The moral case for honest and competent climate science

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

On the summit of Meall nan Aighean (3200 ft), above Loch Lyon in the Scottish Highlands

On the summit of Meall nan Aighean (3200 ft), above Loch Lyon in the Scottish Highlands

My previous posting was published while I was traveling from Scotland, where I had been scrambling up mountains in the freezing sleet, to my fragrant Gloucestershire garden. Therefore, I have not been able to respond to individual commenters as usual. Here, then, is a collective response, beginning with the moral case against climate fraud.

The International Energy Agency defines “access to electricity” as the ability to switch on the equivalent of a single 60-Watt light-bulb for about four hours. Even on this hardly generous definition, the IEA finds that some 1.3 billion people worldwide – a sixth of the global population – have no access to electricity.

Without power, life is poor, nasty, brutish and, above all, short. Life expectancy in regions without electricity – sub-Saharan Africa, for instance – is little better than 60 years. In the European countries, it is more like 80 years.

Yet since 2010 the World Bank, one of the plethora of unelected supranational institutions to which democratic nations are unwisely transferring great power and wealth, has refused to lend to developing countries for coal-fired electricity generation – because global warming.

From this year onward, that hideous, stony-faced, flint-hearted entity will not lend to poorer countries for extraction of coal, oil or gas either – because global warming.

In Western countries, too, the crippling cost of global-warming policies is causing real harm. Britain’s last aluminum smelter was forced to close some years ago, killed by savage real increases in the cost of electrical power for the furnace. The British Steel Corporation, the country’s last major steelworks, has just gone into bankruptcy. Again, the major reason for the collapse is the cost of electrical power, absurdly inflated not by market forces but by governmental fiat – because global warming.

Jobs in the West and lives in the South – millions of them every year – are being destroyed because affordable electricity is unavailable. More than 4 million people a year die of particulate pollution from open cooking fires because they have no electricity. Half a million women die in childbirth chiefly because there is no electrical power. These are just some of the tens of millions who die annually because they cannot so much as switch on a light.

A growing fraction of these job losses and deaths arise not because the rate of global warming is dangerous – it isn’t – but because official policies intended (whether piously or not) to mitigate global warming are, in their effect, genocidal.

The global welfare loss arising from policies to mitigate global warming very greatly outweighs even the vastly-exaggerated benefit imagined by true-believers in the cult of Thermageddon. That is why it is essential to get global-warming science right. Not merely the jobs of vulnerable working people but the very lives of tens of millions in developing countries are at stake.

Yet when I set out, in my previous column, a highly-compressed but quite detailed account of a grave error of physics right at the heart of climatology, some of those who commented decided to cling, with increasing and visible desperation, to their aprioristic belief that global warming science is free of the error that had been spelt out for them.

I do not propose to name these wretches, but I do propose to deal with their arguments. Before I do, let us cheer ourselves up with another Scottish picture, this time of a cataract behind a fine, stone bridge across a tributary of the River Lyon along the ancient drove-road to the far West. I took it just before we headed back to the South.

clip_image004

An outline of climatology’s error: IPCC explicitly misdefines feedback as responding only to perturbations of an input signal, when in well-established control theory whatever feedback processes prevail at any given moment must perforce act upon the entire reference signal then obtaining.

The reference signal is the sum of the original input signal and all subsequent perturbations of it, before accounting for feedback. The equilibrium signal is the output signal after accounting for feedback. In climate, the input signal is the 255 K emission temperature that would obtain – before accounting for feedback – purely because the Sun is shining. The natural and anthropogenic perturbations of that signal are known as reference sensitivities. Therefore, the reference temperature – the temperature that would obtain at a given moment before accounting for feedback – is the sum of emission temperature and all subsequent reference sensitivities.

clip_image006

In the block diagram, emission temperature comes in at top left. Then the reference sensitivities are added to it. Then it passes to the input/output node and thence infinitely round and round the feedback loop, where the separately-powered feedback block adds a smidgin to the signal on each pass. The output signal is equilibrium temperature, the temperature that obtains after feedback has operated and the climate has settled to equilibrium.

Take a good look at the diagram. It should be self-evident that the feedback loop cannot act selectively upon the 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivity. It must also act not only upon the 10 K sensitivity to the naturally-occurring, noncondensing greenhouse gases that were already present in the air before 1850 but also, and most importantly, upon the 255 K emission temperature. Therefore, if one knows the reference and equilibrium temperatures at a given moment one can calculate the feedback response at that moment: it is simply the difference between reference temperature before feedback has acted and equilibrium temperature after feedback has acted.

One can also calculate the feedback fraction at that moment: it is the fraction of equilibrium temperature represented by the feedback response: i.e., the ratio of the feedback response to the equilibrium temperature. Finally, the system-gain factor is the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature.

In 1850, reference temperature was the sum of the 255 K emission temperature and about 10 K reference sensitivity to the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases. The equilibrium temperature was about 287.55 K (HadCRUT4). So the feedback response in 1850 was 32.55 K, to the nearest twentieth of a Kelvin. The feedback fraction was 32.55 / 287.55, or 0.113. And the system-gain factor was 287.55 / 255, or 1.085.

Now, if we assume at this stage that the curve of equilibrium temperature as a function of reference temperature is linear, then Charney sensitivity – equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 – will be the product of the CMIP5 1.05 K reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 – and the system-gain factor 1.085: i.e., just 1.15 K, not the 3.35 K currently imagined by the CMIP5 models (based on Andrews et al. 2012). Since 1.15 K is about a third of official climatology’s current central estimate, that’s the end of the climate problem. Let’s celebrate that with a picture of some bluebells in Glen Lyon.

clip_image008

Of course, one could make the mistake of ignoring the fact that the Sun is shining and imagine instead that the system-gain factor was 32.55 / 10, or 3.255. Then one might multiply the 1.05 K reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 by 3.255 and conclude that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 is about 3.4 K. And that, not entirely by coincidence, is what the CMIP5 models erroneously do.

But if one were doing it correctly, one would remember that the 255 K temperature caused by the fact that the Sun is shining itself generates a substantial feedback response. One must not – as the models in effect do at present – allocate to greenhouse gases the vast majority of the total feedback response that comes from the fact that the Sun is shining.

With that background on the moral importance of trying to get the science right and on how climatology has gotten the science wrong, I now turn to some of the criticisms leveled at our conclusions by commenters on my earlier posting here.

One commenter, who has some experience of control theory, tries to muddy the waters in a manner that does not seem to me to be morally justifiable. He says we are wrong because the input signal – emission temperature – is itself a perturbation when compared to absolute zero. So it is – and that is exactly why it should not be excluded when, at any given moment, one is calculating the magnitude of the effect of feedback on temperature. At any given moment, feedback processes respond to the entire temperature they find – the sum of all the perturbations compared with absolute zero.

That commenter, after confusing the input signal (before any natural or anthropogenic perturbations) with the reference signal (the sum of the original input signal, emission temperature, and the subsequent perturbations caused by the presence of noncondensing greenhouse gases), perpetrates what another commenter calls out as “lies” by taking a quotation from a reviewer of a previous version of our paper, falsely asserting that it was a quotation from a review of the present paper and then suggesting that the reviewer’s criticism was correct, when the commenter, as an expert in control theory, knew full well it was wrong.

That reviewer had said we had arbitrarily decided that feedback responded not only to perturbations of emission temperature but also to emission temperature itself. But feedback does respond to both, and the commenter knew that. Look at the block diagram.

The commenter went on to try to leave the impression that, since feedback is not explicitly implemented in models, it is not really important to the derivation of equilibrium sensitivities – i.e., to answering the “how-much-warming” question.

The first answer to any such suggestion is that IPCC (2013) mentions “feedback” more than 1000 times. Without the pretence that feedback multiplies reference sensitivity to anthropogenic forcings by 3, which is absolutely essential to official climatology’s case, there is no climate crisis. We know that the reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 (before feedback) is 1.05 K, and we know that the equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 (after feedback) is 3.35 K. The ratio of the two – about 3.2 – is the system-gain factor that official climatology is using, when it ought to be using something less than 1.1. It doesn’t matter by what method climatology reaches its wildly-exaggerated midrange estimate of Charney sensitivity: the estimate is exaggerated, and the exaggeration arises almost entirely from climatology’s misunderstanding of what a feedback is.

The second answer is that getting the definition of feedback right is crucial, for the following simple reason. The system-gain factor in official climatology is the ratio of very small sensitivities. Tiny uncertainties in small sensitivities entail a very large uncertainty in the system-gain factor and hence in equilibrium sensitivity. It is for this reason, above all, that there is still such a very large range of estimates of equilibrium sensitivity. After 40 years of “settled science”, it’s still 1.5 to 4.5 K, just as it was in the Charney report of 1979.

The corrected system-gain factor is the ratio of absolute temperatures that are greater by two orders of magnitude than the sensitivities used by official climatology. We know roughly what that system-gain factor is, because we know what it was in 1850. It was 287.55 / 265, or 1.085. It won’t have changed all that much since then, because the climate sensitivity parameter, which allows for forcing and feedback together, is described in Ramanathan (1985) and in IPCC (2001) as “a typically near-invariant parameter”.

The point is that even quite large uncertainties in the values of the entire reference and equilibrium temperatures that ought to be but are not used in deriving equilibrium sensitivity entail only a small uncertainty in the system-gain factor and hence in equilibrium sensitivity – a point well illustrated by our professor of statistics when he ran Monte Carlo simulations, each of 300,000 iterations, comparing official climatology’s vast equilibrium-sensitivity interval with our own much narrower interval. The diagram tells all. The bin widths (the number of iterations per histogram bar) is identical in both simulations.

clip_image010

Next, a notorious concern troll, who, unlike our professor of control theory, has no qualifications in control theory or in any scientific subject, weighs in with a characteristically confused series of pseudo-scientific objections to our case.

The concern troll begins by saying that in the models climate sensitivity is not derived as we say it is. But our argument does not depend on how the models derive equilibrium sensitivities: it depends on the observation that, if one were to correct official climatology’s published misdefinitions of temperature feedback, one would be able to constrain equilibrium sensitivity very simply and yet very robustly, and one would find that equilibrium sensitivity cannot possibly be anything like as elevated as the modelers profit by asking us to believe.

Next, the troll says some quantities we had relied upon are incorrect, but does not say which or by how much or on what grounds. This kind of yah-boo is all too common among trolls.

Next, the troll says we have gotten our arithmetic wrong, but carefully fails to show where, in the head posting, any such error is evident – in short, a mere smear. The math was verified by our professor of statistics so that he could calculate the probability distributions. It is not, therefore, particularly likely that there is any significant arithmetic error.

The troll himself, however, makes the elementary error of assuming that reference temperature upon a doubling of CO2 compared with 2011 is the sum of emission temperature and reference sensitivity to anthropogenic but not to natural greenhouse gases. Oops!

Finally, the troll says that maybe the curve of equilibrium temperatures as a function of reference temperatures is nonlinear. Maybe it is: our paper considers curves of all shapes. However, if “settled science” is right that the climate-sensitivity parameter is a “typically near-invariant parameter”, the curve is necessarily linear or very close to it. For once, settled science is very probably correct, for the reference temperature in 1850 was more than 92% of the equilibrium temperature that year, leaving little room to imagine that today’s feedback processes are at all likely to have an extravagantly nonlinear influence on global temperature.

We did some tests to see what would happen if one assumed that existing equilibrium-sensitivity estimates were correct. In every case, making that assumption led to an impossible contradiction. A brief account of some of these tests is given in the short scientific section in the previous posting: but the troll – one can tell it is a troll by its nasty, arrogant writing style – had not read it.

For instance, quite a simple calculation shows that official climatology’s midrange estimate of 3.35 K Charney sensitivity implies that the feedback fraction in response to greenhouse-gas warming is more than 80 times the feedback fraction in response to emission temperature.

That is, of course, quite impossible, since precisely the same sensitivity-altering feedbacks were responding to emission temperature in the absence of noncondensing greenhouse gases as are responding to reference temperature (the sum of emission temperature and all subsequent natural and anthropogenic perturbations) today.

To make sure, we carried out a careful Gedankenexperiment in which we calculated the surface temperatures at all points on Earth in the absence of the noncondensers. We then verified our latitudinal temperature profile method by applying it to the Moon, and were able to reproduce exactly the curve produced at a cost of billions by the measurements of the Lunar Diviner experiment.

One commenter, who had read the scientific section with great care, noticed a misprint: at one point the feedback fraction had been incorrectly stated as the ratio of equilibrium temperature to the feedback response, rather than vice versa. Our proof-reader had spotted that one, but had not responded before I submitted the paper to our kind host for posting.

Another, less constructive commenter gave me a rather flatulent lecture on the need to define our variables. because, he said, we had not defined our variable R. However, we had defined R as reference temperature both in the paragraph cunningly disguised as the definition of feedback and related quantities, specifically including R, and (twice) in the block diagram. For good measure, both in the abstract and in the main text we had explained exactly what reference temperature is.

Fraus est celare fraudem: The main point of the previous posting had been to invite comment on our proposal to involve the police in those aspects of the climate debate that are demonstrably fraudulent. Several commenters said there was no point in trying to approach the police, but I have long learned not to heed suchlike counsels of despair. There are some people who do, and others (a majority, alas) who sit on the sidelines, swaying slowly from side to side, wringing their hands, pouting petulantly, blinking goofily and explaining in reedy voices why nothing can be done.

Other commenters said that the courts were not a good place to settle scientific questions. Yet we did not heed their reedy voices before, when we successfully defeated Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror movie in the High Court in London on the basis of 80 pages of scientific testimony drafted by me. It was the testimony wot did it: the moment the Government (which had been proposing to send a free copy of Gore’s silly movie to every school in England) saw our testimony, it conceded the case.

Besides, as several commenters were quick and right to point out, if we do have to report various journals for fraud we shall not be inviting the police or the courts to pronounce on scientific questions such as whether our paper is meritorious. And it would not be just one journal we were reporting: we only propose to ask for an investigation if the pattern of egregious professional misconduct evident at the present journal were replicated by the editors of two further journals. Then it would be limpidly clear that a pattern of dishonest conduct worthy of investigation was present.

We should be drawing attention to a pattern of deception by journals that hold themselves out as publishing sound science after a process of peer review that they describe on their own websites in some detail, presenting it as thorough and scientific. On any view, our treatment to date by the current journal – which we have given one final opportunity to redeem itself – has not been honest. If the journal reverts to us with genuine scientific objections to our paper, then it is doing what it ought to do and, if it is correct, we shall not complain. But if there is any more messing about we shall take the first step towards stopping the climate nonsense by putting the police on notice that fraudulent behavior is evident.

Purchasers of such journals, and authors who submit their papers thereto, have a legitimate expectation in law that the journals will conduct the process of peer review process honestly, competently and in the manner in which the journals themselves has represented that they will conduct it.

From the brief account I gave in my earlier posting of the manner in which the current journal has handled our submission to date, it was clear to most commenters that, on the face of things, a jury of reasonable men on the Clapham omnibus (and that is the legal yardstick) would conclude that our paper had been dishonestly handled thus far.

Fraud at the IPCC: Then there’s the dismal, corrupt IPCC. We twice asked it to activate the error-reporting protocol that the Inter-Academy Council had obliged it to put into place precisely to deal with errors that it had in the past swept under the carpet. But it has not activated the protocol. It has not even replied to us.

One of the nastier trolls said that was because our paper was nonsense. Well, it isn’t, for we’ve had enough pre-submission reviews from scientists considerably more eminent and less prejudiced than the troll to know we’re barking up the right tree.

Under the error protocol the IPCC is obliged to respond willy-nilly, and not simply to ignore an inconvenient truth. It has not responded. Again, a reasonable jury would be likely to conclude that its failure to respond was motivated by a desire not to bring the gravy-train that runs solely on the basis of climatology’s error of physics to a decisive and permanent halt.

As I made plain in the earlier posting, we are not proposing at this stage to invite the police to act: merely to put them on notice that something irregular – with very costly consequences not only in treasure but in human lives – is going on in climate science, and in the journals that are, for good or ill, the gatekeepers of modern science.

As one commenter who formerly served in the police nicely put it, a fraud is a fraud, and it does not cease to be a fraud merely because it is a fraud by boffins in white coats with leaky biros sticking out of the top pocket.

Finally, several commenters suggested that we should establish a crowd-funding campaign, to which they said they would be happy to contribute. That is a most generous suggestion, and we shall consider it carefully. Watch this space.

The bottom line: most readers of this column know full well that several aspects of the prevailing climate-extremist story-line are fraudulent. These frauds are costing tens of millions a year their very lives. Morally speaking, that genocide is intolerable. In my submission, it is now time for us to alert the public authorities to those aspects of present-day climate science that the reasonable juror on the Clapham omnibus would at once recognize as frauds and then, in due course, to demand that they should forthwith bring to an end what Professor Mörner has rightly called the greatest fraud in human history.

clip_image012

More global warming, please, squire! Deer at Dyrham Park, Gloucestershire, 2019

Advertisements

262 thoughts on “The moral case for honest and competent climate science

  1. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    “From this year onward, that hideous, stony-faced, flint-hearted entity will not led (lend) to poorer countries for extraction of coal, oil or gas either – because global warming.”

    Great post..

    • Congratulations, Christopher! This is great work, and argumention as always.
      We will support you all the way, by crowd-funding if necessary.
      Tomorrow is D-Day! Let’s throw back the IPCC – once and for all….

    • Even the terminally stupid facing starvation will not be dissuaded from the lie that they all embrace.

  2. Fifth paragraph typo: “flint-hearted entity will not led to poorer countries” should read “… lend …”.

  3. Math tends to intimidate me, but it is rather a matter of settled science that the factors that produced the estimated temperature in 1850 are still operating today, and in the same manner.
    So it is obvious that if ~300 ppm of CO2 was prevalent in 1850, it was interacting with the other factors (variations in insolation and oceanic circulation, among others) to result in that temperature. Only counting the changes since 1850 as being acted on by the effects of CO2 seems to be an unreasonable presumption.

    • CM’s brilliant stroke was to accept the assumptions and methods posited by the CAGW scientists and then show that they had applied them incorrectly.

      I have re-visited a WUWT story, Venus Envy and noted the following:

      It is very important to note that despite radically different compositions, both atmospheres have approximately the same dry lapse rate. This tells us that the primary factor affecting the temperature is the thickness of the atmosphere, not the composition. Because Venus has a much thicker atmosphere than Earth, the temperature is much higher.

      There’s very good reason to doubt the validity of climate sensitivity, ie. degrees per doubling. Certainly it falls down for very high CO2 levels as well as for very low levels.

      Suppose there were zero molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere and you added a single molecule. If you naively apply climate sensitivity, that would be an infinite increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore give rise to an infinite temperature increase. Similarly, climate sensitivity is invalid for the very high concentrations found on Venus.

      In engineering, we simplify problems if we can linearise them. That means the system is operating in a reasonably linear region of its characteristic curve and, within that region, we can treat it as linear. Of course that requires that we fully understand the characteristic curve. That is not the case for the climate and that means there is no good reason to believe that climate sensitivity is a valid approximation of reality.

      Time after time in climate science, we find people making assumptions they have no clue that they are making. Of course, when you point that out, they ignore you. That’s why CM’s approach is not only better, but necessary.

      • Most grateful to CommieBob for his interesting comment. We have indeed accepted ad argumentum all of official climatology except what we can formally demonstrate to be false. And official climatology’s definition of feedback is incomplete. If the proper definition is adopted, it can at once be seen that most of the feedback response that climatology attributes to greenhouse gases is in fact attributable to the Sun.

      • See also Nicholov and Zeller. Atmospheric composition is irrelevant. That’s the warmists cooked.

      • commiebob It is also exactly what we do in quantitative pharmacology; parameters are derived from the linear parts of the curve. Deviations from waht the theoretical shape of the expected curve tell you something else is going on, and you can ‘dig’ for it.

      • The climate system is more likely to be linear for deviations of a few degrees from average than it is for the full range of temperatures from 0K to ~288 K. See my other comment using cloud formation of an example of that, and why feedbacks *in the climate system* (even if we must invent a new term other than “feedback”) should indeed be relative to the long-term average state.

        I’m no expert in control systems, but my understanding is that they constrain equipment to operate withing certain bounds, that is, keep them close to an average operating state. That’s the traditional use of “feedback” in climate science (even if it isn’t exactly in line with Bode theory or whatever. Hell, give it a new name so purists stop complaining.)

        In the big picture, none of this matters to the design of climate models. They do not depend upon such arguments. Feedback (and thus climate sensitivity) is an output of the model physical processes, not an input. I’m not saying models have feedbacks correct, only that I don’t believe redefining feedback in this way will not help determine climate sensitivity.

        • In response to Dr Spencer, the reason why correcting climatology’s erroneous definition of feedback matters is that climatology’s partial and defective system-gain factor is the ratio of equilibrium to reference sensitivities, which are very small quantities. Thus, small uncertainties in these quantities entail a large uncertainty in the system-gain factor and hence in equilibrium sensitivity, which is why it has proven impossible to constrain equilibrium sensitivities for 40 years: it is still [1.5, 4.5] K, as it was in 1979.

          However, expressing the system-gain factor correctly, as the ratio not only of sensitivities but also of absolute equilibrium to reference temperatures allows constraint of equilibrium sensitivity by greatly reducing the uncertainty in the value of the system-gain factor, because the temperatures whose ratio it is are greater than the sensitivities upon which official climatology relies by two orders of magnitude.

          Precisely how the models account for temperature feedback is not the issue here. The issue is that once one defines feedback correctly one can derive a reliable equilibrium-sensitivity interval without using general-circulation models at all. The calculation becomes remarkably simple.

          • The last paragraph above is key. The oft-repeated statement from Nick Stokes that the models don’t have a climate sensitivity to CO2 as an input is moot. It doesn’t matter how the models work or don’t work on the inside. If the output claims that the sensitivity is 3 times what it actually is, then the model is defective. As Willis would say, bad scientist, no cookie.

            One might propose that the model would give better results if it did use a sensitivity value as an input because in that manner it would be constrained by what is known about the natural world from observation and deduction.

            Clearly there are systematic errors in the models if their outputs contradict observations both in the present and past. Not using a sensitivity value as an input doesn’t make the outputs valid – outputs can be checked against reality and by deductive analysis. The outputs show a sensitivity too high and too uncertain.

            Personally I do not know which miscalculations in the models produce the impossible outputs. I won’t investigate further the details because it would waste my time. Rather, those who are making errors while being paid, should do so, or give back the money.

            The core argument is not with models. It is over the IPCC’s misdefinitions and the consequences thereof. The fact the modellers’ work aligns with the misdefinitions is significant but ultimately immaterial to Monckton’s argument.

            Correct the definitions and have the modellers realign their work and all may be well. Then cancel all contracts with people who can’t do their job properly. I’ve got a little list, and there’s none of them’d be missed. We have no obligation to fund incompetence nor incompetents.

          • There is a very important point that everyone is missing here. The modellers always try to say exactly what Roy Spencer has said ie: that the computer code simply calculates the physics for any increase of CO2 and then spews out the new temperature. This is wrong for the main reason that all along, for the best 30 years ever since the 1st generation (we are now up to the 6th generation) Al Gore’s Church of Climatology has supplied special code to the modellers for each new successive generation.

            The 6th generation was supposed to have many solar forcing variables in it but when the simulations showed that these new solar variables were causing all of the warming for past years, there was no warming left to do for the 413ppm CO2. So the 6th generation code was held up and delayed until they could work out some way to include some of the solar variables (there are many) and still have Mr. CO2 do his thing of warming. The 6th generation code was then released again and now it shows even more warming than the 5th generation. I suspect that the reason is, that some of the solar variables were incorporated and that Mr.CO2 was allowed to increase the temperature in the same manner as the 5th generation.

            Some of the climate modellers themselves have expressed surprise to certain reporters that the 6th generation models are running so hot. If the climate modellers were in complete control of every last line of their code, then there wouldn’t be this surprise from more than 1 modeller in more than 1 supercomputer GCM , that the 6th generation is running so hot. Indeed there wouldn’t even be a need to have generations of models at all. The generation numbers haven’t changed from 1 to 6 because of computer hardware. It is the software changes that define the generations. So in the end there is some computer code that is common to all the models. It is this code that must contain the sensitivity feedback that Monckton is talking about. So Roy I think you are wrong.

      • “There’s very good reason to doubt the validity of climate sensitivity, ie. degrees per doubling. Certainly it falls down for very high CO2 levels as well as for very low levels.

        “Suppose there were zero molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere and you added a single molecule. If you naively apply climate sensitivity, that would be an infinite increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore give rise to an infinite temperature increase. Similarly, climate sensitivity is invalid for the very high concentrations found on Venus.”

        Either those are not reasons to doubt it, or you’re doubting that the relationship is logarithmic. The doubling rule is just another way of saying that it’s logarithmic.

  4. At the end of the day, there really is no point in trying to police or litigate science, or to police or litigate fake science. At the end of the day, it is a political issue that can only be resolved by political processes.

    The political process are actually working quite well. Voters, and in some cases protesters, are making their voices heard in nations all over the world that have attempted to enforce climate alarmist doctrine through government action. People who consume electricity or petroleum products are in fact making our voices heard. Whether it be in France, where draconian climate enforcement laws were pared back as a result of the yellow vest movement .. or in nations like Australia, where voters made their voices known… and here in the USA where, despite all the who-haw of climate alarmism, the votes in Congress have never been there to enforce the climate alarmism doctrine.

    Even Germany, which undertook possibly the most radical climate alarmism program, is seeing push back and voters are not swarming to the support of the current powers that be.

    Given another decade or so, perhaps two decades, and the entire climate alarmist tide will have obviously been pushed back.

    At the end of the day, everyone wants affordable energy.

    Reality will ultimately win out.

    Mr. Monkton is a warrior, and it is good to have warriors on the side of truth … but wars are not productive.

    • Duane says wars are not productive. They are not, but they are sometimes necessary. How many more millions must die before policymakers wake up to the fact that the climate Communists have deceived them?

      • But the social-communist-democrat policymakers WANT TO BE DECEIVED!
        Their eco-enviro “religion” REQUIRES (as a fundamental part of their upbringing as liberal-social-democrat creatures) that they be “deceived”.

      • Can you imagine the cries for action if the millions of people who die every year from the efforts to fight global warming were instead dying from the effects of global warming?

        • Absolutely. There really is a climate crisis. But it’s not caused by climate change – far from it. It’s caused by incompetent and damaging policies implemented by governments trying to solve a non-existent problem.

          It is conceivable that millions have indeed died due to mad climate change policies. But these deaths will be due to many causes and, so far at least, are not obviously caused by policy. It would probably require very good statistical research to clearly prove the cause of the deaths.

          Another “problem” is that, despite the doom mongering, mankind is prospering as never before. For example, the UN data shows that deaths from extreme events has been falling for decades and is at record historical lows. Today humanity is better fed, more healthy and longer living and more prosperous than ever before. And history shows a perfect correlation between a warmer climate and increased human well-being.
          Chris

    • Not so. Deliberate fraud for profit must be met with criminal penalties.

      Consider this parallel. A huge international pharmaceutical company develops a chemical compound that they subsequently tout as a universal cancer cure – using fraudulent clinical trials, paying off corrupt government officials, and influencing medical journals and cancer researchers to suppress any findings that the “cure” is not only useless, but actually kills when other means of attacking the cancer are foregone.

      Should the CEO and other officers of the company get off without facing a jury in criminal court for this enormous and murderous fraud? Should the company “scientists” that developed the so-called “cure”? Should the corrupt officials? The journal editors and other researchers? (Although the latter could possibly make a defense based on undue coercion.)

      I don’t think so! Actually, being stripped of their criminal profits and thrown into jail would probably be a fortunate outcome for the perpetrators of such a scheme – the lynch mob would be their more likely fate.

        • I make, and made, no such claims. There are indications that a class of medications already in the U.S., U.K. and E.U. pharmacopoeias is capable of treating various infectious diseases. Research continues.

          • @C. Paul Pierett

            The video speaks for itself.

            Did you not hear Monckton say “…appears to have…” and “…shows much promise…”?

            The video does indeed speak for itself.

            The listener, however, hears what they want to hear.

          • Most grateful to MangoChutney. The background to that particular video is interesting. The creep who made it had told me he was doing a TV film about skeptics. In fact, it turned out to be a 90-minute personal attack on me. In this particular clip, he had asked me to talk about our research into infectious diseases. I had begun, very carefully, by saying that we made no claims at all, that we were merely conducting research, and that we had had some promising indications which had led us to believe that further research would be worthwhile. He said he wanted me to put the point more forcefully. So I did, but retained some cautious phraseology. Sure enough, he was trying to make me look as though I was making claims that I was not in fact making, so that the likes of Borgelt could exploit the video later. Borgelt and his ilk do not appreciate that science does not advance by the personal reputational attacks that he and other climate Communists use as their stock-in-trade, but by the long and diligent research that my colleagues and I have carried out.

            In due course I sued the BBC and, in the words of the judge in the case, “substantially won the action”. The BBC was compelled to cut the length of the program from 90 minutes to 45 minutes, and, since the BBC pays by the minute, I imagine that the creep who made the program went bust.

        • Mike Big -Rat Borgelt back again .You are nothing but a troll .
          You cannot understand Moncktons paper so you try and smear him.
          You cannot mount an argument to oppose what Monkton has put forward so you dredge the gutters ,you are a gutter snipe .
          Monkton has written this and it should be visible to most sane and reasonable people that as the climate models run hot and hotter that the wrong parameters have been used from the outset.
          Billions of the worlds wealth have been wasted because of this fraud .
          Millions of the worlds population have died and will continue to die because of this fraud.
          You might even learn something by reading these blogs
          .

      • Good luck with your hypotheticals. Proving that disingenuously promoting climate change alarmism is a crime in any jurisdiction where the rule of law prevails is a fools errand. You could get away with that in Russia, sure … or China. Russia indeed has been a huge promoter of falsehoods about fracking, being the primary financial supporter of those lies for decades .. they clearly do not want the US being able to produce the volume of oil and gas, which keeps world prices low, which of course reduces Russian income. But don’t go looking for Trump to go after his patron on that.

    • Sprechen Sie Deutsch ??
      wars are not always about productive outcomes but often are about protections of existing lives and/or MANNER of lives. so often the protection does produce a productive outcome.

  5. Wonderful post!

    I suppose that fundamental mechanisms of response need not be known for feedback theory to apply. However, in the context of the Gaia hypothesis, which presupposes that life provides regulation to the atmosphere/climate, other than man, what are the major life drivers of this regulation? Comments?

  6. When we teach operational amplifiers, we explicitly show the reference signal. That is because the operational amplifier has two inputs, inverting and non-inverting, and they operate in a differential manner, ie. the output is a function of the difference between the inputs.

    The feedback model used by James Hansen was developed for vacuum tubes. The reference is not stated explicitly but is implicit as circuit ground. As far as I can tell, Hansen didn’t realize that was an issue. link

    • Operational amplifiers, like all amplifiers, amplify perturbations. They do not amplify any “reference signal”.

      The feedback model used by Hansen was simple linear algebra. It had nothing to do with vaccuum tubes.

      • Operational amplifiers, like all amplifiers, amplify perturbations. They do not amplify any “reference signal”.

        It is quite trivial to use a opamp, a voltage reference, and a couple of resistors to amplify the voltage reference. IOW they can amplify a DC signal.

      • Operational amplifiers, like all amplifiers, amplify signals. No signal, nothing to amplify, so no amplification. In climate, the reference signal is the sum of the input signal (emission temperature) and all subsequent perturbations thereof (the natural and anthropogenic perturbations).

        • Operational amplifiers, like all amplifiers, amplify signals.

          If the “signal” is static as in DC it will amplify it.

          No signal, nothing to amplify …

          What is presented to the input is the signal. In reality a condition with no “signal” is not possible.

        • He says that he uses the methods and terminology of Bode’s paper. That is a way of making ordinary linear algebra familiar. Nobody, not even EE’s, think those methods and terminology are peculiar to vacuum tubes.

          • You missed my point as did, apparently, James Hansen. The reference level is treated more implicitly than explicitly in Bode’s paper.

            When scientists use material from other disciplines it is fairly common for them to make elementary errors because they don’t know the basics.

      • That just isn’t true! 1) Op amps have internal bias components that set an operating points of the internal amplifiers. 2) It is trivial to make an op amp that amplifies a constant voltage (I.e. a DC voltage). 3) An amplifier has no preference about whether a tube, transistor, or IC is used.

        It is up to the designer to determine the characteristics needed and design accordingly. I use a tube amplifier being fed by a transistor transmitter in my amateur radio system. Others use tube transmitters to feed amplifiers with FET’s. The math is all the same and is well known to electrical engineers and others. The math is well defined and understood and that is why it is called a “science”. If I know the input of an amp and it’s transfer function, I can compute the output, always.

        So-called climate science is not very well understood nor does it have well defined math underlying it. We are spending billions attempting to “calculate” a so-called global temperature which defines nothing. There isn’t even any empirical evidence that a given global temperature can translate to a radiation temperature of Earth, otherwise we could easily identify the correct model.

          • Yes sir I have. Audio amps, small signal rf amps and preamps, if amps, and power amps.

            If you are questioning what I said, consider this. If I put a +/- 1 V AC signal at the base of a transistor, when the signal is at +1 V, the output will move up the load line and the output will change to whatever the transfer function is designed to be. If I put a step +1 V DC voltage at the base of that transistor the output will change to whatever it was when the AC signal peaked at +1 V. The amp has no way to know if the signal is AC or DC, it is as simple as that. The same applies to a tube amp and the control grid.

            This is getting way off topic. Suffice it to say that CM has made a very reasonable hypothesis. To outright disprove it is going to take some math and experimentation. Simply declaring his assessment wrong isn’t going to cut it.

          • I should have been more specific.

            3) An amplifier has no preference about whether a tube, transistor, or IC is used.

            That is simply not true. When I’m designing an amplifier, the choice of device is usually obvious.

          • Aw, man; why are we dick-dancing around design of an electronic amplifier? The fact that eco-nuts assume that CO2-driven temperature increases somehow result in H2O amplification does not mean we have to play along.

          • Commie —> Please don’t try to make points about things I didn’t say. This isn’t the place to discuss the niceties of electronics. Suffice it to say, any of these devices can be an amplifier.

            My point is that the design is based on fundamental mathematics that is well known and defined. It is Science.

        • “It is trivial to make an op amp that amplifies a constant voltage (I.e. a DC voltage)”
          It isn’t amplifying a constant voltage. The term is meaningless. When you set up the bias arrangements, you set the operating points, by design. You set a bias voltage or current at the input, and choose load resistors or whatever to determine the DC at the output. The amplifier didn’t do that.

          You can see how meaningless it is by just trying to pin it down. An amplifier multiplies perturbations by a gain factor. Suppose you have bias +0.6 V at the input. Is that then multiplied by a gain factor? To yield what? And what is +0.6V anyway. It is the difference between input and an arbitrary reference point, the lower power rail. You could equally refer it to the upper rail, so it is, say, -14.4V. Is that then multiplied by the gain factor?

          • It isn’t amplifying a constant voltage.

            Yes it is.
            input x gain = output

            Suppose you have bias +0.6 V at the input. Is that then multiplied by a gain factor?

            Yes.

            To yield what?

            input x gain = output

            And what is +0.6V anyway. It is the difference between input and an arbitrary reference point, the lower power rail.

            Could be or the reference point could be half the supply voltage.

          • “input x gain = output”
            OK, let’s have some numbers. Suppose the amplifier has a gain factor of 100. Where do I expect to see the 60 V? What if the supply voltage is 15V? And again, suppose (as an SH resident I might) I take the upper supply rail as the reference, so the bias is -14.4V. Do I expect to see a -1440V as well?

          • Fer Christ’s sake! UN IPCC climate models are tuned to get an “ECS that seems about right.” Assumed feedbacks are derived from tuned models. There is no straightforward mathematical computation of UN IPCC feedbacks. Get over it!

            The lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot is prima facie invalidation of CO2-driven climate change. Mother Nature shits on your UN feedbacks.

          • OK, let’s have some numbers. Suppose the amplifier has a gain factor of 100. Where do I expect to see the 60 V? What if the supply voltage is 15V?

            Then you obviously have exceeded the operating range of the amplifier. Please cure your ignorance.

          • “Then you obviously have exceeded the operating range of the amplifier.”
            Indeed so. So what is the answer? I’m asking you to give an actual calculation of a DC amplification. This one obviously leads to nonsense. Numbers please.

          • Indeed so. So what is the answer? I’m asking you to give an actual calculation of a DC amplification.

            Split supplies with common halfway between V+ and V-. Non-inverting configuration. Two resistors of equal value. One resistor connects from the output to the – input, the other resistor connects from the – input to common setting the gain to 2. Signal is connected to + input.
            0 volts on + input results in 0 volts at the output (2 x 0 = 0)
            +1 volt DC on + input results in +2 volts DC at output.
            -1 volt DC on + input results in -2 volts DC at output.
            1 volt AC on + input results in +2 volts AC at output.

            It doesn’t matter if the signal is DC or AC. At any given point in time the output voltage will be (for this example) 2 times the whatever the input voltage is at that given point in time. Go to the tutorial I linked to.

          • Mr Stokes says I insist “you can amplify absolute values”. Of course I do. Mr Stokes knows perfectly well that that is true. The distinction between an input signal and a perturbation thereof is more than somewhat artificial, for the input signal is itself a perturbation with respect to the zero state. Therefore, such feedbacks as subsist in a dynamical system at a given moment must perforce respond, without distinction, to the entire reference signal, which is the sum of the input signal and all subsequent perturbations thereof up to that moment.

            To make assurance doubly sure, we constructed a test rig and confirmed that this rather obvious point is indeed the case. However, it comes as a nasty surprise to climatologists, who have not hitherto realized that feedbacks respond not only to the most recent perturbation but to the entire reference temperature. Once that fact – well attested to in the textbooks of control theory – is accepted, as it must be, then it becomes possible to constrain equilibrium sensitivities very simply indeed, and without the need to use general-circulation models at all.

          • ECS “that seems about right” is obtained through climate models by fiddling with the assumptions inherent to the models. CliSci ECS is not calculated from first principles; its models all the way down.

            It irritates me when one asserts facts based on model output. Models only tell you what you put into the models. The lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot is sufficient to prove CliSci assumptions, as reflected by their models, are fundamentally in error.

          • Nick Stokes June 5, 2019 at 6:42 pm
            “input x gain = output”
            OK, let’s have some numbers. Suppose the amplifier has a gain factor of 100. Where do I expect to see the 60 V? What if the supply voltage is 15V? And again, suppose (as an SH resident I might) I take the upper supply rail as the reference, so the bias is -14.4V. Do I expect to see a -1440V as well?

            No you don’t because the output is limited to the supply voltage. So given the situation you described you’d get an output of 15V.

            Even using an opamp with a gain of millions the output is limited to the power supply voltage. I used to have my students set up such opamps with open loop gains and whatever input voltage was supplied the output always equalled the power supply voltage (usually about 12V). Set up a negative feedback loop and the output equalled the input voltage.

      • Nick, you once again show you know nothing about electronics, control theory, or much of anything technical as far as I can tell. If I put a DC bias into an amplifier, it will respond to the initial “perturbation” of going from zero input to the full DC level. Any “perturbations” on top of that will also be amplified – on top of the amplified DC bias. But if you only look at the P-P value of the amplified signals, you won’t really understand what’s going on, especially of the amplifier isn’t completely linear.

        The reference temperature in this case, is the same as a DC bias, and it can’t be ignored as you are so desperate to do.

        • “If I put a DC bias into an amplifier, it will respond to the initial “perturbation” of going from zero input”
          Well, you are now trying to dress up a constant as as a perturbation. But it is not one that is within the operating region of the amplifier.

          • NS —> You are out of your league discussing this. You are making the point that too much of climate science is being done by mathematicians and statisticians that have no experience with or education in the physical sciences.

            Some of us are old enough to have experience using analog computers. You are trying to convince us that you can not design a device that multiplies a DC voltage by a constant value. I guess I don’t know how we did it, but we did!

  7. And yet in the 65 or so years after WW2, pre 2010, fossil fuel and coal powered electricity still hadn’t reached an even larger portion of the world population… but now, with renewable energy, it is reaching those communities.

    • Griff the trouble with renewables is they are not, most never recapture the energy it took to make them, to put in a term you might understand for every buck of conventual energy it takes to make a workable solar panel system, in that system life time you only get 75 cents back of renewable energy you net loss is 25%. 25% energy you waster trying to save energy, you better off doing nothing, than putting up solar panels. Of course if you like stealing money from you fellow citizens put up said solar panels but don’t even try to tell me you are virtuous for doing something, it you do I will simple point out you are a thief.

    • News from Ontario, Canada. Wind and solar are not effective for reducing C02 emissions.

      Reference: “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates”. Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE). April 2015.
      https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/presentations/ontarios-electricity-dilemma.pdf

      Page 15 of 23. “Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants ?”

      – Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation.

      – Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors.

      – Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment.

      – Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America.

      – When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.

      – Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh.

      – Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data).

      – In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.

  8. Thank you Christopher Moncton for your unceasing and energetic defense of the truth and your courageous assault on academic fraud which seems to have become the main product of academic activity. The ideas that education’s main goal is the teaching of critical thinking and that academics is the pursuit of impartial discovery of objective fact so that we might best understand the workings of the natural world seem to be entirely unfashionable in the minds of progressives and liberals.

    • Many thanks to Andy Pattullo for his kind comment. The suppression of the teaching of logic as a prerequisite for attendance at universities has done a lot of damage to the ability of students to think critically. That lack of ability to think straight is being ruthlessly exploited by the far Left, in climate as in many other subjects.

  9. Nice pic. Looks like sycamore maples in the foreground. Believe it or not, some of those have escaped into the woods on my brother’s lot in Pennsylvania, along w/Norway maples.

  10. I might be called scientifically illiterate, but I am a politically savvy observer. The words that ring true to me here are-
    “Genocidal” and “the greatest fraud in human history”. (Not only mutually compatible but also mutually dependent).

  11. This bit: “The International Energy Agency defines “access to electricity” as the ability to switch on the equivalent of a single 60-Watt light-bulb for about four hours. ” represents a fraud on the part of the IEA. They must know that this represents electrical service, 1/6th of the time, of 1/2 an ampere (120 VAC). The US standard for a new home service drop was 100 amps, but most new, larger homes get built with a 200 amp service drop (main electrical line into the home to the breaker box).

    “The equivalent of a single 60-Watt light-bulb” service, part-time, does not allow for any kind of business operation nor does it provide power for even a small refrigerator — they two most important uses of electrical service for the poor and under-served. It does not meet any practical minimum useful requirement.

    Most of the Dominican Republic tries to get by on that standard, and from personal experience I can tell you that it is almost worse than nothing at all. It is just enough to charge one’s cell phone and watch a couple of hours of TV. One can tell that the power is ON in a village because everyone runs inside to watch TV or rushes to their little curbside business to run their sewing machine or other electrical device for their little business.

    Real access to electrical power is at least 60 amps, at least 20 hours a day — refrigerators can retain cold for four hours if not opened. The four hour rolling blackout is something people can live with.

    • Kip Hansen is right. It is high time that we skeptics reclaimed the moral high ground by pointing out the catastrophic effects on the very poorest nations not of global warming, which has a generally beneficial effect, but of policies intended to mitigate it, which are doing untold harm.

    • Kip,
      Absolutely correct. You can run a 60watt light bulb for 4 hours a day on a modest sized solar panel. Not really that practical, but it does allow someone like griff to claim that wind and solar are “providing power” to 3rd world locations. To me, this is inherently dishonest as it allows the greenies to claim their solutions “work”, when in reality they are the equivalent of giving a stale piece of bread to a starving man.

      Kip, I like your definition better, for it defines a level of electricity access that can actually improve lives, and entire societies. But don’t expect this definition to be adopted anytime soon, because solar and wind by themselves can’t provide even that level of electricity.

    • refrigerators can retain cold for four hours if not opened.

      If you pack any empty space w/water bottles, it’ll last alot longer than that if you minimize opening it. Same strategy w/the freezer.

      • In Indonesia, where power supply is still not the most stable even in quite developed areas, some manufacturers market refrigerators with integrated heat sinks in order to get through blackouts.

    • I was going to comment on that absurd standard the IEA is using to establish access to electricity as well. ‘Let Them Eat Cake’ may not have been said by Marie-Antoinette in the manner popular retelling has it, but it sure captures the attitude of the IEA quite well!

  12. From what I understand the main feedback is driven by water vapor through increased evaporation. Doesn’t this mean the feedback at temperatures below freezing (273 K) will be different than when the temperature is above freezing. This would seem to me to produce a non-linearity into the calculation.

    It doesn’t really matter if the sun is shining or not when the feedback mechanism is not active.

    My own take is that the water vapor feedback has been computed wrong because it doesn’t correctly take enhanced convection into account. It assumes a linear increase in water vapor with elevation. In fact, this is not what has happened as pointed out by several scientists. Where higher water vapor content is most important to the overall greenhouse effect there has been a DECREASE in water vapor.

    I believe this is not factored into the models which is the reason models produce the non-existent hot spot and far too much warming.

    • Agree here Richard.
      The NET feedback of water is negative NOT positive as postulated by the IPCC . At phase change the absorbed energy is translated into Latent Heat at CONSTANT temperature, thus no additional radiation is produced as GHE. Further the marked increase in volume and low molecular weight results into strong upward movement of the energy for dissipation into the atmosphere and space. All of which counters the GHE. However without phase change the GHE operates hence the need to consider the net result of feedback.
      IMO this provides a basic practical reason for the disparity between the Models and observations in addition to the flaws pointed out in Monckton’s paper.

      Monckton’s presentation is brilliant and deserves general recognition in the scientific community; but hardly likely in the current political scene.

      • Richard and Alasdair both make excellent points. Our paper considers explicitly the models’ prediction of the actually non-existent tropical mid-troposphere “hot spot”, and draws the conclusion that the water vapor feedback is close to linear. Variability in ice cover, raised by Richard, is also considered, and it is demonstrated that because the ice is at high latitudes and mostly at high altitudes the ice-albedo feedback is very small. In IPCC’s understanding, all feedbacks other than that of water vapor self-cancel, and that single erroneously-represented feedback, therefore, is the sole pretext for IPCC’s tripling of the directly-forced warming from doubled CO2.

  13. “And the system-gain factor was 287.55 / 255, or 1.085” seems to contain a typo. 255 should be (255 + 10)

  14. I might not understand much of the detail but I would like to suggest that the Climate Warmists might be known as belonging to The Church of Climate Scientology……….

  15. It is always a pleasure to read what sir Christopher writes.

    I really can’t have a strong opinion on the issues the article raises. Feedbacks can be deduced but not measured as by their own nature they alter what it is being measured and often more than one feedback factor is at play making it impossible to disentangle them from evidence.

    I am very surprised that journals are nowadays rejecting to publish articles when the editors don’t agree with their content. In science even the most outlandish theories get published all the time, because some of them turn out to be right after all. The role of the journals is precisely to publish science that has not been found to be faulty, not to decide what is correct and mistaken.

    The modus operandi with articles that go against the consensus of the time is to publish them and then ignore them. Time and scientific advance are the final arbiters of who was wrong and who was right. This idea that journals should shun articles that question the dogma of the day is absolutely anti-science.

    A problem with the legal case is that journals are under no obligation to publish anything. One of the most usual rejections we get for our articles is that the editor doesn’t find the article is sufficiently interesting for the readers of the journal. There is no way to argue with that since it is arbitrary and at their discretion.

    • Don’t forget, the modus operandi of the CAGW crowd is to never admit that any part of the accepted theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming can be or has ever been questioned by any competent scientist, and therefore one should never debate the subject or permit the dissemination of any opposing theories, viewpoints or even minor details that might cause any member of the public to question it. (In other words, the gravy train must be protected at all costs.)

    • In response to Javier, the issue is not whether a journal is obliged to publish any particular paper, but whether it is operating a fair, competent system of peer review to the high scientific standard it claims to meet. If it behaves as it has thus far behaved, and if as a result a paper that demonstrates the entire global-warming scare to be based on a large error of physics is improperly refused publication, then the readers of the journal are being defrauded because the journal’s self-advertisement has led them to believe that it operates a proper peer review system, and the millions who are dying because the World Bank will not lend for coal, oil or gas developments will continue to die. This is exactly the territory within which a fraud case would lie.

      • This rant I posted in your other thread came late, thus missed by most here.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/03/reporting-the-fraudulent-practices-behind-global-warming-science/#comment-2715900

        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

        http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/sea-levels-may-rise-much-faster-than-previously-predicted-swamping-coastal-cities-such-as-shanghai.757896/

        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.

  16. I’ll give you the morale case for climate science when you recognise the existence of surface tension and its ability to block physical heat from entering water through its surface

    • Using electrical circuit analogs for the climate system are only meant as an approximation, for the purpose of simplifying a very complex subject. If climate science “misuses” the concepts in some way, that doesn’t mean climate science is wrong. I dare say that the climate system is much more complex than electrical circuits.

      “Feedbacks” being referenced to departures from an average state (the usual meaning of the term in climate science) is legitimate because one cannot expect some sort of re-defined feedback based upon some zero climate state to apply to climate *change*. The most obvious example is clouds. As a response to solar heating, clouds in the climate system form which greatly reduce the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, leading to a cooling effect and (one might surmise) a negative feedback. But that average picture of clouds doesn’t necessarily mean that further warming will cause greater coverage by clouds, because all ascending air mass in clouds must be exactly matched by an equal amount of descending air mass, which is almost always cloud-free. That makes cloud extent (and thus global albedo) largely self-limiting.

      I’m not arguing for high climate sensitivity… only that I don’t believe feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity) re-defined in the manner proposed here will apply to climate *change* from an average state. I wish it was that simple, but it’s not.

      • Per Gavin Schmidt, climate sensitivity is an emergent quantity from climate models, not a directly calculated quantity. UN IPCC climate modelers state that they adjust model parameters to obtain an ECS that seems about right to them.

        I don’t trust anybody, especially UN politicians. Since no climatic metric has worsened in over 100 years, I say screw the modelturbators.

      • In reply to Dr Spencer, we make no objection to “feedbacks being referenced to departures from an average state”. However, one cannot constrain equilibrium sensitivity – or derive it correctly – if one thus confines the definition of feedback. In fact, any feedback processes that subsist in the climate at a given moment must perforce respond to the entire temperature then present. That temperature, known as the reference temperature, is the sum of emission temperature and all natural and anthropogenic perturbations. The moment that fact is realized, it becomes quite easy to constrain equilibrium sensitivity, for it becomes at once apparent that – absent any strong nonlinearity in the system response – one can ignore feedback response altogether in deriving equilibrium sensitivity, without much error.

        It was when a professor of control theory was watching one of my talks on this subject that he first realized that climatology does not define feedback correctly. He got in touch with me to say that I had not defined it correctly either, though my error was a lot smaller than that of official climatology. At my invitation, he thereupon agreed to become a co-author, and he has kept us on the straight and narrow as far as control theory is concerned ever since.

        We also have several heavy-hitting climatologists on our team, and still more who have kindly acted as pre-submission reviewers. If Dr Spencer would like to read the full, 11,000-word paper in which the entire argument is set out, with demonstrations at each stage, I shall be delighted to send it to him.

        • “[A]ny feedback processes that subsist in the climate at a given moment must perforce respond to the entire temperature then present. That temperature, known as the reference temperature, is the sum of emission temperature and all natural and anthropogenic perturbations.”

          It’s statements like this that make me believe you’re going off the rails with this theory. With a feedback system, a “reference” is a state variable (like voltage) that you use as a baseline to then measure or define the modulation or change in amplitude of your signal. In an electrical amplifier, you set your bias (or reference) voltage to a value that lets your signal (a change around that reference voltage) be amplified without clipping. Say, for example, that you’ve got an amplifier powered by +/- 5V rails (meaning that the max voltage can’t be higher than 5V or less than -5V) designed to handle a digital input signal that goes from -5.5 to +0.5 millivolts, with an amplification factor of 1000. If I set the bias (or reference) voltage of the amplifier at +1V, I know that the amplifier will operate without clipping either rail because the amplified signal has room to swing between -4.5V and 1.5V.

          But you seem to be conflating the reference with the signal. Feedback only applies to a signal, which definitionally requires a modulation, or change, relative to some baseline or reference. Think about it – if I have any parameter (temperature, voltage, mass, flow, whatever) that never changes at all, then how can that parameter convey any information that could be deemed a “signal” and hence have feedback applied to it. Feedback has no application at all to the reference that you use to provide or measure a signal.

          So when you say “the reference temperature is the sum of emission temperature and all natural and anthropogenic perturbations,” that makes no sense. A reference temperature is just a number from which to measure future changes. Even if one were to assume that the pre-industrial temperature, used as a reference for climate feedback analysis, was at some point in the distant past elevated from some earlier or hypothesized temperature without greenhouse gasses, there is nothing innately wrong about using the pre-industrial temperature as a fixed reference to analyze feedback on future temperature swings relative to that reference, or in limiting the definition of “feedback” to perturbations relative to that reference.

          • Kurt should appreciate that the mathematics of feedback is of universal application to feedback-moderated dynamical systems.

            As our professor of control theory points out in a distinguished contribution to the paper, in theory any signal is a perturbation when compared with the zero state, wherefore one should not look to distinguish between the input signal and any subsequent perturbations thereto: the sum of the input signal and all perturbations thereof is the signal that is fed into the feedback loop; and, though feedback terminology seems not to have been standardized, that signal before the action of feedback is generally referred to as the “reference signal”. If the signal is temperature, then it is the “reference temperature”.

            As Gauss used to say, Non notatio, sed notio.

            We built a test rig at a national laboratory of physics to confirm that the feedback loop responds not merely to perturbations of the input signal but to the total reference signal – which is the sum of the input signal and the perturbations.

            If Kurt is not aware of this, he may care to read any elementary textbook of control theory, such as Bode 1945, ch. 3, or any paper on the subject, such as Black 1934.

          • Kurt —> Many folks here seem to be tied to AC coupled input and output amplifiers. That is, the input goes through a capacitor that blocks DC (the reference) so that the amplifier only sees a time variable (AC) signal and the same with the output, it is coupled through a capacitor so only a time variable signal is seen. This is probably the most common arrangement but certainly not the only one. There are also DC coupled amplifiers where the input/output includes what you are calling the reference signal.

            This means you can have a “modulation” on top of a DC signal. My first job as a senior in college was to place a periodic triangle wave on top of a 1 volt DC constant voltage. And remember, we only had transistors back then!

          • “in theory any signal is a perturbation when compared with the zero state, wherefore one should not look to distinguish between the input signal and any subsequent perturbations thereto: the sum of the input signal and all perturbations thereof is the signal that is fed into the feedback loop; and, though feedback terminology seems not to have been standardized, that signal before the action of feedback is generally referred to as the ‘reference signal'”

            But my point is that the selection of the reference (or the “zero-state”) is arbitrary, and the feedback applies to modulations or change relative to the reference. Let’s say I apply a unit step function u(t) to a single-pole negative feedback amplifier using V=0 as a reference. The output for time t>0, based on the input step of 1V at t=0 will quickly rise to something less than 1V due to the negative feedback. But after a long period of time, the output will stabilize at that value. Let’s for convenience say that it’s 0.9V.

            After that point, analytically, there is nothing wrong at all with simply readjusting my reference to the new 0.9V to analyze the effect of feedback on say a sinusoidal signal applied at a new time, or even a new unit step function. Whatever happened before to get to the 0.9V reference is irrelevant to the analysis of the effect of the feedback on the new signal or perturbation. It’s history at that point, and the feedback circuit only has knowledge of the current state of change at the input; past or future changes at the input are irrelevant to the feedback response to a current perturbation. With feedback, only the perturbations matter, where the feedback either amplifies, or dampens, or causes ringing, rise times etc. to the perturbations.

            Most ordinary people would consider only the perturbation of a variable as containing a “signal” since as I said earlier, no information can be gleaned from something unless it is allowed to change. But you seem to be insistent on incorporating a reference state into your definition of the signal, merely because that “reference state” can itself be thought of in reference to something you can consider to be a “zero state.” Even assuming that feedback analysis can be correctly applied using your method, that does not logically mean that the simpler way of doing it – by simply analyzing feedback on perturbations relative to a constant baseline, is incorrect.

            But your whole paper is premised on that illogical argument; that limiting the application of feedback to “perturbations” or changes relative to a constant baseline state is a “fundamental error” of climate science. It’s not an error.

          • Kurt is laboring under a number of misconceptions, not the least of which is that we say deriving the system-gain factor from sensitivities rather than from absolute reference temperature is incorrect. We say no such thing. However, attempting to derive the system-gain factor from sensitivities is impracticable in the climate, because the sensitivities are so very small. Tiny uncertainties in the sensitivities lead to large uncertainties in the system-gain factor and hence in equilibrium sensitivity, which is why after 40 years the interval of Charney sensitivities remains as absurdly broad as it is.

            In fact – we built a test rig to verify this – any feedback processes that subsist in the climate at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining. The fact that there may have been previous equilibria does not alter the fact that feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature. And once one realizes, as climatology does not, that feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature, it is not at all difficult to derive the true Charney sensitivity, which is about a third of the current midrange estimate.

    • What’s “physical heat”? I’ve never seen that term in any textbook I’ve read on physics or engineering. Do you even know what “heat” is? Can you explain it in basic terms? Then can you explain what surface tension of water has to do with it?

    • In response to RMB, shortwave radiation will penetrate the surface tension, though longwave radiation will not penetrate more than a micron or two.

  17. I might be wrong but I assumed the Bode feedback equation (on which all the AGW nonsense is predicated) has an upper bound of 1.0 for closed loop positive amplification.
    No such bound exists for open loop – example amplifying a radio signal – as the amplification does not change the signal in the aether.
    But for a microphone to speaker – the moment the amplified sound returns to the microphone greater than the original input – hey presto feedback howl.
    The mechanism for feedback in the atmosphere is a closed loop and therefore cannot be the ±3 multiplication suggested by the Charney sensitivity parameter.

    • In response to Mr Irwin, if the feedback fraction exceeds unity the feedback response becomes negative. However, if we are right the feedback fraction f is so small that it comes nowhere near the discontinuity in the curve at f = 1. For this reason, the very high sensitivities that arise because climatologists imagine that f can come close to 1 are impossible.

      • I only mentioned it because I once restored an old valve amplifier and accidentally connected the negative feedback line to the wrong “half” of the push pull amplifier. In spite of the feedback being a minor driver to suppress harmonics and hum it simply went into avalanche and do nothing but howl. That’s positive feedback – its unstable in a closed loop system.

        IIRC the IPCC value for Charney was 0.61 ±0.44 for 99% confidence – which can therefore achieve unity and impossible levels of amplification (thou shalt not divide by zero).

        Modelling with random values about the “mean” will produce a strongly hyperbolic range of results none of which will be dismissed on the grounds of their being impossible by the alarmists.

        As Dr. Matt Ridley has pointed out we can reach a point where a further one ton of carbon could cause the earth to become hotter than the suns’ core.

        Thanks for the great article & reply.

  18. Groucho Marx summed it all up a long time ago. “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

  19. Thanks for the new post, Christopher. The last one brought out lots of geniuses and fools, this one should as well.

    Regarding taking legal action, I fear that I am from another time and place. I grew up on a cattle ranch in the old West. Here’s what it looked like …

    There were only a few rules governing behavior, a frontier code for the ranch owner and the cowboy alike.

    First, you could call a man a fool, but you damn well better not call him a liar without having the facts to hand to prove it beyond doubt.

    Next, you could cheat on your wife or your husband, people disapproved but excused the weakness. But a man caught cheating at cards was despised and shunned.

    Next, you could steal say a loaf of bread, and folks would still talk to you. But if you stole livestock, you were a no-count rustler or a gah-dam chicken thief and people would walk right past you on the street. And stealing a man’s tools was in that same category.

    And finally, you could call on your friends to help settle a dispute … but the man who called the cops was looked on as a coward and a backstabber.

    Given that code of conduct, curiously not far different from the social rules in Elizabethan England, I fear that the idea of calling the cops on someone who has done something totally legal (declined to publish your paper) is most unwelcome, and does not reflect well at all upon your Lordship.

    But hey, that’s just me.

    Finally, my hope is that you actually wade into the upcoming discussion, and that you debate with your usual wit and knowledge to defend your ideas. You are their strongest proponent and the person who knows them the best.

    My regards to you and yours, keep up the good work,

    w.

    • In case wordpress does something funny, this reply is addressed to

      Willis Eschenbach June 5, 2019 at 9:25 am

      On the other hand, you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

      What works in a small tight knit community is totally ineffective against postmodern Marxist SJWs. They have no honor.

      • Thanks, Bob. I’m always reluctant to say “My opponents have no honor, so I’m not bound to act honorably” … I’m sure you can see the infinite problems with heading down that road.

        w.

    • In response to Mr Eschenbach, it may be that he has not appreciated the subtlety of the advice the eminent lawyer gave. As a result of our discussion, the lawyer formed the provisional view that the climate-change industry is founded substantially not upon science but upon a series of interconnected frauds, which have become more and more brazen as the perpetrators have realized that they are – for now at any rate – untouchable. They can make up any old scientific rubbish, get it published via the pal-review network that they control, and – indirectly – kill millions every year in the process.

      The fact that one journal has behaved corruptly is not in itself sufficient evidence of the interconnected frauds that exist in the climate-change industry. If, however, two or three journals were to mess us about with the brazen impunity of the first, then the police would indeed take an interest, and they would be right to do so. That is where other evidences of the frauds – such as the notorious 97% fraud, which Queensland Police have already determined to be a deception – comes in.

      There is a pattern to this, and it will be the task of the police to find out who are the controlling interests and who the drones. But first, the interest of the police must be piqued. If three journals treat us quite as badly as the present one has until now treated us, the police will be interested – of that our eminent lawyer was in no doubt. “Why?” I asked. “Because I’ve become interested myself,” he said.

      • There are plenty of vanity journals that will publish your work Christopher, all you have to do is pay the fee.

        • The point is not to get published at all costs. In fact, the point may be to not get published. 🙂

          If a pattern develops where CM’s paper is refused publication in several journals for non-scientific reasons, that raises the question of whether something illegal is going on.

          • In response to Mr Borgelt, of course we could get our paper published in the red-light district of scientific publishing. But the paper would then carry absolutely no weight. Our approach is to send the paper to each of the learned journals of climate, one by one, so that the very true-believers who have driven the scare till now are invited to consider our arguments carefully, moderated by an editor of sufficient competence.

            Then, the mere fact of publication in such a journal after proper peer review will carry more than a little weight. For it will constitute an admission by a journal that has previously only given the other side of the argument that that argument may have been fundamentally incorrect from the start.

            On the other hand, we may be wrong. So far, those here who have attempted to say we are wrong have themselves made a series of elementary mistakes, or are deliberately pushing the climate-Communist agenda regardless of the objective truth. That is why we are seeking proper peer-review. If we are indeed wrong, then proper peer review will expose our error, and that will be an end of the matter – but at least we tried to get it right.

          • Monckton needs to make up his mind.
            ..
            First off, he wants acceptance from respectable journals: “the mere fact of publication in such a journal after proper peer review will carry more than a little weight.”

            Yet Monckton denigrates them at the same time: “They can make up any old scientific rubbish, get it published via the pal-review network”
            ….
            So is it “proper peer review” or is it “pal-review?’

          • So is it “proper peer review” or is it “pal-review?’

            No need to waste that match Borgelt, I’ve one right here.

            Depending upon the neutrality of the gatekeeper(s) both could be true at the same time.

          • Syscomputing, you ought to advise Monckton not to accuse the people he seeks approval from of fraud.

          • . . . you ought to advise Monckton . . .

            First let’s get you some assistance with your reasoning skills, then you can help me with Monckton.

          • One does not need reasoning skills to understand the rule: “thou shall not bite the hand that feeds you.” Monckton accuses fraud of the same people that he desperately wishes to positively “peer review” his work.

          • One does not need reasoning skills . . .

            But one does need reasoning skills in order to forego repeating one’s argument after said argument has been summarily dispatched, ergo my concern for your welfare remains valid.

          • Your concern for my welfare is commendable Mr. syscomputing, however I am very much concerned that your
            delusion regarding a “summarily dispatched” argument is in need of serious inspection.

          • . . . I am very much concerned that your delusion . . .

            Many thanks for making my point for me with an ad hominem attack, followed most notably by the absence of said inspection for which you yourself called.

            Take care!

          • Mr. syscomputing, please let me educate you on the difference between the two words: “you” and “your.”

            You see, what I posted is not an ad hominem attack, due to the distinction between the above mentioned two words. If I had posted “you are delusional” that would be ad hominem. Since I”m labeling your actions as delusional, I’m not attacking you.

          • Since an insane man can sometimes act sanely, and a sane man can sometimes act insanely, your individual delusional action doesn’t suffice to declare you delusional, so where is the “ad-hominem?”

  20. Thank you Lord Monckton for your continuing and vital contributions to the science of our changing climate.

    Genocide is a powerful word. Its use here is entirely correct. The preventable deaths of millions every year by restricting their access to electricity is a criminal act. Genocide should be included on your list for police to investigate, alongside fraud.

          • Thank you, RW. I appreciate your interest and support.

            I have been fascinated by how WUWT has reported the increasingly successful challenges to the CAGW climate alarmism, ever since the release of the climategate emails.

            I have found that the science and persuasive arguments, including the occasional dissenting views, presented here, have been of considerable assistence me in my research into the Apollo Deception. The two subjects seem to me to have common threads. Not least the insistence that the consensus must be right – 97% anyone?

          • Well, for me, I came to the conclusion that CAGW was a hoax/scam came years before I ever looked into the credibility of Apollo. I was not alive when Apollo allegedly took place.

            It never occurred to me to the two were connected in any way, but maybe — as you say — there are some commonalities.

          • A simple question for Marcus Allen, what is your knowledge of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter?

  21. I’m not understanding the logic, which ought to be quite simple to explain.

    We have a temperature. Some stimulus causes this temperature to rise. This rise in temperature causes other stimuli which in turn cause the temperature to rise further.

    In practice: we have a rise in temperature of the planet, this causes a rise in water vapour content of the atmosphere, this increase in water vapour content in turn applies a further warming stimulus.

    In some way which I haven’t understood, CM is saying that the IPCC model of this process says one thing, which is contradicted by observations, and he is saying another.

    I don’t understand what these two different things are.

    At the end of the argument, CM is saying that the IPCC account of this process, when the warming stimulus in itself will lead to a rise of about 1C, forecasts that the actual rise after consequential effects will be around 3C.

    His own account is that it will be around 1C.

    I admit to never having understood the feedback argument. If there was an MWP, why did not that initial rise in temperatures lead to further rises? If I understand the argument properly, any rise in temperature however caused is supposed to lead to consequences which produce increased warming. Any rise in temperature, however caused, will increase water vapor, which will in turn produce a further rise.

    Is the argument that these rises are of decreasing size as the process continues, so they eventually stop? And if so, what is it that causes them to reverse? And is there a feedback during the cooling? That is, temp falls, water vapor falls, that leads to more cooling?

    Nick Stokes, help! Presumably you understand this stuff? Why is the climate not much more volatile historically than it has been, if the theory is correct?

    Or is there some damping mechanism?

    • I’m not understanding the logic, which ought to be quite simple to explain.

      That’s because in old good days each Lord has a herald who would translate higher thoughts and ideas into something more accessible for mortal minds. Our Lord fights alone.

      But being more serious: His Lordness in the bullet points:

      1. Climate is a feedback-driven complex system; reached equilibria are surprisingly resilient and stable.
      2. ‘Official’ climate science in the modelling of climate changes uses concepts borrowed from the control theory.
      3. Alas, there is a fundamental misunderstanding how such theory operates.
      4. The theory states that feedback operates against the whole ‘reference’ signal (sum of all inputs and perturbations. ‘Reference’ vs input signals is confusing to me too and deserves bit of clarification, I reckon.)
      5. Instead, ‘official’ climate science claims that the feedback loop responds only to the perturbations.
      6. That in turn leads to exaggeration of the feedback responses and therefore overestimation of the climate sensitivity.
      7. When we correct points 5 and 6 and properly employ the feedback theory, climate sensitivity drops substantially, is much less scary, better aligned with measurements we’ve got, and can better predict further changes.

      Forgive me, my Lord, if my frail mind did not grasp it fully, but that is my understanding of the issue.

      Nice pictures, by the way. Scotland, Ireland and some northern parts of England have different colour saturation indeed. Who saw knows what I mean.

      • In response to Paramenter, who has helpfully spelled out some of the main points of our argument, I am happy to supply the requested clarification of some terms in control theory.

        In climate, the input signal is the 255 K emission temperature caused by the fact that the Sun is shining. The 10 K warming caused by the presence of the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases up to 1980 is a “reference sensitivity” – i.e., a perturbation of the input signal. The 0.75 K warming caused by the presence of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases from 1850-2011 is a further reference sensitivity. At any given moment, the sum of the input signal and all perturbations thereof – in climate the sum of emission temperature and all reference sensitivities – is the reference temperature – i.e., the temperature that would prevail at that moment if there were no feedbacks operating at all. The equilibrium temperature is the temperature that would prevail at that moment once the feedbacks had operated and the climate had resettled to equilibrium. Hope this helps.

    • michel,
      Temperature change cannot beget further temperature change in any direct way. Temperature change begets a change in state variables which then change net flux via feedback to net flux. It is net flux which is changed by these “temperature-dependent feedbacks”. Temperature is then changed as a CONSEQUENCE of the change in net flux. The distinction is important.

      If you consider an El Nino event, there is an increase in surface and atmospheric temperature as a result of the release of heat from the depths of the western Pacific. It is not caused by radiative forcing – which would be evident in the radiative flux balance. Average surface temperature can increase over a matter of months by up to 3 deg C or thereabouts. This does NOT then result in a further sustained increase in temperature due to “feedbacks”. The biggest feedback of all is a negative feedback to net flux – the Planck response. As the surface temperature rises, there is a (temperature-dependent) increase in outgoing longwave emission (Planck feedback), which is partially offset by some (temperature-dependent) increase in received shortwave (positive feedback from clouds and WV mostly). The overall effect is negative which then serves to cool the surface temperature back towards where it was before the El Nino event, bringing the system back into TOA net flux balance.
      The total temperature-dependent feedback is ALWAYS negative. This is accepted even by the more extreme climate scientists. It is just that , often, climate scientists will sloppily talk about “feedback being positive” when they actually mean “total feedback excluding the Planck feedback”.

    • michel,
      Temperature change cannot beget further temperature change in any direct way. Temperature change begets a change in state variables which then change net flux via feedback to net flux. It is net flux which is changed by these “temperature-dependent feedbacks”. Temperature is then changed as a CONSEQUENCE of the change in net flux. The distinction is important.

      If you consider an El Nino event, there is an increase in surface and atmospheric temperature as a result of the release of heat from the depths of the western Pacific. It is not caused by radiative forcing – which would be evident in the radiative flux balance. Average surface temperature can increase over a matter of months by up to 3 deg C or thereabouts. This does NOT then result in a further sustained increase in temperature due to “feedbacks”. The biggest feedback of all is a negative feedback to net flux – the Planck response. As the surface temperature rises, there is a (temperature-dependent) increase in outgoing longwave emission (Planck feedback), which is partially offset by some (temperature-dependent) increase in received shortwave (positive feedback from clouds mostly). The overall effect is negative, which then serves to cool the surface temperature back towards where it was before the El Nino event, bringing the system back into TOA net flux balance.
      The total temperature-dependent feedback to net flux is ALWAYS negative. It is just that, often, climate scientists will sloppily talk about “feedback being positive” when they actually mean “total feedback excluding the Planck feedback”.

      • I weep. Natural temperature cycling does not lead to unconstrained heating. But minor increases in CO2 levels will?

        • I think you have misunderstood. Total temperature-dependent feedback to net flux is ALWAYS negative. It is a requirement for system stability. If it were not true, then we would already have seen unconstrained heating in history. The total change in temperature due to a step-change in CO2 is therefore always constrained.

      • kribaez,

        Thanks for this. Could you go on to explain simply what it is that the IPCC is claiming about feedback, and what CM is claiming.

        I understand that a rise in temperature does not cause another rise directly. It causes other events which in turn cause rises. That is what you mean by ‘flux’? The rise in temp causes a rise in water vapor, and a rise in water vapor then causes further warming, which may or may not cause other events which have effects on temperature.

        Have I go this right? CM is saying the IPCC claims that this process does not apply to all fluctuations in global temperatures. It only applies to some (I am not sure which, or why…)

        CM then saying, do I understand this? That any rise in temperature should produce the same events, and that we can see that the IPCC has over-estimated the size of these effects by looking at previous warming episodes. And they turn out to be far lower than the IPCC account of the effects of CO2 forcing?

        I don’t really understand feedback theory and op-amps and all that stuff, but in the end this must boil down to two different views of how the climate works, how warming effects from CO2 or water vapour or whatever work, how big they are, how they interact.

        Surely it is possible to explain what the argument is about in those terms so we can at least get a clear idea what the disagreement is about, in terms of the climate and its components?

        I would like to see the two theories laid out in such a way that one can see that they make different predictions, and then some observational analysis showing one or the other conforms to observation.

        Perhaps naive?

  22. Maybe a class action would be appropriate. Certainly Salby , Harde , Berry, and Frank were treated to the same dismissive response by journals.

  23. Your Deer at Dyrham Park are signaling toxic masculinity. Not PC, at all. You should have edited out their antlers in order to provide us with a safe place; we can’t have dissonance with our pre-conceived notions of correct-think. Men who cut off their balls are now women.

  24. Absolutely brilliant post!
    I think we should start referring to you as “CMB”
    What do you think?

    • … as in “Cosmic Microwave Background” – eternal, all-pervasive and irrefutable?

  25. Lord Monckton,
    I like your photos, and I agree with you that global warming policies are coming at an unacceptable cost in both dollars and human misery. However, the rest of this article is beyond silly. I know numerous authors who have struggled to have good papers on climate science published because their conclusions went against the grain. They might have had a basis for accusing journal editors of bias or even wilful obstruction, although no case for any successful legal action, I suspect. In the case of your paper, however, you have been told repeatedly that it is founded on flawed science, and you have been told this not just by AGW activists but also by numerous qualified sceptics, acting in good faith, including Dr Roy Spencer. Instead of calling your critics “wretches” and “concern trolls”, or accusing them of not understanding the plot, why don’t you ask Dr Judith Curry or Nic Lewis if they would offer any public support for your paper? And when they say “no”, as I am quite certain they will, can I suggest that you listen carefully to the reasons they offer rather than dismissing them as wretches and concern trolls.

    • In response to “Kribaez”, most of the “numerous qualified skeptics” to whom he refers have not actually read the paper they are commenting on. And they do not have the necessary expertise to evaluate our result. Kribaez mentions Roy Spencer, for instance: but Roy is the first to admit (see earlier in this thread, for instance) that he is not well versed in control theory. However, we have a tenured professor of control theory as a co-author, as well as two control engineers, and our paper is currently being read with approval by a control theorist from NASA, whose initial comment is that we are “more than right”.

      Given that understanding our paper requires qualifications not only in climatology but also in number theory, control theory, statistics and macroeconomics, to name but a few, we have decided that the best step is to seek proper peer review from journals whose editors’ job is to find suitably-qualified reviewers. We don’t need public support for our result: we need proper peer review.

      That said, we have of course obtained numerous pre-submission reviews. Not all of them support our conclusion, though most do, and some of them very strongly. But those who do not support us have not been able to advance arguments that my co-authors in the relevant fields of expertise find compelling.

      Finally, Kribaez complains that I call concern trolls concern trolls and wretches wretches. Well, tough luck. I am always willing to respond courteously to points that appear to be genuine and are courteously put. If, however, the language of a commenter is intemperate, well, sometimes I give as good as I git. Get over it.

  26. We are now, whether we like it or not, in a war. It is both one-sided and, as CM has indicated, a particularly murderous one. Our efforts as sceptics seem as if we are standing at the base of the beautiful waterfall pictured above attempting to push the water back uphill. We communicate with each other in the commentary of this and other noted blogs and sites, firing off the occasional letter or email to a local rag, council or MP. Mine are ignored, what about yours? We are in our own “sceptosphere” which is rarely noticed by anyone outside of it.

    The opposition controls access to the media, funding and academia. If an opportunity should arise to challenge the status quo I believe it should be grasped wholeheartedly. Reference has been made above to potential crowd funding, I came too late to Peter Ridd’s case where this enabled process, but I would gladly contribute (as would many others, I’m sure) to this particular cause and the very important publicity afterwards should it conclude successfully.

    • The idea is more than ten years old and well elaborated by Theodor Landscheidt and his followers. Of course they are not mentioned / cited in that linked paper.

  27. “The concern troll begins by saying that in the models climate sensitivity is not derived as we say it is.”

    Actually it is derived via subjective parameterization. From Frederic Hourdin’s classic 2017 BAMS paper, “The Art and Science of Model Tuning:

    “One can imagine changing a parameter which is known to affect the sensitivity, keeping both this parameter and the ECS in the anticipated acceptable range, and retuning the model otherwise with the same strategy toward the same targets.”

    And who determines the “anticipated acceptable range”? The subjective GCM community, not the objective model.

    You can’t make this stuff up!

    • Ho, ho, ho: Gavin Schmidt says ECS is an emergent phenomenon of the UN IPCC climate models. The climate modelers say they adjust parameters to achieve an ECS that “seems about right.”

      Liars lie.

    • I’m most grateful to my friend Pat Michaels for his excellent quotation from Hourdin et al., which we use as the pay-off line in the conclusion of our paper. I’ll send him a copy of the full version for his interest.

  28. Great work, Christopher. I’m not a scientist but have followed this for nearly eight years now. I have recently had correspondence with my MP about the state of the UK National Grid thanks to the appalling decisions made based on IPCC policy. Initially I got the usual fob off stating IPCC ‘science’ etc, but I’ve persisted and now my points are being passed onto Claire Perry, Minister of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    I won’t be holding my breath, but I got the impression my MP had little knowledge outside the party-line from the IPCC, and even eco-activists. I believe if we all took the time to present the facts on extreme weather, sea-level rise, and all the shenanigans of the alarmists, we might just start to educate, or at least get them to question the consensus.

    Good luck, Christopher!

    • Many thanks to Roy for his kind comments. He has had the same brush-off from Ministers that I have had. The only thing that will bring them to their senses is a formal, scientific proof that global warming has been wildly exaggerated. Our paper offers that proof, which is why we are being given the run-around by the journals.

  29. The Lord Haw-Haw of climate change denial is going to inform us what a moral and honest debate is on climate change.

    The world really has gone insane…

      • Well Dave, seeing as how I’m in my mid 50s and have lived in BC most of my life the greatest impact from climate change has so far been seen in our extensive forests.

        Huge swaths of this province are covered in dead and dying pine from the massive beetle populations that are no longer controlled by extended periods of extreme cold weather in winter. Extreme cold weather that no longer occur here due to climate change.

        Second is the massive wildfires that can now cover most of the province in the summer either in firestorms or the smoke from them. Two record years in a row, I haven’t been evacuated or come close to losing my home yet but many here have. Last year we came close to losing family members who were the last out of the small interior city threatened by fire where they lived. A city that was under martial law and occupied by the military for almost a month.

        Our coast lines are threatened by sea level rise, the glaciers are rapidly melting here and droughts in the summer becoming much more common making water security here much more tenuous.

        Not to mention the overall viability of the biosphere itself if we push climate change too far too fast.

        That would the climate change I am most concerned about both locally and globally.

        And please don’t tell me it’s not happening, I like millions of other have had access to the facts for decades not industry generated spin from people who’s conflict of interest makes anything they say on this issue moot.

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/cclimate-sceptic-researcher-willie-soon-investigated-funding-fossil-fuel-firms

        “A Harvard-Smithsonian researcher known as a climate sceptic is under multiple ethics investigations arising from his hidden financial relationships with fossil fuel companies.

        A handful of academic journals have asked Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, about his failure to disclose more than $1.2m in energy industry funding when submitting articles for publication, the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) said.

        Soon is also under two parallel ethics investigations by the Smithsonian, a spokesperson for the institution said.”

        “Soon refused to respond to requests for comment, and forwarded emails from the Guardian to Lord Christopher Monckton, a leading figure among British climate sceptics who is a supporter of Soon.”

        This is a fraud and a deadly one. If the Holocaust that consumed 11 million lives was one of the most immoral actions in history then what is something that threatens the eventual existence of 7.7 billion and counting people.

        It is the height of hypocrisy for Monckton to be preaching what is and isn’t moral when he is at the center of the most immoral campaign in human history. One that if it isn’t stopped will end human history.

        • In response to the repellent Coombes’ personal attack on Dr Soon, who is not here to answer for himself, I can say that at the time when the Guardian and other Communist newspapers were attempting to trash Dr Soon’s reputation I intervened with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in his capacity as chairman of the Smithsonian Institution to prevent that institution from attempting to victimize Dr Soon.

          My co-authors and I inquired carefully into the false allegations levied against Dr Soon at that time, and we discovered that the Smithsonian had been told, in every single instance, of the funding that Dr Soon had negotiated. The Smithsonian had then taken over the negotiations in every single case, and had concluded the terms with the funders in a manner that was fully compliant with the Smithsonian’s own rules.

          Dr Soon has received no specific funding for any of the papers that he and I have co-authored, and the journal in which the paper complained of was published accepted that the conflict-of-interest declaration we had made to it had been correct in every particular.

          Perhaps the dreadful Coombes would check his facts in future before parroting hate-filled nonsense peddled by Communist newspapers whose editors have begun to realize that their global-warming scam is about to collapse with embarrassing completeness.

        • What a bunch of bunk you are Doug Coombs. You state rising sea level is a problem in BC…a place where most coast line is somewhat vertical with mountains to the sky. With a sea level rise only about 2 mm per year. That is laughable…what is your concern again?

          And then you cry about the Mountain Pine Beetle, which is a total natural evolution of a mature forest, especially a predominately old growth, even aged mono culture forest that is near the end of its life. It is the old decadent forest itself that actually creates the pine beetle because it is now the new food supply. Thinking we are supposed to get -35 for 3-4 weeks straight every winter forever to arrest the spread of the pine beetle is futile, since weather cycles oscillates between hotter and cold weather as we all know. Just think El Nino cycles that are natural weather. The cold weather of the LIA or even the cooler weather of the 1950’s thru 1970’s is not the long term average either.

          The cure for this mess is a forest fire, as the pine tree/forest is a firescape evolved species that requires fire for its renewal and nutrient/cone release. Much of the forest is now over mature with such high density that the crowns are all touching such that when a fire does get started, it then can burn with ease once the ignition takes place. Not to mention another 2000 stems per acre that have since died due to over competition and are now fuel on the forest floor or hanging up in the green trees. Which fire is mostly human caused, so what did that have to do with any CO2 rise in the atmosphere? The pine beetle infestations are completely a natural cycle caused by the pine forest itself.

          We live in the same neck of woods here in BC, and I have lived in this forest here 3/4 of my life and been professionally involved in the forest industry for over 40 years growing millions of trees on thousands of acres and fire fighting in my younger days. I don’t want to get burnt out either, but I sure don’t blame any of this on your so called global heating or climate change. All it takes now for this to go from soaking wet to ready to burn, is less than a few days of hot windy weather and a source of ignition, which we both know is predominately accidental (or deliberate arson) person caused. So grow up Doug Coombs and quit spreading your lies around BC and beyond. It is your ilk that most of us despise with your hype and misinformation that you repeat ad nauseam!

  30. My point stands. The only way that the climate alarmist machine gets defeated is through the political process, not via litigation or criminal charges, which will fail, absolutely will fail.

    Win the political battle. And the only way that political battle is won is when the actual costs of what the alarmists demand is made clear, in dollars and cents .. on your power bills, your fuel bills, your standard of life. Every single time when the costs are made clear, the alarmists lose.

    Most people turn off and pay no attention to the media. or to politicians, or to special interest groups, or to educators. Most people pay attention to what is going on in our own lives, pocket book issues, quality of life issues. And that matter whether we’re talking about climate change, or pollution, or preserving great places on earth, or whatever.

    Everything else in life is just noise that people turn off to survive.

    • Yah, you come on up here when climate change driven firestorms are driving thousands out of their homes as is happening in Alberta right now and probably in here in BC as this summer heats up.

      After two record wildfire seasons here and many people being incinerated in California and other places by this growing catastrophe only the delusional think this is a political battle.

      The science on this has been sound for over a century and we are now watching the catastrophic effects play out over and over in the real world.

      It takes a genuine contempt for the facts and life itself to claim this isn’t happening.

      And for what, so we can keep a very sick industry on life support for a few years more.

      • Oh, Doug: Please link any wildfires to CO2. Ups and downs; real data show no increase in wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. The magic molecule seems to have no impact.

        Doug, man-up – Show us your data. The old saying goes: Opinions are like a…holes, everyone has one.

        • https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x91-010#.XPhYU4hKjcc

          “This study investigates the impact of postulated greenhouse warming on the severity of the forest fire season in Canada. Using CO2 levels that are double those of the present (2 × CO2), simulation results from three general circulation models (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Oregon State University) were used to calculate the seasonal severity ratings for six stations across Canada. Monthly anomalies from the 2 × CO2 simulation results were superimposed over historical sequences of daily weather. Then, seasonal severity ratings of the present were compared with those for 2 × CO2 using five variations involving temperature, precipitation, and relative humidity. The relationship between seasonal severity rating and annual provincial area burned by wildfire was explored. The results suggest a 46% increase in seasonal severity rating, with a possible similar increase in area burned, in a 2 × CO2 climate.”

          https://www.pnas.org/content/106/8/2519.short

          “It is widely accepted, based on data from the last few decades and on model simulations, that anthropogenic climate change will cause increased fire activity. However, less attention has been paid to the relationship between abrupt climate changes and heightened fire activity in the paleorecord. We use 35 charcoal and pollen records to assess how fire regimes in North America changed during the last glacial–interglacial transition (15 to 10 ka), a time of large and rapid climate changes. We also test the hypothesis that a comet impact initiated continental-scale wildfires at 12.9 ka; the data do not support this idea, nor are continent-wide fires indicated at any time during deglaciation. There are, however, clear links between large climate changes and fire activity. Biomass burning gradually increased from the glacial period to the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Although there are changes in biomass burning during the Younger Dryas, there is no systematic trend. There is a further increase in biomass burning after the Younger Dryas. Intervals of rapid climate change at 13.9, 13.2, and 11.7 ka are marked by large increases in fire activity. The timing of changes in fire is not coincident with changes in human population density or the timing of the extinction of the megafauna. Although these factors could have contributed to fire-regime changes at individual sites or at specific times, the charcoal data indicate an important role for climate, and particularly rapid climate change, in determining broad-scale levels of fire activity.”

          https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-007-9363-z

          “Wildfire risks for California under four climatic change scenarios were statistically modeled as functions of climate, hydrology, and topography. Wildfire risks for the GFDL and PCM global climate models and the A2 and B1 emissions scenarios were compared for 2005–2034, 2035–2064, and 2070–2099 against a modeled 1961–1990 reference period in California and neighboring states. Outcomes for the GFDL model runs, which exhibit higher temperatures than the PCM model runs, diverged sharply for different kinds of fire regimes, with increased temperatures promoting greater large fire frequency in wetter, forested areas, via the effects of warmer temperatures on fuel flammability. At the same time, reduced moisture availability due to lower precipitation and higher temperatures led to reduced fire risks in some locations where fuel flammability may be less important than the availability of fine fuels. Property damages due to wildfires were also modeled using the 2000 U.S. Census to describe the location and density of residential structures. In this analysis the largest changes in property damages under the climate change scenarios occurred in wildland/urban interfaces proximate to major metropolitan areas in coastal southern California, the Bay Area, and in the Sierra foothills northeast of Sacramento.”

          https://www.cbc.ca/radio/we-have-to-learn-to-live-with-fire-how-wildfires-are-changing-canadian-summers-1.5135539

          “A change in weather patterns, stoked by climate change, has a wildfire expert predicting “a hot, smoky future” for Canadian summers.

          The spectre of wildfires looms in B.C., Alberta and Ontario — provinces that have been repeatedly scorched by catastrophic fires in recent years.

          Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at the University of Alberta, is warning that a dramatic rise in temperature and a changing climate have pushed things over the edge and will continue to cause unprecedented wildfires.

          “We can’t always rely on our experience and the history of what we’ve seen in fire; we’re moving into new territory,” he told CBC Radio’s special Smoked Out.”

          Maned-up Dave and now like millions of others am forced to survive the brutal conditions that the opinions of histories true assholes have “gifted” us all with.

          Come on up here when nature goes batshit crazy due to this insanity and you can tell massive firestorms that are in every region of this province covering it in a blanket of smoke that last for months that it really doesn’t exist.

          Don’t complain to me at how hard it is to deny a reality that has become so obvious that only total buffoons try and deny it.

          • Doug, you present modelturbation B.S. Plus some random dude hyperventilating, without his presenting any data.

            Wildfires are a fact; get over your hysteria.

        • “The moral case for honest and competent climate science”

          This is hilarious, half my comments are censored.

          Climate change denial as exercised by intellectual frauds such as Monckton is as dishonest and immoral as it gets.

          This entire site is based on the worst aspects of our species ever. Because of exactly this kind of corruption there probably won’t even be a human species much longer.

          I’d say be ashamed to the people behind this criminal negligence on a global scale, but you’d have to lack a conscience to engage in this kind of sociopathic behavior in the first place.

          You can do this because you’re incapable of feeling remorse or empathy. Which means you are also incapable of ANY intentional moral behavior.

          • Doug I believe you feel no empathy. You don’t care about the poor, but you like virtue signaling. You are the true sociopath 🙁

          • The intemperance of Mr Coombes’ comments indicates that he is not likely to be amenable to reason. However, for the record, I should explain that there is no correlation between the warming trend measured by thermometers and either the incidence or the extent of forest fires: and absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.

            Forest fires, such as the recent disastrous fire in Montana, are caused chiefly by sparking electricity lines, or by people setting fires, or by environmental extremists’ insistence on preventing the clearance of fallen timber. Then, when a fire starts, it spreads unpreventably and very fast.

            In future, whenever he reads the words “it is generally accepted that …” in a supposedly scientific paper, he should be aware that a political rather than a scientific statement is about to be made.

            Finally, I detect in his comments no hint of a recognizable scientific refutation of my assertion that any feedbacks that subsist in the climate at any given moment must perforce respond not only to any perturbations in emission temperature but also to emission temperature itself. Once that fact is admitted, the derivation of equilibrium sensitivities becomes simple and reliable, and it becomes clear that Charney sensitivity will be approximately one-third of the current midrange estimate, bringing the global warming problem to an end.

          • Doug, your rants indicate you are having emotional problems. The world is not ending anytime soon; get over it.

      • “It takes a genuine contempt for the facts . . .” . . . to blame naturally recurring events on climate “change”.

        I share the actor, Mr. T’s, sentiment.

    • Hi Duane,

      this is about my third comment in over ten years but your comment has a ‘trigger’ in it. As we have recently seen in Australia (re: Peter Ridd) the fight may seem political but at some point the people who think they are in charge get ahead of themselves. The university in question thought they could act with impunity, spouting the same and constant stream of drivel until they fell foul of the LAW. In this instance the publicity involved may have enlightened others enough to find out why. Alas, one step at a time. If I understand it correctly LCMoB is only using the science as a vehicle to show that (alleged) fraud is fraud in any arena.
      The trigger part was your second paragraph. I live in South Australia and after 16 years of socialist/green mismanagement we are the proud owners of the highest electricity prices in the southern hemisphere. The pseudo-socialists whom have replaced them are going along with business as usual. Higher electricity costs don’t just trickle through the economy they flow through and as your correctly point out, at some point affect the quality of life. LCMoB correctly points out that this is untenable, not only for comfortable western societies but for those who are unable to support themselves. Who in (insert deity here)’s name thinks that 4 hours of electricity a day is a humane standard?
      Coincidentally it is the 75th anniversary of an event where those in comfortable well run societies with a stable political environment came to the assistance of those who being subject to a socialist tyranny. Chris is right. I supported Peter Ridd where I could and I will support LCMoB as well as I can.

      How say you?

      Andy

      • Most grateful to Andy for his helpful comment. It is time to undo the enormous damage in lives and jobs that anti-scientific environmentalism is causing.

    • “The only way that the climate alarmist machine gets defeated is through the political process, not via litigation or criminal charges”
      The hard green totalitarians are often denied at the polls but remember, they are unrelenting and they never give up. Why just today it has been widely reported that Prince Charles the future king of GB and the commonwealth nations including Canada, spent 90 minutes explaining the seriousness of climate change to president Trump.
      Charles will never have to face the electorate but he is just one of many in high authority who will never see any of the information that’s presented on sites like this.
      Explaining the other side of CAGW to Charles and people like him would be an exercise in futility.

      • I once tried to explain to Prince Charles that the science behind climate change was not as solid as it is said to be. He was not pleased.

  31. “More than 4 million people a year die of particulate pollution from open cooking fires because they have no electricity. Half a million women die in childbirth chiefly because there is no electrical power. These are just some of the tens of millions who die annually because they cannot so much as switch on a light.” But Lord Monckton I thing you understand as well as I do to greenies death of their fellow humans is a good feature, not a problem. After the honest greenies openly state humans are a pestilence to earth and need to be eliminated, or at least human number should only be a few hundred million at most. Why a sane person listen to any greenie is beyond me. I once though of myself as and environmentalist, but no more, I a conservation some who think we need to be careful with what we have been given, think about what we are doing and be careful with out actions. Not that we are a problem than need to be eliminated or reduced or if we build a fence around wild areas everything will be OK.

  32. There is a moral case for fossil fuels and it has been expressed brilliantly in the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Alex Epstein. I urge everyone to read it.

  33. How do you disriminate between perturbations and feedback? Why is the non-condensing greenhouse gases perturbations and not feedbacks?

    Another comment: you have made a mistake (I think). You write: “In 1850, reference temperature was the sum of the 255 K emission temperature and about 10 K reference sensitivity to the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases. The equilibrium temperature was about 287.55 K (HadCRUT4). So the feedback response in 1850 was 32.55 K, to the nearest twentieth of a Kelvin. The feedback fraction was 32.55 / 287.55, or 0.113”
    Feedback response should be 287.55-(255+10)=22.55 K, which gives feedback fraction 22.55/287.55=0.078.

    Third comment: this issue seems to be one of the mistakes that David Evans has pointed out (see sciencespeak.com)

    Great work anyway!

    • In response to Fredrik’s three questions:

      1. The distinction between condensing and noncondensing greenhouse gases is long established in the journals on climate sensitivity (see e.g. Lacis+ 2010). If we emit noncondensing greenhouse gases such as CO2, we directly force the climate with additional radiation, and radiative balance is restored by warming. However, the warming then permits the space occupied by the atmosphere to hold near-exponentially more water vapor with temperature (though in practice this increase occurs only near the surface and, crucially, not higher up where it might actually make a difference). The increase in specific humidity that arises from the direct warming is a classical feedback. But it is nothing like as large as the models imagine, because, as with CO2, so with water vapor, the response of temperature to the forcing is logarithmic.

      2. You are correct that I incorrectly wrote “255 K” when I meant “265 K”. Mea maxima colpa. The matter is correctly stated in the paper.

      3. No, this was not David Evans’ point. His point was that I was wrong to state that it is not proper to derive a system-gain factor from sensitivities. It is in fact perfectly proper to do so: on this I was originally incorrect. However, it is not useful to do so, because the sensitivities are so small that even the tiniest uncertainty as to their value leads to large uncertainty in the value of their ratio, the system-gain factor. On the other hand, though climatology does not realize this, it is also perfectly proper (and we have been right all along about this) to derive the system-gain factor as the ratio of the absolute equilibrium to reference sensitivities obtaining at a given moment. That allows proper constraint of equilibrium sensitivity, which turns out to be about a third of what official climatology had imagined.

      We now have the benefit of the experience of a co-author who is a tenured professor of control theory. So our representation of how that theory operates is correct.

  34. To me, what has been most significant about this body of work is that based on measurements, if one assumes that all the warming since 1850 has been caused by an increase of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, the climate sensitivity of CO2 cannot be more than roughly 1.2 degrees K including feedbacks.

    All the diagram shows is that:

    Let R = the total input temperature

    Let E = the total output temperature

    Let F = the feedback fraction

    Let A = the system gain such that, E =A x R

    Then the gain, A = 1/(1-F)

    But R and E are really functions of time and there should be some time delay in the system diagram but such is missing. I cannot believe that the feedback process takes place instantaneously. What is the step response? In other words for a step increase in the input, R, what is the output, E, as a function of time.?

    According to AGW theory, an increase in temperature caused by an increase in CO2 will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will cause even more warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which will cause even more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will cause even more warming … But what the AGW conjecture ignores is that H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which is mostly some form of CO2, to where clouds form. The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate and hence the feedback effect due to H2O is really negative and hence retards any warming that an increase in CO2 might cause.

    • Mr Haas raises some interesting points. First, he refers to time delay. The timescale on which the principal sensitivity-relevant temperature feedbacks operate is usually hours to days, and sometimes years to decades. There is of course a more important time-delay caused by the large heat capacity of the oceans. But in talking of equilibrium temperatures we are talking of the temperatures that would obtain after the time-delay has resolved itself and the climate has resettled to equilibrium. The transient warming will of course be less than the equilibrium warming.

      As to the cooling effect of water vapor, our paper considers the water-vapor feedback in some depth and concludes that it is at worst mildly nonlinear, not least because a) the predicted tropical mid-troposphere hot spot is not observed and b) the near-exponential growth of specific humidity with temperature is offset more or less exactly by the approximately logarithmic response of temperature to the forcing from additional water vapor.

  35. “in well-established control theory whatever feedback processes prevail at any given moment must perforce act upon the entire reference signal then obtaining….
    The reference signal is the sum of the original input signal and all subsequent perturbations of it, before accounting for feedback. The equilibrium signal is the output signal after accounting for feedback.”

    Feedback controls the level of *amplified* output by means of a negative or inverted feedback from the output back to the input to control the input signal level. Follow that analogue and you are much closer to the real climate system. Except in the real world the negative feedbacks are effectively amplified as they have a large overshoot. Such that weaker solar states drive warmer ocean phases, which reduce low cloud cover globally, and increase lower troposphere water vapour. If it wasn’t for that the planet would have cooled since 1995.

  36. Dear Lord….
    Below is a link to an article reported here previously about the consolidation of the hugely profitable scientific publishing industry. It must first be considered that the prime motivations of these publishers is profit.

    Is it their responsibility to publish your findings? No it is not. They are no longer operating on the same basis that they were founded – good open and honest intentions, where debate and counter papers were for the benefit of science and the community. They are now just magazines with some scientific content. No different in character to CNN and other “reputable” media organizations. Sorry dear Lord you are referring to a bygone era.

    The second link below is a report by an eminent scientist reporting on the gassing in Syria. No recognized media outlet is going to cover it, so what should he do, take them to court claiming fraud, cover up or otherwise. No, he sent it to an alternative widely read media outlet. The main stream media outlets in the USA do not report on the side effects of drugs because the pharmaceutical industry is the primary advertiser.

    WUWT is a widely read credible media outlet that has possibly greater reach than all of the printed options you have approached. I would suggest that most of the doomsters frequent it regularly. And if your paper it is was accepted and published by your selected scientific journals, what difference would it make. It would be ignored like all the others.

    I have come to the conclusion that 99.9999999% of all folk would not take notice even if someone in plain black and white and a few easy to adsorb charts explained exactly what was controlling, regulating and influencing global climate over the short, medium and long term. The subject has become intentionally confused. No one knows what they are actually looking for, therefore would not recognize it if they tripped over it. Because to prove it a large number of previous papers would be proven incorrect.

    And there is always the next post to look forward to on a number of blogs. The subject is too fast moving for anything to stick.

    You and your colleagues may well be right, and I wish you all the best. Never give up, every candle burns down eventually.
    With best regards
    Martin

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
    https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/73047/eminent-american-scientist-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-was.html

    • Mr Cropp makes the sound point that scientific publishing is no longer scientific. However, it holds itself out as scientific. Therefore, the police and the courts will in due course judge it on whether its representations about itself were false and deliberately intended both to deceive and to cause loss and even death by that deception.

  37. M of B:
    “In fact, any feedback processes that subsist in the climate at a given moment must perforce respond to the entire temperature then present.”

    Given the conceptual framework of the atmospheric greenhouse effect warming the planet by ~33K, that would be an amplification rather than a feedback. The simple thermodynamic argument is that additional amplification of increased CO2 forcing will drive a positive feedback of additional water vapour amplification. But that simple argument ignores real world climate dynamics where ocean phases change inversely to net changes in climate forcing and control the water vapour and cloud cover responses.

    • In response to Mr Lyons, only 10 K of the 33 K natural greenhouse effect is directly-forced warming. The remaining 23 K is feedback.

      And our method does not require us to know the mechanism of any individual feedback. All we need to know is that official climatology says the directly-forced warming from doubled CO2 is 1.05 K (Andrews+ 2012), that the equilibrium warming from doubled CO2, the Charney sensitivity, is 3.35 K (ibid.), and that official climatology’s imagined feedback response constitutes the difference between the two, and that its imagined system-gain factor is the ratio of the two – i.e., about 3.2.

      The correct method is to accept that any feedback processes that subsist in the climate at a given moment must perforce respond to the entire temperature then present. That knowledge allows us to derive an approximate value for the system-gain factor from the position in 1850, when reference temperature was 265 K and equilibrium temperature was 287.55 K. Then the true system-gain factor is 287.55 / 265, or 1.085, whereupon Charney sensitivity will be 1.085 times 1.05, or about 1.15 K.

      It is not quite as simple of that, of course: it is possible that the equilibrium-temperature response function E(R) is nonlinear. However, that possibility is discussed in some detail in our paper, where it is demonstrated that if one assumes the large Charney sensitivities imagined by official climatology a contradiction will always arise. We conclude that Charney sensitivity falls on 1.17 [ 1.09, 1.23] K, to 95% confidence.

      • So the solar input power is amplified by water vapour which you call the feedback. And the non condensing greenhouse gases are an extra 10k of amplification which you are calling extra input power which is then amplified by water vapour acting as extra feedback. I’d hate to build that as an op amp circuit.

        • In response to Mr Lyons, the block diagram for a suitable circuit is in the head posting. And, as an annex to the submitted paper, there is a national laboratory’s circuit diagram showing the necessary circuit, based on one designed by one of my co-authors.

          The concept is not particularly difficult. Input signal (emission temperature) 255 K. Perturbation of input signal from naturally-occurring non-condensing greenhouse gases +10 K. Perturbation of input signal from anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 2011 +0.75 K. Perturbation of input signal from doubled CO2 compared with 2011 +1.05 K. Reference signal 255+10+0.75+1.05 = 266.8 K.

          Reference signal in 1850 255+10=265 K. Measured equilibrium signal in 1850 287.55 K. System-gain factor 287.55 / 265 = 1.085.

          Building any suitable test rig – effectively an analog computer – demonstrates with entire clarity that the feedback block necessarily modifies not merely any perturbation in the input signal but the entire reference signal. Once that point is accepted, and you will find that it is so when you build your circuit, the rest of our argument follows.

          • You are not following me. The input is power, but then you are describing the non-condensing greenhouse gases as additional power input rather than as a positive greenhouse ‘feedback’ as with the water vapour. That is physically irrational.

          • In response to Mr Lyons, it is not I but official climatology that treats perturbations in the concentration of the noncondensing greenhouse gases primarily as direct forcings rather than as feedbacks. If Mr Lyons disagrees with official climatology on this, he can write to the IPCC and ask it to activate its error-reporting protocol.

            However, the approach that we have taken is to accept all of official climatology except what we can formally demonstrate to be in error. That minimizes the scope for disagreement. So we have accepted climatology’s distinction between direct forcing and feedback forcing.

          • They do refer to rising greenhouse gas forcing as external, and fair enough, by treating it as additional input power it will be then amplified by the water vapour ‘feedback’. The whole exercise is though just reinforcing the mantra that the water vapour feedback is fixed positive. Which is the matter that I would question with the IPCC.

  38. “Without power, life is poor, nasty, brutish and, above all, short. Life expectancy in regions without electricity – sub-Saharan Africa, for instance – is little better than 60 years. In the European countries, it is more like 80 years.”

    never seen a death certificate with lack of electricity as a cause.

    where have I heard this FORM of argument before?

    • Mosh, of course you’ve not seen electricity as a cause of death because you can’t connect two dots.

    • Mosh.
      Driving past with your scatter gun .
      Use your brain or what ever you have .
      Of course death certificates don’t site lack of electricity as the cause of death in third world countries.
      BUT the lack of electricity will cause many problems and lead to many deaths in poor countries .
      Food poisoning because of lack of refrigeration .
      Smoke inhalation because the food is cooked over open fires fueled with cow dung .
      Lack of fresh water because of intermittent electricity for the pumps
      .Hospital services that we in modern countries take for granted are scarce or just not available .
      Mosh you are all the other [pruned] heads who have never lived without electricity .
      You wouldn’t have a clue what is would be like.
      Stop and think before you shoot your mouth off .

      • Stop and think before you shoot your mouth off .

        drive-by posters never do, so I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for the king of drive-by postings to engage his brain before hitting “Post comment”

    • where have I heard this FORM of argument before?

      Textbook example:

      “never seen a death certificate with lack of electricity as a cause.”

  39. “Yet when I set out, in my previous column, a highly-compressed but quite detailed account of a grave error of physics right at the heart of climatology, some of those who commented decided to cling, with increasing and visible desperation, to their aprioristic belief that global warming science is free of the error that had been spelt out for them.”

    the good Lord forget this.

    He is not the final judge on whether or not he has found a grave error.

    he has not.

    Lord here is how the game is played.

    You have to convince us, not claim victory of your own fight and go whining to the courts
    when your work is rejected.

    You dont get to judge your own science. sorry.

    • It also helps to be an actual scientist there S&M.

      ” … Steven Mosher is co-author of “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” and works as an independent consultant in the San Francisco area. He attended Northwestern University where he graduated with honors and BA’s in both English Literature and Philosophy. … ”

      http://berkeleyearth.org/team/steven-mosher/

      Should a non-scientist rate much weight with a faux-scientific judgement?

        • How do your’s Nick?

          The climate mafia is not interested in descent and will not publish any paper that disagrees with the “settled science.”

        • Mr Stokes, as so often, descends to mere pettiness when, as so often, he loses a scientific argument. He knows full well that my co-authors include a tenured professor of control theory and two control engineers, as well as a tenured professor of climatology, an award-winning solar astrophysicist from the Harvard-Smithsonian and an emeritus professor of statistics. If expertise is what floats his boat, we have plenty of it. Perhaps he should wait until the underlying paper comes out before attempting to dig himself into an even deeper hole by commenting on it.

          • Mr Stokes refuses to admit what he knows perfectly well to be true: namely, that any feedback processes subsisting at a particular moment will necessarily act upon not merely any change in the input signal but upon the entire input signal, including any change that has occurred upt to that moment. Why should my co-authors waste their time wrestling with someone who claims expertise in control theory but thus flagrantly and persistently misrepresents it for the sake of keeping the global warming scam going just a little bit longer?

    • Mr Mosher is, as ever, pettily unconstructive; and, as ever, he has not read the head posting with due care and attention before rushing to comment on it. It is made explicit there that we are perfectly content to be given good scientific reasons for rejection by the reviewers: but rejecting our paper on the ground that the conclusion is uncongenial, or rejecting a paper other than that which we had submitted, or rejecting the paper but without giving us any opportunity to comment on the reasons for the rejection, strongly suggests that, on the face of things, a fraud may be present.

      If two further journals behave similarly, a pattern will have been established for all to see. We shall not be asking the police to decide who is right, scientifically speaking: we shall be drawing their attention to the fact that the leading journals of climatology assert on their websites that they publish sound science after competent peer review, and that in the present matter they are departing so strikingly from what they say they will do that their saying it constitutes a false representation – and one that is indirectly leading to the loss of millions of lives.

  40. I won’t bother addressing Lord Monckton’s misrepresentations of my position. If you want to know what it really is, you may consult my comments at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/03/reporting-the-fraudulent-practices-behind-global-warming-science/#comment-2715071 and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/03/reporting-the-fraudulent-practices-behind-global-warming-science/#comment-2715765.

    But I’ll make the following suggestion to anyone left here who’s capable of thinking for himself.

    Determining whether Lord Monckton is right is a simple matter of plotting three points on a graph. Just get those three points from his “end of the global warming scam in a single slide” at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/. You’ll see that the first two points (R_1,E_1) and (R_2,E_2) don’t extrapolate to the point (R_1+\Delta R_2,E_1+\Delta E_2) that Lord Monckton says they imply.

    If you do the extrapolation yourself, you’ll get an E value higher than he did—because you’ll, correctly, base it on the local slope (“perturbations”) rather than, as he did, on the average slope (which he calls the “system-gain factor”). And the reason you use “perturbations” isn’t that you think feedback doesn’t act on the “emission temperature.” It’s that any effect of feedback on “emission temperature” is already incorporated in E_1 and E_2, so the additional increment is all you have to calculate.

    Now, I actually think it’s quite possible that feedback is low enough that the result Lord Monckton gets by assuming the E-to-R relationship is linear will be close to correct; I don’t think climate sensitivity is anywhere as high as alarmists contend. And, sure, if the E-to-R relationship is close to linear and we accept Lord Monckton’s contention that E = 287.55 K for R = 265 K, then E does indeed, as he says, increase by only around 1.15 K for an R increase of 1.05 K, which he tells us doubling CO2 would cause. But nothing in Lord Monckton’s fevered ramblings establishes that near linearity; his math and reasoning are too incoherent.

    Oh, he’s tried to establish it. He’s observed that E’s average slope (“system-gain factor”) changes very little in a small interval such as that between, say, R = 265 K and R = 265.6 K. But that tells us nothing about how linear E is as a function of R.

    Let’s say, for example, that the feedback factor f in the relationship E=R+fE between E and R is the highly nonlinear function f=1-CE^b, where b=-0.6585944 and C=38.3554789\,\mathrm{K}^{1-b}. Despite that nonlinearity, the average slope (“system-gain factor”) would change only from 1.085 to 1.090 between R = 265 K and R = 265.6 K. Yet the change in E for the 1.05 K change in R between 265 K and 266.05 K is 290.90 K – 287.55 K = 3.35 K: a small-signal gain of 3.19.

    Given that the CMIP5 models place ECS at that 3.35 K value, moreover, “settled science” (his term) clearly does not accept that the function is linear. So, whatever “settled science” meant where he read that “the climate-sensitivity parameter is a ‘typically near-invariant parameter,’” it couldn’t have been that the E-R curve “is necessarily linear or very close to it,” as Lord Monckton seems to think.

    Nor do we have anything but his say so for the proposition that “settled science” misapplied feedback theory. As the three-point graph shows, it is closer to the truth that it is Lord Monckton who has.

    In short, I wouldn’t have recommended publishing his paper, either.

    • “Now, I actually think it’s quite possible that feedback is low enough that the result Lord Monckton gets by assuming the E-to-R relationship is linear will be close to correct; I don’t think climate sensitivity is anywhere as high as alarmists contend. ”

      If you think this than why are alarmist papers published? The IPCC is built on climate sensitivity.

    • Mr Born, who has no qualifications in control theory and has not read our paper, nevertheless presumes to substitute his prejudice for the knowledge, experience and qualifications of the professor of control theory who is one of our co-authors, to say nothing of the hands-on experience of the two control engineers who are co-authors.

      Iin 1850, reference temperature R1 is 265 K and equilibrium temperature E1 is 287.55 K. The ratio A1 = E1 / R1 is equal to 1.085, and that ratio A1 is the absolute system-gain factor. If the curve of the equilibrium-sensitivity response function E(R), i.e. E as a function of R, then, for all values of R, E will simply be the product of R and A. Thus, in 2011, R2 is 265.75 K, whereupon E2 is about 288.3 K. Then, at doubling CO2 compared with 2011, R3 is 266.8 K, whereupon E3 is about 289.5 K – an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.2 K (i.e. 289.5 – 288.3).

      If the curve of E(R) is nonlinear, suppose that it is exponential, as Mr Born has imagined. Then, contrary to his example, in which the y-intersect exceeds 38, implying 38 K feedback response to a zero signal when the response is necessarily zero, there are two known points on the curve: (0, 0), which is always on a feedback response curve because if there is no signal there is no feedback, and the quite well constrained quantities (265, 287.55) in 1850. From these values, the exponent x is directly derivable thus: x = ln(287.55) / ln(265) = 1.0146 or thereby. Because this exponent is very close to unity, there is little difference between the equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 (Charney sensitivity) derivable from the linear curve and from the exponential curve: it is 1.2 K in both instances. And why is x so close to unity? The reason, of course, is that in 1850 R1 is more than 92% of E1.

      One could imagine all manner of weird and wonderful nonlinear curves of E(R). But whatever curve one takes leads to a contradiction. For instance, if one were to assume that the two known points are (0, 0) and (266.8, midrange CMIP5 Charney sensitivity), then the feedback fraction f in response to greenhouse gases would be greater than the feedback fraction in response to emission temperature by a factor exceeding 80, which is impossible.

      Mr Born also proclaims, on no evidence, that IPCC does not accept that E(R) is near-linear. He should read Chapter 6.1 of IPCC (2007), where the matter is made explicit. Or Ramanathan 1985.

      He should also consider the individual sensitivity-relevant feedbacks listed by IPCC. With the exception of water vapor, they self-cancel. As for the water-vapor feedback, the atmosphere can carry near-exponentially more water vapor as the space it occupies warms, but it does so only close to the surface. At the crucial tropical mid-troposphere, where all models predict the existence of a hot spot with warming at twice or thrice the surface rate, no such hot spot is observed. Besides, just as with CO2 so with water vapor, the temperature response to the forcing is logarithmic, approximately canceling the exponentiality of the increase in specific humidity with warming.

      There is no good reason, therefore, to suppose that the net effect of the sensitivity-altering feedbacks is extravagantly nonlinear as opposed to near-linear.

      Finally, Mr Born should watch his manners. He describes my math and reasoning as “incoherent”: but he has not actually read the underlying paper, wherefore he has no basis for his claim. One realizes that he has borne a grudge ever since he was caught out in an elaborate lie and called out on it: but he does himself no favors by the arrogant intemperance of his language.

      And he may to recall that my co-authors have considerably more knowledge and experience than he does in this field. His constant attempts to personalize our result just to me are an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that he is presuming inexpertly, and without having even read the underlying paper, to substitute his ignorance and prejudice for their dispassionate knowledge and experience.

      Of course, the fact that my co-authors are expert in all the relevant fields does not make our paper correct: but Mr Born would be better waiting until our paper comes out and then attempting to write a paper in refutation of it. But, if he is to pass peer review, he will need to display considerably less prejudice and considerably more expertise than he displays here.

      • Instead of concerning himself my credentials, Lord Monckton would be better advised to learn some math. He makes errors at too high a rate for me to keep up. So I’ll just mention a few.

        If the curve of E(R) is nonlinear, suppose that it is exponential, as Mr Born has imagined. Then, contrary to his example, in which the y-intersect exceeds 38, implying 38 K feedback response to a zero signal when the response is necessarily zero , there are two known points on the curve: (0, 0), which is always on a feedback response curve because if there is no signal there is no feedback, and the quite well constrained quantities (265, 287.55) in 1850.

        The example I gave was a power-law function, not an exponential. And its y intercept was 0, not 38, so Lord Monckton’s comments based on that conclusion are wrong.

        But whatever curve one takes leads to a contradiction. For instance, if one were to assume that the two known points are (0, 0) and (266.8, midrange CMIP5 Charney sensitivity), then the feedback fraction f in response to greenhouse gases would be greater than the feedback fraction in response to emission temperature by a factor exceeding 80, which is impossible.

        Actually, the feedback-fraction ratio in the example is more like 11, not 80. Now, I don’t think feedback grows that fast, either; as I’ve said from the beginning, I don’t personally think climate sensitivity is as high as my example was designed to illustrate. But alarmists do, and Lord Monckton’s bald assertion that such an increase is impossible doesn’t make it so.

        True, he does attempt to justify that assertion: he contends that “the temperature response to the forcing [sic, forcing response to the CO2 concentration] is logarithmic, approximately canceling the exponentiality of the increase in specific humidity with warming.” Indeed, that’s the contention, if any, on which he should have been basing his argument with “settled science,” not on that howler about failure to recognize feedback to emission temperature and misapplication of the “Bode” equation. But, given that clouds’ effects are in the mix, that contention falls far short of being self-evident.

        he was caught out in an elaborate lie and called out on it

        Lord Monckton repeats this slander at every opportunity. But the truth is I correctly stated the indisputable fact that he couldn’t explain how he derived, as he contended he did, a previous paper’s table entries from a paper by Gerard Roe; to this day he remains unable to explain his table’s implication that, everything else being equal, higher positive feedback will initially result in less output than more-modest feedback will.

        And he may to [sic] recall that my co-authors have considerably more knowledge and experience than he does in this field

        So he says. But those co-authors seem mysteriously reluctant to take me on directly in a discussion of the feedback theories about which he persists in pontificating so risibly.

        No, I don’t claim any credentials in the field; I made my living as merely a workaday lawyer. And I never met Hendrik Bode.

        But less than two years after Dr. Bode retired from Bell Labs I discussed the finer points of feedback circuitry with its engineers. (Incidentally, although I was familiar with Bode plots I don’t recall hearing those BTL engineers use the phrase Bode equation—for an equation with which I more closely associate Harold Black.) And I made a study of the subject; in later years, for example, I saved an MIT professor from a bad investment by pointing out a control-systems-theory error he had made.

        True, I may not be credentialed. But this isn’t my first rodeo, either.

        • The Born Liar, whose arrogance is exceeded only by his ignorance of elementary control theory, continues to make errors at a bewildering rate. His central error is in his characteristically petty and entirely false allegation that the fact that feedback processes necessarily respond to emission temperature as well as to subsequent perturbations thereof is a “howler”. Let us hope he knows more of law than he does of control theory.

          My co-authors, whom he pettily excoriates for having failed to answer his drivel, would rather concentrate on getting the paper through peer-review than wasting time with a proven liar who lacks either the relevant knowledge or the usual courtesy.

          On no evidence, the Born Liar maintains that the feedback-fraction ratio for Charney sensitivity of 3.35 K is 11 and not 80. It is in fact the latter. More to the point, even a feedback fraction ratio of 11 plainly runs counter to the assertion in IPCC (2001) that the climate-sensitivity parameter embodying the influence of feedback is “typically near-invariant”. He also falsely asserts that official climatology claims that the feedback-fraction ratio is as high as 11. Let him produce any reference for that as-yet-unsupported assertion. And let him provide some sort of scientific justification for so very large a feedback-fraction ratio as 11, given that all feedback processes approximately self-cancel except that of water vapor, which is at worst near-linear.

          He is manifestly out of his depth here.

          • Lord Monckton needs to work on his reading comprehension. For example:

            His central error is in his characteristically petty and entirely false allegation that the fact that feedback processes necessarily respond to emission temperature as well as to subsequent perturbations thereof is a “howler”.

            The howler I referred to isn’t the proposition that there’s no feedback to the emission temperature but rather that “settled science” based its ECS estimate on such a proposition. Lord Monckton keeps saying it did, but his support for that extraordinary statement is exceedingly thin.

            Or:

            On no evidence, the Born Liar maintains that the feedback-fraction ratio for Charney sensitivity of 3.35 K is 11 and not 80

            He somehow took that from the fact that I gave as a hypothetical example one of the many possible functions that would exhibit the 3.35 K ECS value Lord Monckton says the models do. I expressed that example in feedback form, i.e., as E=R+fE, where f=1-CE^b, b=-0.6585944, and C=38.3554789\,\mathrm{K}^{1-b}. Isolating E yields E=kR^a, where a=2.929068 and k= 2.295422\times 10^5\,\mathrm{K}^{1-a}.

            It was for that hypothetical function that I gave the feedback-fraction ratio. For the R = 255 K value Lord Monckton calls the emission temperature, this gives an E value of 256.9 K, implying f = 0.0074, whereas f = 0.085 for E = 290.9 K. So, not that it matters much, but the resultant f ratio for my function is 11.5, not the 80 that Lord Monckton claims. No doubt one could conjure up functions whose ratio is 80, but the example I used isn’t among them.

            I won’t bother to look up the literature references his reading-comprehension limitations have no doubt led him to misapprehend.

          • The trouble with the Born Liar is that he has not the slightest intention of understanding control theory, climate change or anything else. He won’t even follow up references offered to him.

            He now yet again lies about what we are saying. We are not saying that climatology derives its estimates of equilibrium sensitivity by any particular method, for it uses several. What we are saying is that, whether he likes it or not, climatology has formally and repeatedly defined feedback as responding solely to perturbations in global temperature. The references are listed in my previous posting, but of course he is not interested in the mere facts, so he will not bother to follow them up.

            Because climatology is, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware that feedback responds to the entire reference signal (specifically including emission temperature), it is not aware that once the entire signal is taken properly into account it is quite easy to demonstrate that equilibrium sensitivity is low. Even if some climatologists are aware, they are not aware of the implication, which is that equilibrium sensitivity is low.

            The Born Liar refuses, of course, to accept that climatology regards the climate-sensitivity parameter as typically near-linear, because he will not follow up the references I gave him.

            Since it has long been entirely clear that the Born Liar is motivated not by a desire to seek the truth but by mere spite, he is simply not interested in finding out what climatology actually says. So much easier simply to make it up.

  41. TonyN

    – Congratulations for following in the footsteps of Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method as an antidote to religiose orthodoxy.

    – You are right to challenge these magazine editors, as they are the effective arbiters of ‘scientific’ orthodoxy.

    As for Mosher’s “You don’t get to judge your own science. sorry.” … who does, Steve?

  42. I live in a modern house in the UK. I could manage without electricity for ,say, 4 hours each day provided it was always between 1 am and 5 am. If it was random a very much shorter outage would cause me great trouble. For example 1 one hour at noon on Sunday when my wife is in the middle of cooking Sunday lunch. Perhaps a few minutes at a critical stage of a football game would cause even greater distress. You are free to think up many other scenarios. The conclusion has to be that a civilised society needs reliable energy, most likely electricity. I lived through the 1947 random power cuts but things were very different then, our house only used electricity for lighting and my mother was full time house wife. By the way I would be happy to crowd fund but need a UK bank account to which I can make sterling payment

    • I worked in pharmaceutical manufacturing when the three day week was imposed by the UK government in response to the miners’ strike in 1972. We had a brilliant small team of engineers who concocted many ingenious and occasionally dodgy methods of keeping some production going and our workforce gainfully employed. I doubt any of those would get past health and safety now, and I’ve yet to come across a 3D printer or CNC machine which can be hand cranked.
      When the rolling blackouts come (they will come) the economic suicide of this country will be complete. There will also be unnecessary winter deaths. Shame on those who will be responsible, just for their own personal gain.

  43. “Without power, life is poor, nasty, brutish and, above all, short.” Is this part of the population control plan? What next, forced birth control?

  44. I see no argument against Monckton’s central point. At every point on earth’s surface, each day the energy input from the sun goes from zero (nighttime) to maximum mid day and back to zero. So daily the full current input is applied and whatever feedbacks there are respond accordingly to that input.

    • And they did so from the early origins of our solar system, since when the sun has increased in luminosity taking the planetary temperature to that observed in 1850.

      That temperature (ie., the 1850 temperature) must in part be composed of all then current feedbacks. It seems absurd to suggest, for example, that the water feedback only sprung into existence/life post 1850, and was not an already factor in the creation of the 1850 temperature.

      • Messrs. Clutz and Verney are of course correct: it is very basic control theory that the feedback loop responds to the entire reference signal that arrives at the summative input/output node of the loop. In the climate, it cannot do otherwise. And the knowledge that this is the case allows a simple, robust, well-constrained derivation of equilibrium sensitivity. The bottom line is that, with very little error, one can ignore the presence of temperature feedback altogether.

        • It has always seemed strange to me that of all the massive energy flows in the dynamical and chaotic climate, how a flux change of 3.7 W/m^2 could cause feedbacks forcing a significant change in temperature; there is too much going on in the large system for such a small quantity to materially perturb such a system.

          I only did systems analysis for years, so what could an electrical engineer such as myself know about complex systems?

  45. Hey Nick,

    “my co-authors include a tenured professor of control theory and two control engineers”

    So why do we never hear from them?

    You don’t expect that first thing every sceptical mind will be doing is arguing in the blogosphere, do you? Our little talks here are often useful, entertaining and educational, but the fact that His Lordness co-authors keep themselves bit discrete is a very good sign. I would be much more concerned if they start to shout loudly.

    • My co-authors, some of whom occasionally look at these threads, are generally appalled at the unprincipled conduct of the various trolls who try to disrupt these threads with manifest nonsense sneeringly delivered, and with thinly-veiled personal attacks – the Left’s weapon of choice when it is out-argued. They do not propose to waste their time on such trolls.

      However, I know that the vast majority of this column’s readers are genuinely interested in our research, which is why I give accounts of it here from time to time.

      The trolls do have their uses, though. Their shocking refusal to accept the obvious truths 1) that feedback responds to the entire reference temperature and not merely to perturbations, and 2) that if climatology were to take that fact into account it would be able to constrain equilibrium sensitivity quite easily, and 3) that that sensitivity is about a third of the current midrange estimate has shown many readers here that what we are up against is a sullen, purely political movement masquerading as science.

      • You and your co-authors should actually take the time to review some of the comments here. You can
        label any commenter as a “troll,” but in fact a person that finds fault in your work is not a “troll.”
        What you and your co-authors need to do is to correct the serious errors in this work. Or better
        yet abandon it, and do some real and relavent work in the field of climatology

        Listen to the comments here, because if you don’t no reputable journal will accept your paper.

        Seriously your highness (your magisty, or whatever stupid acknowlegement of your worthless title gets)
        the lowly non-titled proletariat inhabiting this blog finds your and your co-author’s work not only
        irrelavent, they find it pointless also.

        • In response to Coeur de Lion, I read all comments carefully, and I look to see whether serious objections to our argument are being raised. If someone who has good reason to know the relevant theory wilfully and persistently misstates it for the sake of maintaining the current errors in climatology, that person is a troll.

          If someone who knows no control theory presumes to lecture our professor of control theory, and refuses to be corrected when he perpetrates a series of errors, that person is a troll.

          if someone with no knowledge of the relevant science and a prejudiced view of the climate question demands that we should pay attention to trolls such as those described in the two earlier paragraphs, that person is a troll.

          I am very willing to discuss genuine points of science, and to be corrected if I have erred. But so far no one in these threads has landed a blow on the central point of our argument, which we verified not only by theoretical methods but also by inviting a national laboratory to build us a test rig. Such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical object at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not only to some arbitrarily-chosen fraction thereof. Once that fact is accepted, as it must be by all who are interested in the truth rather than in some climate-Communist Party Line or another, it becomes possible to constrain equilibrium sensitivity with remarkable simplicity.

      • Milord,

        My co-authors, some of whom occasionally look at these threads, are generally appalled at the unprincipled conduct of the various trolls who try to disrupt these threads with manifest nonsense sneeringly delivered, and with thinly-veiled personal attacks – the Left’s weapon of choice when it is out-argued. They do not propose to waste their time on such trolls.

        I reckon this is very wise. It’s highly appreciated indeed that you occasionally update us with your research and hopefully get some questions and comments back to your most venerable co-authors. But the idea that such specialists are fighting in the blogosphere with an army of trolls insulting them with rude comments (‘ignoramus’, ‘science denier’) is highly demoralizing. In such circumstances at some point every civilized person steps back and come back to her/his work. It’s 100 times better to invest time instead in high quality article or research.

        • I agree with Paramenter that the sneering tone adopted by the true-believers and by the concern-trolls is not conducive to rational argument. But, inch by inch, they are being compelled to face reality. Of course they don’t like it: but, in the end, the sneering won’t work. The only thing that will work is a proper scientific refutation of our argument. And that has been wholly lacking so far.

  46. For those like Nick Stokes and Joe Born who can’t understand this, here is another way of deriving the error Monckton and his team are claiming:

    This is credited to our fellow WUWT poster George White (aka ‘co2isnotevil’), though it’s to some degree my own interpretation of his way of deriving what — as best I can tell at least —

    is physically the same exact error Monckton and his team are claiming.

    The starting point here is about 3 decades of worth of globally averaged satellite data from ISCCP, which has a global average gain of about 1.6 with a variance of only about +/- 1% (or

    less) from year to year, i.e. it’s a very tight 3 decade average convergence point. The gain is simply the ratio of emitted surface power (from S-B) divided by planet emitted power, i.e.

    at about 287K the surface emits about 385 W/m^2 and the planet emits (into space) about 240 W/m^2, and 385/240 = 1.6.

    I’ve found the best way to do this is with a series of separate yes or no questions:

    Do you agree that at the Earth’s current global average temperature of about 287K, the Earth emits about 385 W/m^2 from its surface (assuming an emissivity of 1 or very close to 1)?

    Do you agree that the globally averaged solar constant is about 342 W/m^2 and the average albedo is about 0.3, resulting in a net incident solar power of about 240 W/m^2?

    Do you agree that the 240 W/m^2 of incident post albedo solar power is forcing the climate system?

    Do you agree that the 240 W/m^2 forcing the system from the Sun results in an ‘amplification’ at the surface of a net of about 385 W/m^2 gained at the surface/atmosphere boundary?

    Do you agree that this accounts for all the physical processes and feedbacks in the system that operate on timescales of 3 decades or less? If not, why haven’t all such physical processes

    and feedbacks fully manifested themselves after 3 decades of forcing from the Sun? Especially those of water vapor and clouds, which operate on timescales of days to weeks?

    Do you agree that in order to ‘amplify’ +3.7 W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ from 2xCO2 into +3.3C at the surface it requires +18 W/m^2 of net gain at the surface/atmosphere boundary (287K = 385 W/m^2;

    290.3K or +3.3C = 403 W/m^2 and 403 – 385 = 18)?

    Do you agree that watts of GHG ‘forcing’ and watts of solar forcing can only do the same amount of work? That is a watt is a watt, independent of where it last originates from?

    Do you agree that 385/240 = 1.6?

    Do you agree that 18/3.7 = 4.8?

    Do you agree that 4.8 is 3 times greater than 1.6?

    If watts are watts, how can watts of GHG ‘forcing’ have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun?

    As mentioned, the most common objection to this is people say, ‘but the system is non-linear’, and indeed it is (highly in fact). The problem is the non-linearity is in the opposite

    direction needed for the incremental gain to be greater than the prior absolute or average gain of 1.6. That is, as the incident post albedo solar power increases, the ratio of the net

    power gained at the surface to power entering from the Sun decreases. See these plots here that show the non-linearity of the system:

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/why/pi_gs.png

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ga.png

    I should add again that the referenced 1.1K of so-called ‘no-feedback’ is based on the 1.6 to 1 power densities ratio between the surface at the TOA, where 3.7*(385/240)= 6.0 and +6.0 W/m^2

    from a baseline of 287K equals about +1.1K.

    The bottom line is on global (decadal long) average it only takes about 1.6 W/m^2 of net gain at the surface to allow 1 W/m^2 to leave the system at the TOA; with each incremental post

    albedo watt from the Sun resulting in less and less gain above the global average (or a gain incrementally lower and lower than the absolute gain 1.6).

    • Actually, George White’s theory has little to do with Lord Monckton’s. Since you went to so much trouble, though, I’ll address your discussion briefly (but not completely).

      Without going through the numbers, I’ll accept, at least provisionally, everything you say up to “If watts are watts, how can watts of GHG ‘forcing’ have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun?” And, although there are some subtleties I’m ignoring, I’ll agree for the sake of discussion that watts of GHG forcing can’t have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts of forcing from the Sun.

      But the argument for high sensitivity isn’t that watts of GHG forcing are more effective than watts of other forcing. It’s that three (or however many) times as many GHG watts result from the water-vapor-caused opacity increase as resulted from the CO2-caused opacity increase whose resultant temperature increase caused the water-vapor increase. (I’m not saying that the additional water vapor actually does increase opacity to that extent; I’m just saying that if it did the alarmist result wouldn’t violate energy conservation.)

      I know this sounds counterintuitive; Mr. White has never been able to grasp it. And, frankly, for me the subject has exhausted its amusement value, so I hope you’ll understand if I don’t pursue it with you further. But if your mind is open to a different viewpoint, you may want to read my comment at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/24/it-shouldnt-take-hundreds-of-years-to-estimate-climate-sensitivity/#comment-2415305. I believe it includes a link to a diagram that helps the reader work through the numbers.

      • Joe Born,

        “But the argument for high sensitivity isn’t that watts of GHG forcing are more effective than watts of other forcing.”

        Yes, of course. I’m well aware of this. You totally missed its point, which I will explain in more detail below.

        “It’s that three (or however many) times as many GHG watts result from the water-vapor-caused opacity increase as resulted from the CO2-caused opacity increase whose resultant temperature increase caused the water-vapor increase. (I’m not saying that the additional water vapor actually does increase opacity to that extent; I’m just saying that if it did the alarmist result wouldn’t violate energy conservation.)”

        What you and all others who can’t see this are missing is there is no equilibrium (or even a steady-state) in the system. It’s perpetually oscillating, largely chaotically and immensely dynamically. There is only a perpetually dynamically manifested longer-term average point the system converges to. There is no equilibrium; there is only perpetual un-equilibrium. What this means is there is no new starting point for the physical processes and feedbacks of water vapor and clouds, in response to an imbalance.

        Why? Because, as stated, the 1.6 to 1 surface/TOA ratio is not a static equilibrium point, but an immensely dynamically maintained and converged to point. Thus these feedback processes from water vapor and clouds have no way to distinguish an imbalance caused by added GHGs from any other imbalance imposed on the system as a result of the regularly occurring dynamic chaos in the system, and will respond or ‘pull’ to within the same bounds. Thus, the 1.6 ratio is not a valid ‘zero-feedback’ starting point incrementally since those bounds, for water vapor and clouds, have already been physically manifested.

        Remember, the way the field, i.e. climate science, has framed up the feedback question/problem is one where the 1.6 surface/TOA ratio is the ‘zero-feedback’ starting point, or more specifically a completely new starting point for the physical processes (mainly water vapor and clouds) incrementally without any known or manifested bounds whatsoever. This is not valid because doing so arbitrarily separates the physical processes and feedbacks (from water vapor and clouds) that are already in perpetual dynamic operation acting to maintain the prior energy balance from the forcing of the Sun from those physical processes and feedbacks that will act on additional imbalances, for which there is no physical or logical basis. The physical processes and feedbacks already in perpetual dynamic operation (from the forcing of the Sun) can’t distinguish such an imbalance from any other imbalance imposed as a result of the regularly occurring dynamic chaos in the system, and will respond or ‘pull’ to within the same bounds, i.e. they will ‘pull’ to the 1.6 to 1 surface/TOA energy balance point or ‘pull’ to where it only takes about 1.6 W/m^2 at the surface to allow 1 W/m^2 to escape through the TOA the same as before the imbalance was imposed (since they have no way to distinguish the new imbalance from the prior perpetual imbalance).

        This also gets to the point that the field considers RF by GHGs to be zero prior to adding GHGs, but this is also not correct either since the manifested balance, including the influence from GHGs via the GHE, is the result of the perpetual dynamic response of the system to the forcing of the Sun.

        In physics, as Dick Lindzen has been pointing out, all of this more generally falls under the category of ‘degrees of freedom’ (of the system). That is, in the system, fast acting processes like water vapor and clouds, have sufficient ‘degrees of freedom’ from their perpetual oscillation (from the forcing of the Sun) such that a newly imposed imbalance over the average, like from added GHGs, especially a relatively small one like 2xCO2, can’t be distinguished from the already physically manifested bounds of those dynamic processes (and are therefore constrained within those already physically manifested bounds).

        • Also,

          Adding to Dick Lindzen’s point is the perpetual dynamic oscillation of the system often induces imbalances much larger than that which would come from a doubling of CO2. For example, a small change in cloud cover can induce a much larger imbalance on the system than that which would come from 2xCO2, and changes of this magnitude are commonly occurring (as Lindzen points out). This is all the more reason that the fast acting physical processes and feedbacks of water vapor and clouds easily have sufficient ‘degrees of freedom’ such that a small newly imposed imbalance over the average can’t be distinguished or responded to differently by water vapor and clouds than their response to the prior total average itself.

          While correct, the problem with Lindzen’s ‘degrees of freedom’ explanation or derivation is it that it’s too loose and informal. Monckton’s team is attempting to formalize it as an actual system based theoretical error.

      • I note also there seems be a ton of confusion as to the type of error being claimed here. The type of error is a system based theoretical error relating to applied feedback; it’s not an error at the raw physical principle level.

        What is being argued here (and Christopher Monckton, please correct me if I’m wrong), is if there is not a valid theoretical basis to support the amplified effect (from water vapor and clouds, primarily), then it should be presumed not possible; and should be dismissed (even though it doesn’t constitute absolute falsification at the raw physical principle level; or constitute absolute proof of a probability of zero). Another way of stating this is that you have to have a valid system based theoretical basis first before any hypothetical effect (in a system) can even be presumed to be possible. Without a sound/valid system based theoretical basis, it should be presumed not possible (or at least be presumed to have a probability so low it’s not worthy of consideration). In this case, the hypothetical effect is net positive feedback from clouds and water vapor.

      • Jon Born,

        “I know this sounds counterintuitive; Mr. White has never been able to grasp it. And, frankly, for me the subject has exhausted its amusement value, so I hope you’ll understand if I don’t pursue it with you further. But if your mind is open to a different viewpoint, you may want to read my comment at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/24/it-shouldnt-take-hundreds-of-years-to-estimate-climate-sensitivity/#comment-2415305. I believe it includes a link to a diagram that helps the reader work through the numbers.”

        OK, I checked this out. Admittedly, I don’t have any sound understanding of Bode or EE, nor am I entirely sure I understand either of your arguments on this, frankly. (Yes, I did try).

        What you’re saying here seems to be the crux of the confusion and/or disagreement between yourself and George White:

        “Specifically, it shows that the same energy can be passed back and forth several times between the atmosphere and the surface before it escapes to outer space. So, even though the illustrated system has no internal power source, its surface emits 2.2 W/m^2 for every 1.0 W/m^2 it absorbs from the sun: the power gain is 2.2. The gain exceeds unity because energy that’s counted only once when it’s received from the sun is counted 1.2 more times at the surface before it escapes. (In the real earth system, that gain is more like 1.6, but the point here is that higher gains would not violate energy conservation.)”

        You seem to think George is claiming that COE limits the surface (net) power gain to not be more 2x the power flux that enters the system from the Sun, but — as I’m reading it — he’s not saying this at all. What he’s saying is COE limits an internal ‘forcing’s’ (feedback) response to not be more than 2x that internal ‘forcing’, provided there are no changes in the incoming solar flux. An internal ‘forcing’ is specifically not watts of (post albedo) solar forcing, or more generally not the system’s power input. The idea here is you can’t have more than 100% of an internal ‘forcing’ fed back to the output of the gain block (of the feedback node), because this would violate COE (in the steady-state).

        The so-called ‘internal’ forcing here for the climate system is watts of upward emitted IR from the surface absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, which COE (unrelatedly) sets the limit that it cannot be more than the total flux radiated from the surface (and which are not new joules added to the system). In reality, it’s a fraction of the surface emitted IR flux that’s absorbed — he claims is about 75% (or 290 W/m^2) — which means he’s saying that COE, under these (steady-state) conditions, limits the surface (net) power gain to not be more than 290 W/m^2 + the input, which for the climate is about 240 of Pi (post albedo solar power in); or not more than 290 W/m^2 + 240 W/m^2 (whatever temperature that would be). Of course, the actual surface temperature is quite a bit lower than this.

        The 2xCO2 case, is an increase in upward IR absorption from the surface of about 3.7 W/m^2, or with these numbers an increase from 290 Wm^2 to 293.7 W/m^2. With no changes in Pi, he’s saying COE limits the response (at the surface) to not be more than 3.7 W/m^2 x 2 or +7.4 W/m^2 of net surface gain, which from a baseline of 287K is about 1.3-1.4K; or not more than about +1.4K at the surface.

        Or so this seems to be his argument. Where all of this gets fuzzy is it is at least hypothetically possible for internal changes in response to an internal ‘forcing’ to cause changes in Pi as well as further changes in upward IR absorption from the surface. This is where the already physically manifested — and thus fixed/constrained — bounds, from the decades of forcing from the Sun, would come into play in all of this. I think George is essentially saying that within those bounds, there are COE limits not being considered, but many are not agreeing or understanding why those bounds exist in the first place. Hence, why there is so much confusion.

        However, none of my arguments in my posts above (or Monckton’s) depend on any of this particular aspect from George being correct. Note, I made no mention of COE violations in my posts above.

      • The way the field has framed up the feedback/sensitivity problem is as if the system has dynamically reached a static equilibrium, from which its response to a newly imposed imbalance to reach a new static equilibrium is totally unknown with no bounds or limits. This is pure nonsense.

  47. For those like Nick Stokes and Joe Born who can’t understand this, here is another way of deriving the error Monckton and his team are claiming:

    This is credited to our fellow WUWT poster George White (aka ‘co2isnotevil’), though it’s to some degree my own interpretation of his way of deriving what — as best I can tell at least — is physically the same exact error Monckton and his team are claiming.

    The starting point here is about 3 decades of worth of globally averaged satellite data from ISCCP, which has a global average gain of about 1.6 with a variance of only about +/- 1% (or less) from year to year, i.e. it’s a very tight 3 decade average convergence point. The gain is simply the ratio of emitted surface power (from S-B) divided by planet emitted power, i.e. at about 287K the surface emits about 385 W/m^2 and the planet emits (into space) about 240 W/m^2, and 385/240 = 1.6.

    I’ve found the best way to do this is with a series of separate yes or no questions:

    Do you agree that at the Earth’s current global average temperature of about 287K, the Earth emits about 385 W/m^2 from its surface (assuming an emissivity of 1 or very close to 1)?

    Do you agree that the globally averaged solar constant is about 342 W/m^2 and the average albedo is about 0.3, resulting in a net incident solar power of about 240 W/m^2?

    Do you agree that the 240 W/m^2 of incident post albedo solar power is forcing the climate system?

    Do you agree that the 240 W/m^2 forcing the system from the Sun results in an ‘amplification’ at the surface of a net of about 385 W/m^2 gained at the surface/atmosphere boundary?

    Do you agree that this accounts for all the physical processes and feedbacks in the system that operate on timescales of 3 decades or less? If not, why haven’t all such physical processes and feedbacks fully manifested themselves after 3 decades of forcing from the Sun? Especially those of water vapor and clouds, which operate on timescales of days to weeks?

    Do you agree that in order to ‘amplify’ +3.7 W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ from 2xCO2 into +3.3C at the surface it requires +18 W/m^2 of net gain at the surface/atmosphere boundary (287K = 385 W/m^2; 290.3K or +3.3C = 403 W/m^2 and 403 – 385 = 18)?

    Do you agree that watts of GHG ‘forcing’ and watts of solar forcing can only do the same amount of work? That is a watt is a watt, independent of where it last originates from?

    Do you agree that 385/240 = 1.6?

    Do you agree that 18/3.7 = 4.8?

    Do you agree that 4.8 is 3 times greater than 1.6?

    If watts are watts, how can watts of GHG ‘forcing’ have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun?

    As mentioned, the most common objection to this is people say, ‘but the system is non-linear’, and indeed it is (highly in fact). The problem is the non-linearity is in the opposite direction needed for the incremental gain to be greater than the prior absolute or average gain of 1.6. That is, as the incident post albedo solar power increases, the ratio of the net power gained at the surface to power entering from the Sun decreases. See these plots here that show the non-linearity of the system:

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/why/pi_gs.png

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ga.png

    I should add again that the referenced 1.1K of so-called ‘no-feedback’ is based on the 1.6 to 1 power densities ratio between the surface at the TOA, where 3.7*(385/240)= 6.0 and +6.0 W/m^2 from a baseline of 287K equals about +1.1K.

    The bottom line is on global (decadal long) average it only takes about 1.6 W/m^2 of net gain at the surface to allow 1 W/m^2 to leave the system at the TOA; with each incremental post albedo watt from the Sun resulting in less and less gain above the global average (or a gain incrementally lower and lower than the absolute gain 1.6).

  48. Hey Nick,

    These are amplifying differences. But Lord M insists you can amplify absolute values.

    For me it more like discussion about meaning of words rather than about merit. What about: feedback control loop manipulates differences by amplifying absolute values? If I interpret correctly for example this textbook diagram it suggests our Lord is right – what is fed back as the ‘reference’ input is the entire output signal after disturbances, here denoted as Ym – measured value of the output.

    • Paramenter is of course correct: the feedback block must perforce act upon the entire reference temperature, which is the sum of the input temperature (emission temperature) and all subsequent natural and anthropogenic perturbations thereof. We verified this fact by test rigs designed first by a co-author with long experience of building and using such circuits and secondly by a national science laboratory. That fact is simply not in doubt, and anyone who claims knowledge of control theory and yet denies that this is the case is – not to put too fine a point on it – lying. The fact that such lies are being told in this thread indicates the totalitarians’ mounting concern that their number 1 policy is about to collapse because they got the science catastrophically wrong. They are hoping that by continuing to make stuff up they can keep this profitable fraud going for just a little longer. Well, time is running out on them.

      • Milord,

        Paramenter is of course correct: the feedback block must perforce act upon the entire reference temperature, which is the sum of the input temperature (emission temperature) and all subsequent natural and anthropogenic perturbations thereof. We verified this fact by test rigs designed first by a co-author with long experience of building and using such circuits and secondly by a national science laboratory.

        Critics may argue that this circuit only shows what is designed to show what in turn has nothing to do with the ‘proper’ feedback. There is also another way of confirming your thesis by doing a virtual experiment by using simulation software for control systems. Here, all conceptual elements of the feedback loop can assembled virtually and – voilà!

        That fact is simply not in doubt, and anyone who claims knowledge of control theory and yet denies that this is the case is – not to put too fine a point on it – lying.

        I reckon the ‘official’ narrative may be changing – Nick just posted here at WUWT an article which says, as far as I can read it clearly – that ‘official’ climatology omits in fact nothing. And in the calculation still refers to the reference temperature, not just to the perturbations.

        If that confirmed that would be a sign that you and your venerable colleagues are forcing the ‘official’ climatology to adjust their calculations.

  49. Christopher, I raised an issue on your other post with the temperature you are using as an “emission temperature”. You say:

    “In climate, the input signal is the 255 K emission temperature that would obtain – before accounting for feedback – purely because the Sun is shining.”

    However, the earth’s temperature “before accounting for feedback” is a slippery, moving target. The moon, for example, has a temperature “purely because the sun is shining” … but it’s on the order of 80 K cooler than the 255 K you are using.

    So … you are not using that temperature. Nor are you using the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature corresponding to the 340 W/m2 the Earth receives from the sun. That’s about 278 K.

    It appears that you’re using some other temperature. I see indications in your paper that it is a temperature from a climate model run without CO2 … but that paper gives us 243 K.

    I’m not here to argue one over the other. I’m just here to say that you’ve made a TOTALLY ARBITRARY choice for your “emission temperature”, and that a number of other choices are totally defensible.

    And because of that, the results of your calculations are also totally arbitrary … which in science is generally not a good look.

    Comments?

    w.

    • Willis Eschenbach is perhaps unaware that in paper after paper after paper the value 255 K or thereby is given as the emission temperature that would obtain on Earth in the absence of the noncondensing greenhouse gases and in the absence of any feedback.

      We went back to first principles and calculated what the actual emission temperature would be in each of 10 billion annular bands with the zenith point at the center, and then integrated, using a useful principle in geometric number theory which gives a simple but accurate integration. That took care of the dayside. We relied upon Merlis+ (2010) for an approximation to the nightside temperature.

      We made allowance for the fact that the annuli closest to the zenith point would be in open water with a low albedo, but that the remaining annuli would be ice, with a high albedo.

      We verified our method by applying it mutatis mutandis to the Lunar dayside, and were able to replicate with great precision the temperature-curve given in the Lunar Diviner experiment.

      Our conclusion was that emission temperature is probably more like 265 K than 255 K, but we decided to minimize opportunities for petty conflict by adopting the value that is stated over and over again in the climate journals. The higher value for emission temperature that we think realistic would somewhat reduce equilibrium sensitivity.

      It was perhaps unwise, in the circumstances, for Mr Eschenbach to assume, without first having verified the matter, that we had merely plucked an arbitrary value out of the air.

      The 255 K value that is near-universal in climatology does have many defects, not the least of which that it is derived without making any allowance for Hoelder’s inequalities between integrals. Our own method, of course, by its nature does not suffer from the same defect.

      One could indeed adopt various values either side of 255 K, but they would not greatly affect our result.

      • Monckton of Brenchley June 6, 2019 at 3:18 pm

        Willis Eschenbach is perhaps unaware that in paper after paper after paper the value 255 K or thereby is given as the emission temperature that would obtain on Earth in the absence of the noncondensing greenhouse gases and in the absence of any feedback.

        Lord Monckton is surely aware that in paper after paper after paper the value of 3°C per doubling of CO2 or thereabouts is given as “climate sensitivity” … So what? You’re the guy who knows the Latin name for the Appeal To Authority fallacy … time to break it out.

        Next, I’ve searched the literature and haven’t found any papers saying the temperature would be 255K without non-condensing GHGs. I see people all over saying that with the current albedo, the earth gets ~240 W/m2 from the sun. This equates via Stefan-Boltzmann to ~255 K, and papers to that effect are indeed legion … but I’m not finding the ones regarding the temperature in the absence of non-condensing GHGs.

        In your previous post here on WUWT, you pointed to a 2010 paper by Lacis which says that when we remove the non-condensing GHGS:

        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.

        That’s 252.15 K, so clearly that’s not the source of your claim.

        Here’s the oddity. Regarding the temperature with no non-condensing GHG situation, you are taking the word of a model that you would refuse to believe regarding the climate sensitivity because that model concludes the climate sensitivity to be 3°C per doubling …

        In other words, you are utilizing the results of a model depends sensitively on having a climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2 to argue that the sensitivity is NOT 3°C per doubling of CO2 … Ouroboros wept at the beauty of that one.

        Some links would be useful here. You’ve claimed that the 255K value without non-condensing GHGs is given in “paper after paper after paper”, so if you would provide links to say three of those papers we could understand the logic of your choice and the way that they’ve justified it.

        Finally, let me recommend once again Dr. Robert Browns excellent post entitled Earth’s baseline black-body model – “a damn hard problem”.

        In it he points out that even very simplified models of the earth are quite hard to analyze.

        My best to you and yours,

        w.

        • In response to Mr Eschenbach, the practice in Socratic elenchus, the most powerful method of reaching the truth when two viewpoints disagree, is to concede as much of the opponent’s argument as possible, for the sake of avoiding the distractions arising from petty disagreements.

          Therefore, our approach has been to adopt all of official climatology except what we can formally disprove. That approach compels most participants in the discussion to focus relentlessly on the main point, which is that such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof. Once that point – which is well established in control theory but has , as far as we can discover, hitherto entirely escaped the attention of climatology- is conceded, as it must be, then it follows that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be low.

          So to the distraction that Willis wishes to raise for the second time. On the first occasion he had unwisely assumed we had plucked the Earth’s emission temperature of 255 K out of the air. Now that he has discovered we had in fact taken some trouble to verify that it was a respectable value, he makes no apology for having rudely suggested we had simply guessed it. Instead, he asks for our evidence that the emission temperature is the temperature before allowing for the greenhouse effect.

          It appears, then, that he is not familiar with the fundamental equation of radiative transfer. Let us begin with some values. We shall take total solar irradiance as 1363.5 Watts per square meter; albedo as 0.3; and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as 0.000000056704.

          Then the emission temperature is [1363.5 x (1 – 0.7) / 4]^0.25, which is close to 255 K. Note that in this calculation there is no term for feedback and none for any greenhouse forcing either.

          If Mr Eschenbach wants evidence that this is the way the calculation is done, he can consult any textbook of atmospheric physics. Dr Salby’s textbook, for instance, is excellent. If that is too much for him, he may care to reread the reference he gave – Dr Brown’s excellent if a little overcooked account of why obtaining an exact value for emission temperature is difficult. In that piece, Dr Brown makes it explicit that the emission temperature is derived before taking any account of the greenhouse effect.

          Self-evidently, the calculation giving 255 K emission temperature does not depend, as Mr Eschenbach imagined it did, upon assuming any particular value for Charney sensitivity, since the calculation is manifestly antecedent to any such consideration.

          It is not quite as difficult as Dr Brown imagines it is to gain some idea of the emission temperature, for we can study data from other planetary bodies, notably the Moon. As previously noted, we calibrated our method by taking advantage of the Lunar Diviner data, and were able to replicate the curve of dayside surface temperatures precisely. The Earth is in some ways more complex: there is an ocean and an atmosphere, and some of the ocean is frozen. But the heat capacity of the ocean actually stabilizes everything, so that many of the difficulties imagined by Dr Brown are not quite as difficult as all that.

          One can bound the problem in various ways. For instance, one can assume an ice-planet with no atmosphere (temperature about 221.5 K). Or one can do as we did, and work out how much of the dayside would be open ocean and how much would be ice (it would be about two-thirds ice). One does not need to worry about the atmosphere at the outset, since the only radiatively-active content is water vapor, which is a feedback and not a forcing.

          Our conclusion is that emission temperature is probably about 10 K higher than the canonical 255 K, and that would give us a somewhat lower Charney sensitivity than the 1.15 K that is our midrange estimate. But, as explained upthread, we have thought it best simply to accept the 255 K value ad argumentum.

        • I might add that the definition of emission temperature is conventionally based on current albedo, so the following excerpt from Lacis et al. 2010 suggests further temperature feedback in the form of albedo change below the emission temperature.

          . Global cloud cover increases from its 58% control value to more than 75%, and the global sea ice fraction goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to also increase from ~29% to 41.8%. This has the effect of reducing the absorbed solar energy to further exacerbate the global cooling

          This is among the reasons why the basis of Lord Monckton’s theory—which is that climatology does not realize that feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature—is such a howler.

          (Of course, Lord Monckton would probably make some silly retort such as that this just shows Lacis et al. weren’t even following their own theory.)

          • In response to Mr Born, the emission temperature is the temperature before and not after feedbacks operate. Lacis’ paper is predicated on the assumption that one starts with today’s climate and then removes the noncondensing greenhouse gases, so that, in their model, the temperature rapidly drops towards the emission temperature (which, as best I can make it out, is about 243.3 K in their understanding).

            First-order calculations suggest that at the emission temperature two-thirds of the dayside would be ice-bound, giving a mean planetary albedo rather higher than today’s. But the same sensitivity-altering feedbacks as today’s would at once operate – the water-vapor feedback most notably. This feedback is not, as he suggests, regarded currently as a negative feedback but as a positive feedback.

            Perhaps Mr Born would like to provide some references to papers in the peer-reviewed journals that make it explicitly clear that feedback responds to the entire reference signal, and not merely to perturbations.

            The moment that fact is accepted, it is trivial to calculate the system-gain factor as it was in 1850. It is about 1.085, and not the 3.2 implicit in official climatology. As far as I can see from the literature, the reason why that calculation has not hitherto been done is that climatology generally does not realize that feedbacks must respond to the entire reference temperature they find.

            Certainly, the reviewers of our previous draft last year were astonished at this notion and said – without evidence, of course – that it must be nonsense.

        • We shall take total solar irradiance as 1363.5 Watts per square meter; albedo as 0.3; and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as 0.000000056704.

          Then the emission temperature is [1363.5 x (1 – 0.7) / 4]^0.25, which is close to 255 K. Note that in this calculation there is no term for feedback and none for any greenhouse forcing either.

          That calculation is in the absence of an atmosphere. (Not for the Earth since it has the wrong albedo, Venus perhaps)? Also you have omitted the S-B constant, if calculated correctly I make it 206 K. For Earth it is of course:
          [1363.5 x (1 – 0.3) / 4𝜎]^0.25
          Which is about 255 K (in the absence of an atmosphere).

          • In response to Phil., I am guilty of a misprint. The correct calculation is, of course, as he shows it, and it does give about 255 K emission temperature before accounting for feedback. Thank you for the correction. The matter is correctly stated in our paper.

    • In answer to “CO2-rich”, the values of reference and equilibrium temperature in 1850 are quite well constrained, so we know approximately what the system-gain factor is. In order to bring about a large enough change in the system-gain factor, one must alter these underlying quantities to a degree that has no plausible physical explanation. Our paper carefully considers all of the sensitivity-altering feedbacks, each in turn, and finds no reason to suppose that a strong nonlinearity exists.

      • LM, first of all, thanks for spotting the pun in my moniker. Perhaps others have too, but they have never commented. The other plays on words are that the poor end up owing the rich through the CAGW scare, and that look, y’all owe me (Rich) something for the wisdom of my comments! Sorry, boastfulness is a sin.

        However, to get back to the point, it is that there does not need to be strong nonlinearity in order for there to be a significant effect on your estimate of sensitivity. This is because, having decided that feedback applies to the whole absolute temperature, delta-A gets multiplied by that large number. In my previous comments I have supplied putative numbers which demonstrate that. You have avoided replying with numbers, and I perfectly understand why, which is that you are loathe to admit the magnitude of the effect, because then the CAGW argument is going to rest on the value of delta-A (A is your amplification factor). You may be able to find ways to estimate constraints on delta-A, but it is another task you need to do in order to pass peer review if the reviewer is someone like me.

        I am “on your side”, so I hope you can find good constraints.

  50. As I read their 2006 paper, Soden and Held’s primary source for the ‘observational data’ supporting their postulated water vapor feedback mechanism comes from the climate models, a.k.a. the general circulation models — not from direct observation of that mechanism as it operates within the earth’s actual climate system.

    If this is indeed where most of the data comes from — i.e., from the climate models, not from the climate system itself — the obvious questions arise as to the validity of that ‘observational evidence’ and its applicability to verifying the actual presence of the Soden-Held water vapor feedback mechanism in nature.

    When engineers want to predict the physical behavior of an amplification circuit design operating inside a larger electronic system, they have the option of building a prototype of the design in the laboratory to see if its actual behavior matches theoretical calculations.

    The benefit of this approach is that if they have a physical prototype in front of them, the engineers have easy access to the amplification circuitry itself; and just as important, they have easy access to the measurement and test equipment needed to observe and precisely quantify how a physical implementation of the proposed circuitry design actually behaves relative to theoretical predictions.

    That said, I ask this question. Shouldn’t it be possible to verify the existence of the Soden-Held water vapor feedback mechanism through observations made directly within the earth’s climate system as it physically exists in nature, using instrumentation systems and data collection systems designed specifically for that purpose?

    • I believe that has been done by people like Nick Lewis. The result seem to be ECSs in the range of 1-2, at the most.

      It is my understanding the UN IPCC climate modelers input H20 feedback assumptions. The lack of an observed tropical tropospheric hot spot invalidates these assumptions.

      • Mr Fair makes an excellent point: as John Christy has shown, all of the current models over-predict warming in the crucial tropical mid-troposphere, inferentially because they assume that the Clausius-Clapeyron near-exponential increase in specific humidity with atmospheric temperature will operate at that altitude, when in fact that increase occurs only near the surface, where the principal absorption bands of CO2 are substantially overlain by cloud cover and by water vapor. In the mid-troposphere, specific humidity has actually been falling, inferentially owing to subsidence drying. This physical reason reinforces the theoretical reason for suspecting an error that our paper provides.

  51. Not only does this climate scare deny the poorest of this planet the chance for a better life and puts their misery into concrete, but also the less well to do in rich countries will be severely hit. I have no problem believing that an Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Leonardo Di Caprio have no problem to afford a 70,000 EURO Tesla but how will average Joe do this? How can one afford a car that’s suddenly at least double if not more the price he usually paid? How will someone keep heating an apartment when energy is multiples the price? People die every winter because they cannot turn on the heating. Those death are on the global warming fanatics. The majority of the population cannot afford this lifestyle but if at least there would be good reason for all this madness, we would still understand. But there ain’t. We get more and more evidence that all this is one giant fraud that makes us miserable and kills a great many. It’s not only fraud they should be in the docket for, its murder.

  52. Something doesn’t make sense. The reference temperature is 255K + 10K reference sensitivity = 265K. If the equilibrium temperature in 1850 is 287.55K then the feedback response = equilibrium temperature – reference temperature before feedback = 287.55 – 265 = 22.55K. Then the feedback fraction is (feedback response)/(equilibrium temperature) = 22.55/287.55 = 0.0784211441488437‬. The system gain factor = (equilibrium temperature)/(reference temperature) = 287.55/265 = 1.085094339622642‬.

  53. Good luck me lord. However, even if you succeed, I doubt many in the teaching profession will take heed. I wasn’t aware until now that you were responsible for the removal of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ from the classroom. I was shocked a few years ago when a geography teacher friend of mine told me that ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ has replaced it.

Comments are closed.