attempting to do in the first place”) at least for the sake of argument. He contends that, even if you accept that exercise as worthwhile, he has proven mathematically that they went about it the wrong way whereas he has arrived at the correct climate sensitivity by doing it right. As I just explained, he didn’t do it right. • Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) says: Joe, thanks for the comments … I haven’t bothered looking at papers on feedbacks ever since a graph was published at a conference with a R^2 value of something like 0.02 … and they seriously thought that was enough to give a figure for sensitivity based on that data. The only sensible approach to calculating feedback is to try to measure the scale of the non-CO2 feedback changes. So, Temp -> Feedback_change -> Feedback_into_Temp. But since they’ve yet to find anything at all changing as a result of the “change in temperature” then using that approach you’d get a feedback of zero (except for perhaps more CO2 being released from oceans). But to be frank – the most obvious feedback mechanism is that of cloud formation due to rising thermals. And that is a massive effect … which is why we constantly hear “they don’t understand clouds … by which they mean they don’t give them the required positive feedbacks for the climate cult”. • Dave Fair says: One really cool way to look at this (Gavin Schmidt?) is to assume that there has been natural cooling for a period of time, thus AGW is more than 100%. 34. Dave Ward says: “By that time, he said, the police would begin to be curious” As Dodgy Geezer observes, they won’t want to get involved. I suggest it will be due to the involvement of Common Purpose, with their “Leading Beyond Authority” motto. 35. fxk says: Science is about learning. As a reputable scientific journal, none should not take sides, nor proffer one hypothesis over another. Different trains of thought are how we learn. The same journal can contain two opposing hypothesis and still be correct in doing so, unless there is a mathematical error, or a flawed study, or some scientific error. If the editor can’t verify the math, then it should farm it out to people in the field, who can evaluate the math. If errors are found, that needs to be reported back to the author. If there is no error, the paper should be published to challenge or support the status quo – or a new theory altogether. The “crime” is not properly reviewing the paper, not giving the feedback necessary to understand what the error is, and not publishing if no error is found. Stonewalling is not a scientific principle. Stonewalling infers either incompetence or misdeeds. That is where fraud and conspiracy need a legal authority to break up the misdeeds, or the incompetent reviewer or editor must be taken to task. As ridiculous as the mental image of Bobbys with sticks and whistles going after a magazine like chasing Jack the Ripper is, fraud is fraud. In this case, the magazine seemed to be stonewalling. Fraud in the case of one reviewer (i.e., bad math on non-existent page), and toeing the party line, not actually reviewing the paper for the other. Incompetence of the editor at best, conspiracy to commit fraud the other. Either answer requires action from someone. Science is not changing, nor is it settled. It is just that our understanding of the universe, including our climate, is constantly growing. Our understanding of science is changing. Scientific journals is how science is talked about. A scientific journal must be true to science, and never blindly supporting the status quo. 36. Christopher: I think George Mihailides, above, has said something really important. If you want to get people like me to support you technical view, you need to make it clearly understandable. Which it is not, at the moment. I tried to summarize your point of view in one sentence, and couldn’t. The closest I could get was “When you detect a change, the feedbacks have already acted.” I don’t think that’s what you mean, but I can’t get any closer. You need to state very clearly your thesis at the top of your technical paper – a memorable metaphor would be useful, like Richard Feynman’s “bombardier” metaphor of particles switching forwards and backwards in time. And by the way, I was an undergraduate at Cambridge at the same time as you. I was a Trinity mathematician, you were was a Churchill classicist. In some ways, you and I are very alike people – we both learn quickly, and like to venture far beyond our areas of expertise. Normally, I would be one of the last people to berate you for anything. But given the importance of this issue, I feel I have to ask you to make your case clearer. 37. Bobl says: Lord Monckton, There are as I have pointed out to you many times multiple errors you do not take account of. One of the most difficult is that the feedback term is temperature dependent due to the iris effect. That is that as the temperature rises the cloud cover rises suddenly as the dew point is approached at some point in the air column. This effect is non-linear and thus the feedback is non stationary. You cannot use a scalar analysis in this case. This is analogous the situation that occurs when an amplifier runs out of dynamic range, the output trying to exceed the supply rails the system saturates and the gain falls dramatically. Not that there is physically any gain element in the climate system or a power supply ( the power supply is deemed to also be the input signal, try doing that in a real amplifier and see how far you get) Finally the feedback signal is also subject to multiple delays, you can’t analyse an amplifier with phase shifting elements (delays) using a simple scalar model. An example would be a sine wave oscillator, the scalar (DC) output would be zero, but the actual output at any time except two moments per cycle would be anything but zero. These delays also cause hysteresis non linearities. Lord Monckton , rather that try to substitute a more moderate model using the same flawed mathematics as the perpetrators of this scientific nonsense , I’d really rather you showed how the use of the bode feedback mathematics is being misused in their maths bringing about a result that is not valid. As another comment, there is another error, the feedback term cannot be temperature since temperature is not a property that can be transmitted, the feedback term has to be energy or it’s time differential – power. 38. GregB says: Forget the criminal case. I can’t see how a publisher has a duty to publish anything – or even to consider fairly whether an article is fit for publication. Journals are privately owned and the discretion to publish must rest with the owner. In the absence of a duty owed to the writer of the article, I can’t see how there could be a fraud. The conspiracy by three journals to refuse to publish or fairly review for publication would seem to be just as benign. If you want a legal result, go for a civil case. Perhaps you could get sued for defamation and defend yourself as did Deborah Lipstadt in the defamation claim made by David Irving. In that case the judge made it clear that his job was not to judge history. But he then went on to make several historical findings of fact which were necessary for the ‘truth’ part of the defense. Similarly, a truth defense could include evidence that, for example, the 97% consensus is in fact a 0.5% consensus and that the claim that ‘97% is fraudulent’ is justified. As for the mathematical gobbledygook, I would forget relying on that for legal purposes. No judge could make a finding of fact based on those hieroglyphics except to acknowledge the opinion of several learned expert archaeological witnesses. And then it would be just as easy for the judge to select the opinion of the orthodox Egyptologist as it would be to accept the opinion of your legal expert. Of course there are problems with this approach. First you have to be sufficiently provocative to get sued for defamation while making sure you don’t step over an indefensible line. Second, a civil suit requires that you have money in the bank to pay legal fees. Perhaps a crowd funding approach? 39. Alex says: With respect to climate, the science publication machine is clearly broken, corrupted by special interests. Unscrupulous treatment of Monckton’s paper is but the latest in a string of such episodes, which, by concealing contrary evidence, protect the UN’s climate change boondoggle. Two precedents given similar treatment are papers by Dr. Berry and Professor Harde, who wasn’t even allowed to respond to a criticism by the IPCC crowd. The reason they employ these tactics isn’t brain surgery. As Professor Salby observed, “The have to.” The silencing of discussion has destroyed science in this subject. If allowed to continue, the problem bodes ill for the future. At this stage, it can be remedied only by public officials who control the flow of funds which supports the unscrupulous conduct that maintains the broken machinery. 40. Steve O says: I’d suggest that it would be easier to hire a prostitute for the journal editor than it would be to allege fraud. Get some pictures and get published. • Steve Richards says: I am sure that a robust conversation with the journal editor would get him to release his email trails and telephone records that would help to identify more culprits. It depends upon how persuasive you. 41. Keith P Hodges says: Sir, I really enjoyed watching your video presentations of these findings, and was convinced right away. However, I personally found your earlier presentation (given in Australia) much easier to follow. When in that presentation you explained that the authentic method and the mistaken method actually give the same result, but didn’t have the same variance. This brought the message home. The tone of that presentation was, “we agree for the sake of argument with the numbers, we follow for the sake of argument the same model, we make a correction to the feedback equation, and our corrected version also produced the same result.” Then, dramatic pause… There is a “but”, and a nice graph, which shows, that both models agree on the middle of the road. But when variance is shown on the same graph, the climatologists version is all over the page, while the correct equation is charting a nice neat road across the page. You argue, that the neat version is the correct version, and the argument is complete at that point. Then the comparison can begin. How does the wrong version, lead to climate alarmist interpretation, of the same empirical data. Those of us with an instinct for how control systems behave (I speak of engineers, including myself) know that there is no actual common sense sign of runaway feedback in the climate system, and the correct model bears this out. But now we can see how those who are dedicating themselves to modelling software, who may not have done control systems labs, or basic electronics, if they put their numbers in, to their model, the variances on the output are so wide as to scare the living daylights out of them. They are told that any output sensitivity greater than 1.5 means we are toast, and their models, all of them, no matter how conservative, give values ranging up to 3 or more, and thus to them, panic is the “scientifically justified response”. So, when you look at the width of the road, the variance, the authentic model shows that at all points on the sensitivity curve, there is a similar narrow range of variance. The model is being being coherent, for all values of input, the relationship to the sensitivity output is clearly around about the calculated value. The climatologists feedback equation gives the same curve but with an obvious glaring problem. The variance road starts off narrow, in the region of least concern, but rapidly widens. This shows clearly that any alarmist thinking applied to the input will be amplified dramatically on the output. In other words, when an alarmist considers the range of temperature perturbations predicted by their (overly pessimistic) models, and inputs them, the graph shows the wide road of variance in sensitivity, is well into the run away feedback amplification area where your microphone is howling out of control. And this result is what is driving the input alarmism. In other words there is another feedback loop in play. Alarmism begets alarmism. So I found that your original presentation did a lot for me, in terms of explaining the logic behind the whole political scene. Your more recent papers have a different tone completely. You appear to start with a taunt “those idiots forgot the sun was shining”. Which is indeed true, and then you dive into maths to prove the point. It really doesn’t come across as sympathetic to those who have been unwittingly carried away by a misubderstanding. I think it would help you to put across your case if you go back to the… “We got the same results… until…” line of argument. I can see that you have fleshed it out a lot more since then, but I don’t think bolstering your case with more robust equations is what’s needed here. Your earlier presentation offered a lot more hand holding inviting the audience to follow the same trail of discovery that you had recently stumbled across. Experts are not always the best teachers or coaches. They may forget what it is like to be a beginner. That is what your current paper feels like to me as compared to earlier presentations. I suggest a rethink, or hand it over to a less expert author to re-present the story from the beginning. Blessings to you, Keith H. • George Steele says: Keith H, As a (retired) professor of computer science I taught (among other things) computer modeling. I would point out that computer models suffer from two major flaws: Oversimplification and GIGO. A model must be a simplification. Must. Oversimplification is common in models — factors which are present in the real world are all too often not included in the model. Garbage In; Garbage Out is common, too. That is, the input data may not include relevant data. These are the banes of computer modeling. Only if the predictions actually match the real world can a model be trusted at all. From CO2isLife’s post, https://youtu.be/K_j1NoBRQ6U shows how the climate models do not match reality. So either the models are incomplete (oversimplified) or they do not consider all relevant data. 42. ResourceGuy says: No doubt Einstein would have had a much longer wait time for publication or comments in this day and age and it would still depend considerably on which journal and if the one person capable of understanding it ever got to it (Planck). 43. Claude Roessiger says: Lord Monckton, Do by all means proceed. At the present, the formulae are of less import than a decade ago, when it was more reasonable to consider the alarmist position. Now, a decade having passed, the evidence is the more explicit: there has been fraud. In no instance am I suggesting that the proving of the science less matters now. On the contrary, it must be done if a stake, a heart and a crossroads are to be joined. But the science bears less today than it would have done ten years ago upon the decision to claim fraud. If I am a police officer and I have seen murder done with my own eyes, I pursue the murderer. I know that I shall still have to prove murder in court, but that is second in my consideration of whether to bring the murderer to justice. This I must do. The proof I must thereafter present. One comment gave the opinion that the collection of a fund for this cause ought to be possible. I agree. If you will proceed, you will do honor a favor. 44. Alasdair says: This is very interesting as the thermodynamic properties of water support the conclusions on the question of feedback. Whether deliberately or not the IPCC. models appear to ignore these vital properties; namely that at water phase change, absorbed energy is converted to Latent Heat AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE and further results in a rapid increase in volume, creating buoyancy in the gaseous vapor additional to any thermal influences. This results in the. sensitivity coefficient (K) in the Planck equation dF = KdT being equal to zero with consequent effect on the Climate Sensitivity value. What is of interest here is the link shown between humidity values and the feedback factor. Not surprising really as the more evaporating water in the atmosphere the more the reduction in sensitivity. It may be said that where water is concerned the net feedback effect is a balance between the positive GHE of the water in the absence of phase change and this negative feedback generated by the Latent Heat process. All in all I suggest that the balance is negative; NOT positive as claimed by the IPCC and this would go some way to explaining the disparity between the models and observed reality. As for the fraud aspect: there are plenty of examples out there, starting within the IPCC itself.; but there are now very powerful influences out there hell bent on making a mockery of the legal system. A huge problem now that the scientific community (with beleaguered exceptions) has sold its soul to politics. 45. ScuzzaMan says: shortens lifespans by ~20 years” – for 1.3 billion people. That’s 26 billion years of life, excised. [??? .mod] • RACookPE1978 says: ScuzzaMan “shortens lifespans by ~20 years” – for 1.3 billion people. That’s 26 billion years of life, excised. If the CAGW hysterical politicians and extremists get their way, some 6 billions humans will be killed due to the loss of petroleum and fossil fuels. Times 60 years of life. Definitely exorcised. That 1.3 billion claimed killed? 0.000000011 billion in real life. Maybe. No one has died from CAGW in 40 years. • ScuzzaMan says: If 20 time 1.3 billion = 26 billion is too hard for anyone here, I doubt you should be arguing about climate science. • John Endicott says: “shortens lifespans by ~20 years” – for 1.3 billion people. That’s 26 billion years of life, excised. [??? .mod] @mod: if multiply 1.3 billion by 20 years, what do you get? 26 billion years. What were you failing to understand about that? 46. bit chilly says: Regardless of how correct or not this paper is, the points being made are moot.The theory has already been falsified due to lack of tropospheric hotspot, no point going down any other rabbit holes. Sticking to simple refutation based on the rules climate science itself has established is the best way to go. Even then it won’t make any difference where it matters,as most people on here know it is a politics and supranational organisation game being played here,science,objectivity and truth don’t come into it. 47. Gyan1 says: I believe this approach has more validity than the frivolous lawsuits being thrown out of court here in America. Best wishes Lord Monckton! 48. Willis Eschenbach says: I have to say, whether my friend Lord Christopher Moncton is right or wrong, I’m absolutely and complete opposed to involving the judicial system in scientific debates. In a past discussion, Christopher even threatened me with legal action … say what? I can assure you, it did not move the debate forward … So how about we keep the judicial system separate from the scientific debates, except for charming folks like Peter Gleick? I say this in part because the usual problem is not fraud, it is what is called Noble Cause Corruption. This happens when someone thinks that their cause is so important that they can neglect minor things … and after while, in the name of saving the world from some imagined Thermageddon they move to neglecting major things, generally accompanied by ignoring some part of the science. We now return you to your previous scheduled programming. w. • RW says: I have to agree with Willis here. • HotScot says: Willis The “Noble Cause” argument exists in many forms, not least politics. Boris Johnson is now being hauled up in front of the courts for stating that the UK gives £350M per week to the EU. By both legal and scientific metrics, if that amount is £349, he is guilty of fraud. But legal and scientific metrics are founded in fact, not so politics. If Boris is out by, say, £50m, it doesn’t dilute the concept that the amount is obscene, which conveys a message. My point is here, if Boris can be hauled up in front of a court for violating the Noble Concept of politics, then The Noble Concept of law and science are both liable to scrutinisation. Personally, I think it’s all cr@p. Let a lawyer near anything and it all goes to cr@p. They are not arbiters of fact, they are arbiters of their own bank balance. Y • Anna Keppa says: “By both legal and scientific metrics, if that amount is £349 (sic) , he is guilty of fraud.” How can that statement , in legal or scientific terms, be “fraud”? Who does it deceive to their irreparable harm? If I claim in court that you stole$1000 from me, how do you think you would fare if you said, “Your Honor, he’s lying! It was only \$999!”

• HotScot says:

Anna

The courts would consider the circumstances of the theft and the plaintiff’s claim.

If you agreed a contract with a seller to pay £1,000 for an item and you turned up with £999.99 the seller is perfectly within their rights to refuse to honour the contract.

• RW says:

If the refs are acting fraudulently during the debate, then it is no longer a scientific debate and an external force can and should be applied. If a hierarchy becomes corrupt and is too rigid to be reformed from within, then it must be dismantled by force.

Even if M is correct in his hunch concerning the review and even if he experiences the same thing at two additional journals, then the poice might get involved, where ‘involved’ means they take a look. So we’re no where close to charges being laid or anything remotely forceful. I see nohing controverdial here, other than the reviews and treatment M appears to have been given and the reaction M relates.

• old engineer says:

Willis-

While I agree with you that the judicial system should not be used to decide science, Lord Monckton presented a paper questioning the science, for review. As I understand it, he was going to use the refusal to publish such a paper as evidence that there was fraudulent intent on the part of those who refused to publish anything that did not support CAGW.

There is plenty of science, including some provided by you, that causes extreme skepticism of the case for CAGW. So science is not the problem. The problem is people using CAGW for their own partisan purposes. While undoubtedly there is some Noble Cause Corruption, there is a great deal more out-and -out fraud. Your mention of Peter Gleick is a case in point.

Therefore the solution lies not in science, but in the political realm. While I have an incomplete understanding of the British governing system, in the US, this would include the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. So the judicial system does have a part to play.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Old Engineer and HotScot, letting judges decide what scientific papers should be published is a HORRIBLE idea. Think about it. Here is exactly what will happen if we do that.

Every person with some lunatic theory that doesn’t get published will be running to a judge and saying:

“I wrote a brilliant paper on The Effects of Cosmic Rays on Craft Beer Consumption, and Nature magazine wouldn’t publish it! Can you believe those fools! Their ideas are simply wrong, and my ideas reveal the critical flaw in their bogus theories. Their ideas are FRAUDULENT! They claim that there is no effect from the cosmic rays on craft beer, but that’s because they don’t agree with my fantastic insights! The reviewers were all meanies, I believe they were all bought off by Big Beer, and I WANT THEM PUT IN PMITA JAIL!!!”

Yeah, that will turn out just fine … NOT. You are asking a judge to override a reviewer who in most cases is an expert in the field. Not a good idea.

Finally, neither you, I, or Christopher have a RIGHT to have our work published in scientific journals. And the journals are free under the law to reject your brilliant paper merely because they don’t like the cut of your jib. So just what do you plan to charge them with?

w.

• David Blenkinsop says:

Hehe, that’s pretty incisive, albeit maybe a little disillusioning. Reality strikes, journal editors get to do whatever the heck they want!

Just for the record, I’ve read enough of Monckton to understand his basic idea. I think of his idea as a kind of idealization, to try to model water vapour feedback as a “whole signal” temperature amplification. This makes some kind of sense physically if you think that the earth has an overall IR emission temperature that responds in some direct way (on an absolute temperature scale), to the total flow of energy through the averaged sun/earth/space system that must be assumed in this idealization.

Anyway, good ideas for physics models notwithstanding, I think the science journals are going to have to go through some sort of “drain the swamp” exercise on climate change, i.e., they will only change in response to the politics of drying up much of the money attached to a certain way of thinking about things. Threatening to sue them, or prosecute, etc., might actually have an opposite effect, getting them more attention, higher profile, more funding, etc?

• HotScot says:

If Chris can demonstrate that the scientific journal published papers to a lesser standard or had a record of publishing papers with a particular scientific or political slant, whilst claiming to be impartial, then I think there is a very good case to confront them legally.

How about we have a journal claiming to be impartial and then publishing nothing but alarmist climate science…..Oh wait!

Indeed, the BBC has already said it’s production staff are to ignore climate ‘deniers’ altogether. The BBC has a duty to be impartial because everyone who watches it is required to pay a licence fee irrespective of their political, scientific, religious, ethnic etc. inclinations.

So where does this rot start, where does it stop and how do we counter it?

Most certainly, as far as the BBC are concerned, innumerable people have written to them objecting to their partisan left leaning agenda, but they take no notice. It’s also very difficult and very expensive to challenge them legally as they have lots of OP’s money to spend.

So perhaps the route to a solution is to start from the bottom and work up.

Clearly, there is a lawyer who agrees with Chris. And whilst I think we all disagree with the concept, perhaps we all must hold our nose and accept the medicine required to halt the infiltration of politics and scientific agenda’s into climate science, that everyone has been objecting to for decades.

• old engineer says:

Willis-

I agree with you that letting judges decide what gets published is a horrible idea, and that no one has a right to have their paper published. My thoughts are more philosophical than that.

The CAGW crowd became adept at using the courts to get their way long before “sue and settle,” and, in the US anyway, it seems that daily they are exploring new ways to use the courts. It seems to me that Lord Monckton is just doing just that. Exploring how the courts might be used to counter the barrage of CAGW propaganda. I wish him well in his efforts.

Years ago, when I first started reading WUWT, it was mostly about the science, and your contributions were some of the ones I read most eagerly. After a while I realized that there was little more that could be said. The science, rather than being settled, was wide open to question. But still the CAGW beat continued. When more political posts began being run on WUWT, some commenters objected, but not me. It is in the political realm that CAGW must be defeated. Therefore ways must be explored to combat the propaganda by all means possible, including the courts. Perhaps Monckton’s current efforts are not the way, but maybe they will led to other efforts that will be successful.

• RW says:

I don’t even see how a judge deciding on a paper even factors in at all here. The jidge would rule on whether or not the editor(s) are engaged in fraud. That still doesn’t get the paper published. How could it exactly? Suppose the verdict is guilty. At most editors and journals in general then adopt a bit more cautious and careful approach with their reviews. How? The easiest way to do it would be to take a more serious look at the reciews and the authors’ responses, detailing the criticism they deemed most important in their decision letter. A good editor will actually already do a bit of that in their decision letter.

• GregB says:

You have a point. We are not dealing with science in this noisy debate. Scientific debate is conducted quietly in the background. The noisy debate is political. According to the doctrine of separation of powers the courts would be correct to refuse getting involved with political issues.

49. CheshireRed says:

Observable positive feedbacks – and therefore amplification of water vapour to supposedly drive ‘runaway’ global warming at the levels required for AGW theory, have ALWAYS been absent.

30+ years of relentless climate propaganda.

Actual empirical evidence for ‘catastrophe’ is absent without leave. AGW theory is a totally busted flush.

50. HotScot says:

Dear Chris,

I have a nice (modest) bottle of whisky waiting to be ‘shared’ with you. A dram or two perhaps, being that we are abstemious individuals.

I will be in Ayr celebrating the marriage of my Son and future daughter in law in September. If you are within striking distance, it would be my pleasure to bring along two quaich’s (at least) to toast your efforts to combat the ‘climate change’ myth.

Failing that, happy to have an Old Grouse from a tin mug with you. [No, not Willis :)].

51. Christopher Chantrill says:

Monckton, here is one example of why your “paper” is nothing but garbage.

In your “Conclusions” you state: ” denying electricity to 1.3 billion people curtails IQ”

You provide no evidence in the entire paper to make this conclusion. In fact, if you search your entire post the only place “IQ” crops up is in your conclusions.

No wonder this paper is rejected.

• HotScot says:

Christopher Chantrill

Nowhere in human history has it been demonstrated by empirical means that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

By your simple metric, AGW “is nothing but garbage”.

• Christopher Chantrill says:

• HotScot says:

Christopher Chantrill

Whilst you provide one isolated statement to ‘demonstrate’ Chris Monckton’s entire paper is garbage, I can go one better by demonstrating the entire AGW scam is just that, with one single, irrefutable statement.

And in response to your question directly, “the Copenhagen consensus, states that lack of both iodine and iron has been implicated in impaired brain development, and this can affect enormous numbers of people: it is estimated that 2 billion people (one-third of the total global population) are affected by iodine deficiency, including 285 million 6- to 12-year-old children. In developing countries, it is estimated that 40% of children aged four and under suffer from anaemia because of insufficient iron in their diets.”

Go and visit the Copenhagen consensus website for more information than you can cope with.

See you in about a year.

• Christopher Chantrill says:

2nd try
.
.
Diversions to unrelated topics are worthless.

• Christopher Chantrill says:

HotScot, please provide me with evidence that denying electricity to 1.3 billion people curtails IQ.

• Christopher Chantrill says:

Tell us Mr. HotScot, when the distribution transformer on a street fails, and the residents of said street lose their electricity, does their IQ drop?

• Christopher Chantrill says:

More specifically Mr. HotScot, show me where in Monckton’s paper and/or his post where he provides evidence that “denying electricity to 1.3 billion people curtails IQ.”

He doesn’t.
..
His conclusions are bogus

52. I see parallels with insurance scams. ” Burglary has risen in your neighborhood, better take this expensive insurance”

53. I give Christopher Monckton of Brenchley high marks for creativity and flair.

If he can beat the sophists at their own game, then so be it.

54. DocSiders says:

The starting point before adding the effect of an increase in “forcing” (a delta-t resulting from a delta-[CO2]) is that the initial level of forcing has already established an equilibrium temperature.

From that starting point, the effects of additional levels of forcing can be and are examined without reference to the initial temperature because only the CHANGES from the initial (equilibrium) conditions are being used in the calculations:

Increase the initial forcing by “x” and that results in a delta-t of “y”. The initial radiative balances are already accounted for in the initial equilibrium conditions.

• Joe Born says:

Excellent. This is the answer Lord Monckton’s “no sun” argument, of course, but I don’t think I’ve seen it in response to any of his many posts.

55. Pat Frank says:

My sincere sympathies, Christopher. Like you, I’ve had to contend with adversarial and incompetent reviewers and morally invertebrate editors, in trying to publish my critical work on consensus climatology.

Like you, I also took recourse to publishing samizdat here on WUWT.

In my experience, the only journal editor with the moral spine to buck the consensus howlers was Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen at Energy & Environment, but she is unfortunately retired.

56. Afraid I am one of those wimps who can’t understand the maths at all. However, with the UK Government and the House of Commons declaring that we are indeed experiencing a climate crisis – how could they declare otherwise being up to their necks in this fraud – I see very little chance that Lord Monckton will get very far with his legal case should it proceed. We are definitely up a creek without a paddle. And next month, with the tacit encouragement of the UK government, and indeed the manager of Heathrow airport himself (who in answer to the threat has acknowledged the climate change crisis), Extinction Rebellion will be ramming it down our throats by attempting, and probably succeeding, in shutting down Heathrow airport.

• Dave Fair says:

Sheeshe, people: We are doing a dick-dance around the fact that the climate has not responded as modeled. Whatever equations you use, the world is not warming as modeled.

I don’t care if Lord Monckton is right or wrong, CliSci is obviously wrong. Focus on that.

57. Willis Eschenbach says:

I wanted to point out an issue that I think no one has touched on. In his first discussion of this on WUWT, Christopher talks about:

The difference of 32 K between natural temperature TN (= 287.6 K) in 1850 and emission temperature TE (= 255.4 K) without greenhouse gases or temperature feedbacks…

However, in fact we don’t know what the temperature of the earth would be without GHGs. For starters, water vapor is a GHG, so there would be no ocean and no clouds. But that’s just the start. Dr. Robert Brown wrote a very incisive post on this, entitled Earth’s baseline black-body model – “a damn hard problem”. Let me quote a bit from that:

Start with a nonrotating superconducting sphere, zero albedo, unit emissivity, perfect blackbody radiation from each point on the sphere. What’s the mean temperature?

Now make the non-rotating sphere perfectly non-conducting, so that every part of the surface has to be in radiative balance. What’s the average temperature now? This is a better model for the moon than the former, surely, although still not good enough. Let’s improve it.

Now make the surface have some thermalized heat capacity — make it heat superconducting, but only in the vertical direction and presume a mass shell of some thickness that has some reasonable specific heat. This changes nothing from the previous result, until we make the sphere rotate. Oooo, yet another average (surface) temperature, this time the spherical average of a distribution that depends on latitude, with the highest temperatures dayside near the equator sometime after “noon” (lagged because now it takes time to raise the temperature of each block as the insolation exceeds blackbody loss, and time for it to cool as the blackbody loss exceeds radiation, and the surface is never at a constant temperature anywhere but at the poles (no axial tilt, of course). This is probably a very decent model for the moon, once one adds back in an albedo (effectively scaling down the fraction of the incoming power that has to be thermally balanced).

And the problem gets more complex from there. Read Dr. Brown’s article, it is very clear, he teaches this stuff for a living.

So … we simply do NOT know what the earth’s baseline temperature would be within even ±10°C. It is a “damned hard problem”, and to my knowledge nobody has solved it.

However, despite that, Lord M. uses a value for the baseline “emission temperature” of 255.4K (-17.75°C) as one of the inputs to his calculations to derive his favored feedback value … gotta love the claim that we know the answer to the nearest tenth of a degree.

Where did he get that value? It is the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature of a non-rotating superconducting planet with an albedo of 0.3, giving it ~ 239 W/m2 insolation after albedo reflections. Which is many things, but it is NOT the Earth. And of course, if there were no GHGs … the albedo would be much lower because there would be no clouds.

In other words, regardless of whether his theory is correct (I don’t think it is, but hey, that’s just me), we simply don’t have the data necessary to do it his way. Not only that, but the value that he uses is demonstrably wrong.

For example, consider the moon. It’s at the same distance from the sun as we are, with no GHGs. Anyone who thinks that the temperature of the moon is 255.4K doesn’t know much about the moon … the mean temperature at the lunar equator is 215K, and at the poles it’s 104K. Area-weighting this gives an average of about 175K … and that is a long, long way from Christopher’s value of 255K.

Best to all,

w.

• Willis,
“Where did he get that value?”
It’s from a 2010 paper by Lacis et al where they took the GISS Model E and gradually ran the GHGs down to low levels. It doesn’t go to the 255K of snowball Earth because clouds have a changing effect as it gets colder. Of course, a purist might argue that no GHG=no clouds, but they did not go to that limit. Anyway, whatever you or I think of the merits, that is where it is from.

I see what else is not being talked about is the actual arithmetic of feedback in the summary posted here. I don’t know if it reflects changes in the article submitted. The description here is a mess, but the linear case is typical; other cases don’t change much. It says:
“In 2011, clip_image076. Given clip_image078 radiative imbalance26 by 2010, clip_image080 from 1850-2011 (of which clip_image082 was observed25). Since clip_image084, clip_image086, as in 1850. Thus, clip_image058[1] proves stable over time: for instance, the clip_image088 uncertainty25 in clip_image090 barely perturbs clip_image058[2], so that, where the curve of the response function clip_image092 is linearclip_image094 clip_image096.”
OK, it won’t paste properly. But the key thing is that the system gain A₂=E₂/R₂. E₂ is current temperature (288K), R₂ is that reference temperature which he wants to feed back. It is the Lacis value of 265K. Neither of these K values varies by more than a fraction of a degree over the period, so A₂ is rock solid fixed, Nothing, wv, clouds, anything can change it. The value is 1.085, which he rounds to 1.1. So to get the sensitivity he takes the reference sensitivity, 1.05 K/doubling, which is the feedback-free number, and multiplies by that 1.085 ratio. That is all. ECS is absolutely determined by the ratio of those two temperatures, and the feedback free value. So of course, on that logic, it has to be 1.15K/doubling Nothing else can affect it.

• Actually, I see there is a bit more to it. I remember that Lord M started with Lacis, but his value was 243.3K, so there have been modifications. He set some of the arithmetic out here. It actually doesn’t matter much. A change of 10K or so isn’t going to make much difference to the A₂=E₂/R₂ ratio, and hence to the sensitivity. It’s still locked to about 1.15 K/doubling. No observations needed.

• Willis Eschenbach says:

Thanks, Nick. Per Lacis:

The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years. During the first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by 4.6°C. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at –21°C, a decrease of 34.8°C.

That converts to 252.2 K, so I’m still puzzled about the 255.4 value.

And why is the starting point not something like the moon, at 170K or so average temperature? If the system gain is “A₂=E₂/R₂. E₂ is current temperature (288K), R₂ is that reference temperature which he wants to feed back”, and R2 is 170K, then the gain would be 1.7, very different from his value.

And why is he starting with numbers from a computer run with water but no CO2 and 40% albedo? That seems totally arbitrary to me.

Ah, well …

w.

• David Blenkinsop says:

Er, well,why do *you* keep arbitrarily coming back to the Moon as some sort of baseline for Lord M. to begin his feedback calculations? Granted, he may be pretty arbitrary in terms of assuming no CO2 and no water vapor as such, while still maintaining clouds in the albedo assumptions! At the same time, however, it’s a sure thing his baseline is going to have “air” with essentially the same mass as the air of the real earth? Air as such being something the Moon just doesn’t have?

Maybe I’m overly intuitive here, but given the sheer weight and pressure of the air in the idealized base case “Earth” (maybe even combined with any GHG effect you hypothetically want to assume from O2, N2, plus maybe some NO2, or something like that) you *are* going to just naturally assume this hypothetical “starting case” earth is warmer than airless Luna?

• Joe Born says:

Suppose Mr. Eschenbach is wrong: suppose the pre-industrial and current equilibrium values actually would, as Lord Monckton contends, respectively be $R_1$ = 254.8 K and $R_2$ = 255.5 K without feedback and $E_1$ = 287.55 K and $E_2$ = 288.55 K with it. Then what Lord Monckton sees as the climate-science approach to inferring equilibrium climate sensitivity (“ECS”) would be right, and Lord Monckton’s would be wrong.

Let’s see why. Use $R_3$ as the symbol for the without-feedback equilibrium temperature that would result from twice the pre-industrial CO2 concentration. As portrayed by Lord Monckton, the climate-science approach to inferring ECS would be to multiply the local slope $\Delta E_1/\Delta R_1$ by the CO2-doubling-caused change $\Delta R_2\equiv R_3-R_1$ in without-feedback equilibrium temperature. In Lord Monckton’s mind this is a “grave error” because it ignores feedback from “emission temperature.”

Instead of the local slope, he says, the quantity that $\Delta R_2$ should be multiplied by is the average slope $E_2/R_2$. Mr. Stokes has stumbled upon the kernel of Lord Monckton’s faulty reasoning for this conclusion. Lord Monckton’s rationale is that the average slope $E_2/R_2$ changes negligibly over $\Delta R_1$. But that reasoning is hardly compelling; the local slope, too, changes little over that interval.

And it produces better results, as we will now see.

Assume that the relationship of with-feedback equilibrium temperature E to without-feedback equilibrium temperature R is given by $E=kR^a$, where k = 0.259355 $\mathrm{K}^{1-a}$ and a = 1.265406. Under that assumption, $E_3$‘s value would be 289.036 K, to which the alleged climate-science approach’s extrapolation would be pretty close: 289.0357 K. In contrast, Lord Monckton’s approach would produce 288.7245 K: much less accurate.

Now, some have advanced an alternative justification, which is that data are noisy, so the average slope could be ascertained more accurately than the local slope. But that just means that Lord Monckton’s approach would be more reliably wrong, whereas the climate-science approach could occasionally be right. Of course, if we knew ahead of time that feedback is minimal, then the noise argument would have some validity. But then there’d be no need to embark upon the ECS calculation in the first place.

So I would be reluctant to help finance Lord Monckton’s lawsuit even if I didn’t oppose such litigation in principle.

58. Leo Kenji says:

Oh, it wasn’t?

Yeah, see, agglomerating a large pile of crap, doesn’t morph crap into chocolate.
It still is crap, even if you insist with calling it chocolate.

Now, feel free to send in your article to scientific respected magazines, that do not publish articles for a fee, but only allow articles published when peers in the climate science community find that its its content meets scientific methodology and rigor.

Something tells me that then only magazine that will accept your article is the local waste management facility in your county.

59. It appears that a double standard is being promoted here since the NAME is the actual trigger for over the top reactions from reviewers and some of YOU here, who are clearly employing the run around as pointed out in the article. Then Nick Stokes lift from a DIFFERENT set of reviewers quotes for ANOTHER thread from LAST YEAR, to make a case that they don’t like his paper, ok fine, however they also made this hypocritical statement that is an actual lie since many of the same major science journals DELIBERATELY publish pseudoscience garbage, because it is to push a narrative that global warming in some way is a danger to life on the planet.

Here is what one reviewer stated from the link Nick had dishonestly lifted from:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/

“No physical arguments are given for why the sensitivity should be so small, and accepting this simple estimate as plausible would require rejecting all previous work by scientists to understand the physics of climate change, much of which has been proven beyond doubt. The analysis given is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed and I cannot recommend publication by a reputable journal.”

bolding mine

“reputable journal”

Has many here forgotten the flood of absurd climate papers published that accuses of CO2 of nearly everything in the universe? Any day now CO2 will be blamed for slowing the speed of light down……

The hypocrisy is sickening here, with over the top objections to a particular paper, but little interest in the many garbage papers we see every week. I see the bile posted in a couple of forums that I visit daily and post in. Warmists promote obviously garbage published papers and essays from, here is an example of a thread I started:

Sea levels may rise much faster than previously predicted, swamping coastal cities such as Shanghai, study finds

The study is from PNAS, snicker….

“reputable journal”

Or this:

Climate Change Causing Extreme Weather

https://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/339985-climate-change-causing-extreme-weather.html

Based on the annual report from AMS, which is filled with misleading claims, but it is from a …. snicker, “reputable journal”

the comments from warmists in this thread are often absurd in part because they uncritically swallow the misleading claims from the AMS.

That is from two different forums I regularly post in.

Monckton’s paper may indeed have a problem in 1% of the paper, but probably far better than the weekly bilge we get from numerous “reputable journal”

How did the “Hockey Stick” paper sail through in a short time, what about that silly Briffa Tree Ring paper or the paper where DR. Mann presented a paper that sailed though reviewers who failed to notice Mann had a critical chart upside down?

From Climate Audit

Yet another Upside Down Mann out

https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/27/yet-another-upside-down-mann-out/

The stupid paper was published in … he he…. ha ha, SCIENCE journal, you know where they have awesome reviewers in them!

Climate Audit is a good place to see the many examples of bad climate science papers that manage to pass though awesome reviewers, after they are he he, from “reputable journals.

Here is the first comment in the Climate Audit thread:

“Posted Nov 27, 2009
But hang on, surely peer review will pick this error up?
Its funny you know, the BBC has been pushing this as another example of how global warming ™ cant be wrong.”

Yup awesome peer review………

Monckton is suffering from a double standard.

The hypocrisy is sickening and some of you don’t seem to care about it.

• Dave Fair says:

Since it is a political fight, not a science fight, the “science” journals are actually political journals.

Rational people never win political fights. Rational people, however, are eventually called upon to fix massive politics-driven problems after significant costs accrue to ordinary people. Germany is on the leading edge of the climate change disaster.

• >>
Any day now CO2 will be blamed for slowing the speed of light down……
<<

I’m afraid that horse has already left the stable. Light travels slower in transparent mediums such as air, water, and glass. The effect is responsible for (among other things) Cherenkov radiation, what looks like bent spoons in glasses of water, Snell’s law, and fiber optics. Air refraction (among other things) allows us to see the Sun after it actually sets and before it actually rises. The index of refraction of CO2 is (apparently) slightly higher than standard air, and air’s is slightly higher than a vacuum.

Jim

60. Olli says:

So you’re saying there is a worldwide conspiracy, and climate change and all the environmental implications are not really a concern, and not emitting CO2 and burning fossil fuels is inhibiting progress and prosperity.

And also you’re saying that everyone is in on this conspiracy.

You’re saying in reality human activity as currently is has no negative consequence on the environment.

I still fail to see who exactly benefits from “covering up the truth” and why anyone would benefit from it.

It would be so much easier for everyone if your assumptions were correct. Who benefits from being alarmed about a false danger?

61. beng135 says:

The prison gate is about to slam thunderously shut on the global warming fraudsters. It is time to report their profitable but murderous deception to the public investigating and prosecuting authorities.

It’d be nice, but it’s wishful thinking. There are so many layers/areas of corruption now that the fraudsters have nothing to fear, even from obvious/unequivocal exposure. They know they will be protected. The Clintons, Obamas and the Trump-coup perps are perfect examples — there are countless more.

62. ScuzzaMan says:

Discussing recent snows in Queensland, an Australian news source today described forest fires as an example of climate change bought on by increased atmospheric CO2 …

The outrageous mendacity of this mischaracterisation is exceeded only by its appalling idiocy.

63. Andrew Clay says:

I am a lawyer with a keen interest in anthropogenic global warming theory. In short I don’t believe the dire predictions of Mr. Gore and his ilk and am what the Guardian would label as a denier. I have a lot of time for Mr. Monckton’s critique of AGW theory.

Here I don’t comment on Mr. Monckton’s science only on the eminent lawyer’s advice.

There are numerous reasons why this strategy is doomed to be a dead end.

Firstly, whether or not the 97% consensus claim is false or not, the crown prosecution service are never going to investigate this kind of thing. They are over-worked and under-resourced and the guidelines they use when deciding to prosecute would rule this kind of investigation out.

Secondly, the journals that didn’t or won’t accept Mr. Monckton’s paper didn’t originate the 97% consensus claim.

Thirdly, Mr Monckton is vague on which fraud offence he is referring to. There are numerous different offences each of which requires differing elements to be made out.

Fourthly, the jurisdiction of the English courts stops generally for these purposes at the white cliffs of Dover. Much of what Mr. Monckton complains about will have occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English courts.

Fifthly, English courts hate interfering with press freedom or the freedom of academic journals to publish what they want. There is precisely nil chance they would intervene in this situation.

This to me all smacks of an enjoyable conversation over a no doubt very good bottle (or two) of claret but it should stay that way: wild conjecture at a dinner party of the type that should stay at the dinner party.

I do think there is a place for using the law to challenge the alarmist agenda – judicial review of the BBC or the climate change policies of a government department for example – but this particular route is a complete waste of time that will simply achieve nothing.

In terms of the science, I’d recommend you all watch Tapio Schneider admitting (here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/24/clouds-and-the-climate-tipping-point/) that (i) climate scientists don’t know if the sensitivity of their climate models is right or wrong as they are unsure about what will happen to low cloud cover, the presence of which reduces sensitivity to AGW as more of the energy from the sun is reflected back into space (see 14.30 – 15.30 in the video in the link), and (ii) that all the 29 climate models produce too few clouds “by a factor of two or three”, which he says is a well-known long-standing bias of climate models (18.25 – 18.35 in the video in the link). This is of course a well-known, long-standing bias that produces only a third or a half of the actual amount of low tropical clouds and therefore far too much warming of the surface of the dark oceans.

64. It is not about the science I understand Christopher Monckton will prepare to go to court if need be, and it is not about some judge deciding whether any argument holds up to scientific standards.

There is nothing special about “science” to give it absolution from worldly responsibility. Like it is some holy thing you should not touch. Nonsense. Science is nothing but be able to count to ten and then some. But somehow people have a deep reference for science like it is a magical wand. It is not. It is just an instrument you may wield rightly or wrongly.

The only way we know about “science” is by the action of scientists. Again, those are actions in the real with real material worldly responsibilities outside science. This is as I see it the main point of Christopher Monckton. And it stands strong. I wish him the patience and perseverance needed in a battle like this. And also enough diversions and detachments along the way.

65. Warren says:

Now we need two new essays.
Monckton to Stokes.
Monckton to Eschenbach.
I’d pay to see that . . .

• Joe Born says:

No, we don’t need more Lord Monckton.

What we need is a head post that simply graphs the core of Lord Monckton’s argument–i.e., his “end of the global warming scam in a single slide” at the end of https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/–so that readers can appreciate how how implausible his theory is.

Unfortunately, Anthony Watts has refused to run such a Monckton-critical post. (Which has its ironies in light of all the railing above against “censorship.”) But any reader who has an ounce of scientific curiosity could simply graph the slide himself.

He could then ask himself whether the first two points $(R_1,E_1)$ and $(R_2,E_2)$ extrapolate to Lord Monckton’s third point $(R_1+\Delta R_2,E_1+\Delta E_2)$. (Hint: no.)

Instead of actually thinking for themselves, though, Lord Monckton’s fanboys will simply regurgitate his statements (such as that the IPCC “[ignores] the fact that the 1850 temperature included feedbacks as well as GHG effects”).

One of them considers it “emotional” and “deceitful” for me to mention high-school math. On the contrary, I was stating an objective fact: despite Lord Monckton’s intimidating diagrams and opaque prose the core of his theory is something even a high-school math student could, as I just explained, work through for himself.

But reciting the Monckton catechism is easier.

66. Paramenter says:

I’m sorry to hear that you are hitting a brick wall in terms of publishing your paper. Pushing legal action is obviously suboptimal but it may be necessary to break the deadlock – if your scientifically valid paper indeed was rejected without convincing reasons. My worry is that a judge will call experts who trash your paper even using very weak arguments. A judge will trust them and your’re where you started.

If all fails please consider publishing such article in different journal. Ideally, should be published and discussed in a journal in the field of geophysics but if that is not possible better somewhere than nowhere. Eventually, publish such article openly in the Web. Good ideas and arguments will find the way into the public.

67. See - owe to Rich says:

Lord Monckton, I am sorry to see that you have been poorly treated by scientific journals. Your work does indeed deserve to be properly studied, and explanations made of your probable error.

The error to which I refer, which I wrote about in May 2018, August 2018, and January 2019, is that you assume that the gain factor A does not vary with CO2 concentration, or that any change is negligible. (Criticisms by Joe Born above are very much along the same lines.) Yet the problem with constant A is covered by your very own words: “even large uncertainties in E_t, R_t entail small uncertainty in A_t”. For the converse is that a small change in A_t leads to a large change in E_t, and hence to sensitivity.

Specifically, in August 2018 you used values
R1 = 254.8, E1 = 287.55, R2 = 255.48, E2 = 288.57, giving A1 = 1.1285 and A2 = 1.1295. So as I wrote in January 2019:

In the year when we reach CO2 doubling from 1850, we will have values R3, E3, A3. The value of R3 used in August was 255.84. Consider 3 possible values for A3, namely A1, A2, A2+A2-A1. These lead to

E3 = 288.72, 288.97, 289.23 respectively, and S = E3-E1 = 1.17, 1.42, 1.68 respectively.

You have now changed some of these values, most notably your R_t values are higher as they include GHGs up to 1850. So you have
R1 = 265.0, E1 = 287.55, R2 = 265.75, E2 = 288.50, giving A1 = 1.0851 and A2 = 1.0856.

I note that you write that A2 = 1.085, which is non-standard rounding (or there are unprinted less significant digits in your inputs).

Now with your new R3 = 266.8 (I presume for a doubling of CO2 after R2 in 2011, but you are not clear on this), and A3 in {A1, A2, A2+A2-A1}, we have S = E3-E2 = A3*R3-E2 in
{1.00, 1.14, 1.27}. The 1.14 agrees with your 1.15 to within some sort of rounding error, and the 1.27 is a plausible value allowing for a continuing increase in A_t.

Note that the new 1.27 (Kelvin) is a lot less than the 1.68 from August 2018, which seems to reflect that you have fudged the figures a bit.

But the conclusion is that A_t may be changing and small changes in it are important. For example, A3 = 1.09 does not sound much higher, but it would lead to S = 2.31K!

• “which seems to reflect that you have fudged the figures a bit”
Yes. The previous version had a factor of 1.4 which was supposed to allow for the difference between TCR and ECS. That has been quietly dropped.

68. Amber says:

A class action on behalf of 10’s of thousands people who’s loved ones were the victims of the biggest fraud in history will focus the mind . The global warming fraud industry is responsible for mass genocide that continues every day . i wonder if Prince Charles discussed that inconvenient fact in his one way conversation with President Trump .
I have seen no scientific papers that claim humans are going to direct the earths temperature to a Goldilocks state yet that is what the lie to the public is implying .
Too many climate scientists went for the money instead of principles like the scientific method .

69. See - owe to Rich says:

Note to Willis: the reason why Monckton et al do not start, before adding CO2, with the physics of the Moon, is that they choose to follow official climate science as closely as possible except for the treatment of feedback. This is so they can say “look, done properly, your methods give the following low sensitivity”. Except that, as I noted above, they haven’t done it properly in regard to secular variation of the gain factor A_t.

That said, it would be interesting to hear a radiation expert’s view on the temperature of the Moon, especially as its albedo is given as a lowly 12%. Perhaps the problem is with taking the mean given the huge variation from sunlit equatorial to mid-latitude to polar to night side.

One thing that surprises me is that milord has hardly responded on this thread; in previous ones he assiduously took to task some of the less well considered comments. There could be a number of reasons for that, I suppose.

70. Neulen, Holger says:

If you won´t confirm to the whole debate around Carbon Dioxide
and on this of Global Warming and Climate Change just follow
https://freispruch-co2.ch/petition/petition-english/