If Sir David King is scared about global warming, we needn’t worry

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Sociologists have invented one or two useful concepts. One is the “negative reference group” – a nonempty set of people to whose advice anyone with half a brain will listen most carefully because one can be sure it is right to do the diametric opposite.

Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, is Britain’s negative reference group on climate change. The unspeakable BBC, in its daily “let’s foment climate panic to shut down the West” slot, reported Monday that Sir David had said it was “appropriate to be scared about climate change”, had demanded that Britain should commit economic hara-kiri by forswearing all sins of emission by 2040 rather than the present target date of 2050, had blamed Hurricane Dorian on those sins, and had told us Nanny knows best: global warming is worserer than what the mere public ever thunk.

Britain’s bedwetter-in-chief wrote in the children’s comic Science in 2004: “In my view, climate change is the most serious problem that we are facing today – more serious even than the threat of terrorism.”

So serious, in fact, that a few years ago, when the unelected Kommissars who reign over the European tyranny-by-clerk commissioned research intended to show that global warming kills, the results showed precisely the opposite. Even if there were as much as 5.4 K global warming in the next 60 years, by 2080 (and there won’t be), there would be 94,000 more Europeans than if there were no warming at all. And what is more, the warmer it gets the more lives will be saved. Cold weather kills more people than hot weather.


Fig. 1. Net European lives saved at four predicted rates of global warming by 2100 (EU Commission).

Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation wrote last year: “Cold-related deaths account for 20 times more deaths in the UK (61 per 100,000 per year) than heat-related mortality (3 per 100,000 per year). It is expected that the 2018 heatwave may cause 1,000 extra deaths, yet every winter there are between 20,000 and 30,000 excess deaths in the UK. With warmer winter temperatures that number will fall.”

Sir David, unaware of these mere facts, blethered on: “We predicted temperatures would rise, but we didn’t foresee these sorts of extreme events we’re getting so soon.” Let us fact-check that.

First, we shall establish to what extent all the hot air about global warming has made us repent of our sins of emission and thus reduce annual CO2 emissions even a little bit below the business-as-usual Scenario A in IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990.


Fig. 2. Four emissions scenarios (IPCC 1990, p. xxxiv). By 2017 global emissions (le Quéré et al. 2018) exceeded the business-as-usual prediction.

The answer is No. For all the screaming zombie schoolchildren propagandized by their teachers, for all the lavish, high-carbon-footprint international gabfests, for all the birds and bats sacrificed to windmills (14th-century technology to solve a 21st-century non-problem: Fig. 3) or fried by solar collectors (Solyndra fried chicken), emissions remain above IPCC’s business-as-usual prediction.


Fig. 3. The simple arithmetic that reveals how windmills’ fast-moving blade-tips kill birds.

In that case, surely global warming is above the original business-as-usual prediction? Erm, no:


Fig. 4. Observed warming in response to the estimated 2.3 W m–2 net anthropogenic forcing from 1850-2011 (lower scale: IPCC 2013, fig. SPM.5) scaled to the 3.45 W m–2 forcing for doubled CO2 in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5: upper scale: Andrews et al. 2012). CMIP5 midrange Charney sensitivity 3.35 K (red cursor) implies 2.4 K transient warming from 1850-2011, thrice the observed 0.75 K (HadCRUT4: green cursor) and 2.4 times the 1 K period equilibrium warming to be expected based on the 2.3 W m–2 net forcing and on the 0.6 W m–2 radiative imbalance to 2011 (Smith et al. 2015: orange cursor). Revised Charney sensitivity (M of B et al. 2019: pale green) matches observation and expectation.

Fig. 4, on its own, ought to have given the hapless King pause for thought. As Pat Frank has recently demonstrated in a paper reviewed by two of the world’s most eminent climate scientists, the models are incapable of telling us anything at all about how much global warming we may cause. The uncertainties, such as in how clouds will behave, make them valueless as predictors.

There has been a lot of screeching from the usual suspects about Pat’s paper from the “consensus”, which appears to imagine that the large uncertainties in the models must broadly self-cancel over time. In that event, why – 30 years after the models’ original prediction, which is still their prediction today – was that prediction so much greater than what has been observed?

Still more to the point, why was that prediction so much greater than what the “consensus’” own estimates of net anthropogenic radiative forcing and net radiative imbalance would lead them to expect?

Sir David went on to say he was worried about the loss of ice on land and sea. But are those losses really worserer than we ever thunk? The answer, of course, is No. At the United Nations’ climate conference in Bali in 2007, I listened to Al Gore tell us all the sea ice in the Arctic would be gone by the late summer of 2013. Yet here we are in the late summer of 2019 and the ice is still there.

Would it matter if all the sea ice in the Arctic melted for as much as three months every summer? No, it wouldn’t. The ice-albedo feedback would be negligible. A little math will help Sir David.

Earth’s surface area is 511 million km2. Minimum Arctic sea ice area is 4 million km2, or 0.8% of the Earth’s surface. Ice albedo is 0.66 (Pierrehumbert 2011). Assuming ocean-water albedo of 0.06 if all the Arctic ice were to melt for the late-summer quarter, global mean albedo, now 0.3, would become 0.3 – 0.008(0.66 – 0.06), or 0.295. However, high-Arctic insolation is only one-quarter of mean terrestrial insolation, requiring division by 4; summer ice loss endures for at most 3 months, or half the Arctic daylight period, requiring division by 2; and the Arctic has 75% cloud cover, requiring a further division by 4. Thus, Eq. (E1) gives the revised global mean present-day albedo α2 assuming total Arctic ice-melt in the late-summer quarter, which proves to be vanishingly different from today’s albedo. For total solar irradiance S = 1363.5 W m–2 and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ, the difference ΔR0 in current emission temperature (Eq. E2), and thus in surface temperature ΔT0 given the near-linear lapse rate, is as follows –


This first-order analysis indicates that, even if the entire Arctic icecap were to melt for three months every summer, very little change in surface albedo feedback would arise. Therefore, even if that feedback were nonlinear, it is and, in foreseeable modern conditions, must remain too small to be significant. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of two recent evaluations of snow-cover feedbacks in current climate models: Rosenblum & Eisenman (2017) and Connolly et al. (2019). So the polar bears – so menaced with extinction that there are seven times as many of them today as there were 80 years ago – will do just fine.

And what about the land ice? Sir David is scared about that, too. But, again, the position is a lot less serious than we had originally been told. In 2007 IPCC, based on a single report by an activist journalist, said that all the ice in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035. Yet, according to Professor M.I. Bhat of the Indian Geological Survey, the pattern of advance and recession of glaciers is much as it has been in the 200 years since the British Raj first began keeping records.


Fig. 5. Ice-cream cone: the snows of Kilimanjaro.

Al Gore, in his mawkish sci-fi comedy horror movie, said much of the Fürtwängler glacier on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro had vanished because of global warming. The true cause, however, turned out to be drying of the air in the region attributable to imprudent postcolonial deforestation. Moral: bring back the British Empire.

Sir David was the genius who advised the British Socialist government of Tony Bliar that he should cut the fuel tax on diesel because diesel-burning engines emit less of the satanic gas than gasoline-burners. Bliar did as he was told, for your average Socialist politician knows little or no science and is instinctually deferential to anyone with pebble spectacles, a nicotine-stained beard and a chemical-stained lab-coat with leaky Biros sticking out of the breast pocket.

However, the diesel combustion cycle, as any competent physical chemist could have told the inept King (who presumably got his professorship in that subject by collecting enough box-tops), is prone to emit far more particulate pollution per hundred million passenger kilometers traveled than gasoline. HM Government had to reverse his insane policy some years back. Yet it was only in April this year that King admitted he had been wrong.

He is also wrong about global warming, but don’t hold your breath for an admission anytime soon. Sir David is supporting a court case to compel ministers to destroy the British economy completely by 2050 – not that the classe politique in Britain needs any instruction from the courts in how to do that.

Finally, King opined that by the time we know whether Hurricane Dorian (which he attributes to global warming) and other natural disasters are conclusively attributable to the “climate emergency”, it may be too late. Yes, indeed: we shall find out, to our horror, just as the Kommissars did, that far fewer people will die climate-related deaths as the planet gently warms:


Fig. 6. Climate-related deaths have fallen for a century (OFDA/CRED international disaster database, www.emdat.be, averaged over 1920-29, 1930-39, …, 2010-2017: graph by Bjørn Lomborg).

The financial cost of extreme weather is also falling:


Fig. 7. Worldwide weather-related losses as % global GDP (Pielke Jr., 30 July 2018).

And why do so-called “scientists” like the over-politicized King never tell us the advantages of having more CO2 in the air? Here, for instance, is Craig Idso’s list of what would happen to the yield of dozens of staple crops if we were able to double the atmospheric concentration of the satanic gas:


Fig. 8. Increases in crop yield in response to doubled CO2 (Dr Craig Idso).

A modest proposal: scientists should be subjected to the same law as the rest of us. If they profiteer by telling us an exaggerated version of only one side of the story, lock them up for fraud.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 17, 2019 10:33 pm

I noticed tat when King was being interviewed on the BBC, we also had some woman on who said the Arctic was on fire! There is no limit to the BBC propaganda.

Hal Wyman
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 18, 2019 2:44 am

“It’s black and white they say. It’s never black and white.”

Reply to  Hal Wyman
September 19, 2019 6:16 am


Good people of the United Kingdom, just listen to your Uncle Allan, who has never steered you wrong, and has your best interests at heart.

More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 – an Excess Winter Death rate more than 2.5 times the per-capita average rate of the USA, and 2.5 to 5 times the per capita winter death rate in Canada.

That is about 35,000 more people who died in just that winter, who would be alive today if the UK had sensible energy and climate policies, instead of hysterical “global warming” alarmist nonsense. Grandpa Bob and Great-Aunt Nan could be enjoying a pint down-the-pub, instead of pushing up daisies. It is a national scandal, a national disgrace.

This catastrophic situation is due in part to destructive, utterly imbecilic energy policies of the UK, which have caused energy costs in the UK to be many times that of Canada and the USA. The UK should “Get fracking”, and allow no more fracking delays by homicidal climate fanatics!

I predicted this debacle in 2013 and earlier, for example in an open letter to The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Baroness Verma, here:

I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.

Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
“Turning and tuning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer…” Yeats
[end of excerpt]

Dammit I’m tired of being correct and having these climate ‘scoundrels and imbeciles’ carry on with their murderous policies, killing literally millions every year. I’ve concluded that nobody could be this stupid for this long, and therefore their actions must be deliberately destructive.

Regards, Allan


In Winter 2017-18, 35,000 MORE Excess Winter Deaths occurred in England and Wales than the average rate in the USA – the UK government is killing off their elderly and poor with their destructive green energy policies.

Joe d’Aleo and I co-authored the following paper on Excess Winter Mortality in 2015. The title states the reality that cold weather kills much more than warm weather.

by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

Excess Winter Mortality is the number of deaths that occur in the four winter months (December through March in the NH) minus the number of deaths that occur in equivalent non-winter periods.

About 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths occur annually in the USA, equivalent to about two-9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year.

Colder Canada typically experiences about 5000 to 10,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.

More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in England and Wales last winter (2017-2018) – an Excess Winter Death rate more than 2.5 times the per-capita average rate of the USA, and 2.5 to 5 times the per capita rate in Canada.

Even in warm climates like Thailand and Brazil, there is a significant Excess Winter Death rate, but it is typically lower than in colder countries.

The data suggests that Earth is significantly colder-than-optimum for human longevity. Other factors, such as energy pricing and the quality of housing insulation and heating systems are also important to reduce winter mortality.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 18, 2019 3:05 am

Yes. That one had me roling in laughter in front of the telly. But she didn’t say if it was Omelette Siberienne or Sambuco.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 18, 2019 7:30 am

I heard them reporting that Greenland was on fire. Must have been the methane in all the melting ice that somehow caught a spark..

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 18, 2019 11:57 am

Just tell her to go up there for a week and see how hot she is when she returns.

Roger Knights
September 17, 2019 11:22 pm

“I listened to Al Gore tell us all the sea ice in the Arctic would be gone by the late summer of 2013.”

IIRC, in other statements Gore was more cautious, saying “all but 1 million square kilometers” could (not would) be gone, and that he personally wasn’t predicting it, but that some scientists (likely Hansen, his chief advisor) were.

I’d be delighted, of course, to be proved wrong. I hope some readers have the links at their fingertips.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 18, 2019 3:12 am

The sea ice was at a secundary minimum this year but the NW passage never opened if I’m not mistaken.

Incidently, mod, the problem of the sea-ice page not updating appears to have returhed.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 18, 2019 9:36 am

Peter Wadhams seems to be the person responsible for changing the concept of “ice free” to “all but 1 million square kilometers”. {search on Peter’s name for articles and such that use his ideas}

This has been spoofed as “1 Wadhams” — a measure of ice extent.
Even so, ice on the Arctic Ocean is not cooperating. Currently at near minimum for 2019, it is still in excess of 4M sq. km.

[Note: the WUWT Sea Ice Page shows a place-holder image. One must click on that to bring up the current graph.]

Matthew Sykes
September 17, 2019 11:27 pm

Their level of alarmism has reached such ludicrous proportions I think they might actually be exposing themselves as fools.

September 17, 2019 11:29 pm

Anthony would be interested to read this, about how weathermen are educating the public about climate change and extreme weather – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/tv-weathercasters-shift-public-opinion-climate-crisis

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
September 18, 2019 1:17 am

You only have to listen to the UKMO to realise AND it’s working. The average, lazy, poorly educated brit falls for their crap every time

Gerry, England
Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 18, 2019 6:11 am

Sadly many here have a deference to institutions that were once worthy of respect but are no longer: BBC, MetOffice, Royal Society et al. Thus they believe what they say as they can’t conceive that they are in fact lying.

September 17, 2019 11:32 pm

There is nothing more entertaining, informing and rewarding than an article by Lord Monkton thrashing into the hapless Climate Change Stooges.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 18, 2019 12:41 am


James Clarke
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 18, 2019 8:14 am


Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 18, 2019 10:53 am


September 17, 2019 11:51 pm

It seems to the attempts to ‘panic the heard ‘ are failing , so it classic style they are going to double down and scream louder that the ‘sky is falling ‘ . Without of course considering why this approach keeps failing in the first place for like anyone of ‘pure dogma ‘ they are incapable of believing they can be wrong.
In other words all they got is a bucket of sh*t to sell , and they think their inability to sell it, is is because its not a big enough bucket not that is a bucket of sh*t in the first place.

Reply to  knr
September 18, 2019 12:04 am

The herd heard the reeeeeeeeeee and ignored it.

Reply to  knr
September 18, 2019 9:51 am

You mean “panic the herd.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Roy
September 18, 2019 4:20 pm

KNR’s comments are always full of typos, I don’t bother reading them any more, if he/she/it can’t be bothered to proofread before clicking send.

Doc Chuck
September 17, 2019 11:55 pm

M’lud, Your command of the tongue from Latin to down-home Appalachian leaves your snooty opposition all the worserer than they thunk. Carry on sir!

Chris Hanley
September 17, 2019 11:59 pm

‘…Sir David had said it was “appropriate to be scared about climate change”, had demanded that Britain should commit economic hara-kiri …’.
Even assuming their good faith, don’t people like Sir David King (age 80) and Sir Attenborough (age 93) worry about their legacy, how they will be judged by history?
That concern alone would suggest that an ex-chief scientist ought to be at least cautious given the emerging and inescapable inconsistencies between models and observations (despite the constant + adjustments).

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 9:26 am

Last time I looked the observations were in harmony with the modeling and running a tad warmer than mean of all medel simulations.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 1:38 pm

You ought to be better informed, I suggest you have another look, things have changed since 2000:

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 2:10 pm

Why would you use a graph that has been thoroughly rebutted) for being garbage in and garbage out that has never been through the scientific peer-review process and cherry-picks the data to suit conclusions?http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

We live on the surface of the planet and not in the troposphere. You need a science class or two very urgently before commenting on what you viously know nothing about. Here is a more current comparison on the surface of the planet:
comment image

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 3:36 pm

2005 is more recent than 2017? Better check your data, it needs to be adjusted.

Reply to  AZeeman
September 18, 2019 4:12 pm

The data are current perhaps you are not familiar with how dates are presented in science.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 4:04 pm

Your graph is from tampered and UHI effect combined land sand sea surface data that is so wrong that it is worthless. Only satellite data calibrated by radiosonde balloon sampling is trustworthy. Please stop posting your fake graphs on this site. Troposphere data from satellites covers the near surface temperatures because the lapse rate doesn’t change from warming. The whole CO2 causes warming meme is a farce from beginning to end.

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 5:10 pm

I wouldn’t say the graphs have been thoroughly rebutted although it is a convincing criticism. In the graphs at the end with everything fixed up the basic informational claim of Christie’s graphs still appears to be valid.

The satellite data, even with uncertainty made more clear, fell outside the 95% certainty range of model projections. It looks like they’re back or close to the very bottom of the 95% spread now. I don’t know if the surface temperature measurement also fell out of the 95% spread but obviously it was close in any case.

This certainly is a major deal. It’s more than reasonable to have serious doubts about the 2100 projections from these models when they failed or nearly failed almost from the start. A warmer spike of a couple years and we’re acting like the ~20 year pause never happened? It could be that things are ‘back to normal’ but assuming that’s obviously what has happened doesn’t follow. It seems clear to me that things are still up for debate – as they should be.

Reply to  Robbie
September 18, 2019 5:24 pm

What your feelings are about rebuttal are immaterial. Let us know when the incorrect fossil fuel shill infomercial has been submitted to peer-review publication for scrutiny by Christy’s peers. He has ample opportunity to fix the errors he has made and in private whines that he cannot publish because the garbage is rejected. How do cherry-picked NH balloon sonde data represent global. You must be living under a rock if you don’t know the long history of his poor satellite data analyses and the multiples of errors and corrections needed to repair his work.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 6:54 pm

If I need a science class I won’t be attending one of yours — perfessor.
According to the models the mid-troposphere over the Equator is where any enhanced GHG warming should be observable and the Christy graph shows it is not happening in accordance with those models:
Modelled zonally averaged, equilibrated temperature change with altitude associated with doubling atmospheric CO2 (Lee et al. 2007 + climate4you).

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 7:12 pm

Christy’s graph does no such thing because of the plethora of basic errors that are well noted and you can read up in a previous link and educate yourself. The hot spot was detected decades ago and it occurs irrespective of what causes the planet to warm as it’s a change in lapse rate. It is observed and detected by weather balloons. Which would occur under any cause of warming BTW. It’s due to the LH release of condensation aloft from enhanced tropical convection. Not there? – Mythic: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 9:13 pm

The ‘hot spot’ would occur due to any cause of warming if it occurred at all, your link doesn’t work.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Link works fine for me and others. There is enough in the link to Google the source.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 11:09 pm
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 11:16 pm

Your search for “http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta” returned 0 results
Your search for “http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta” had no matches. Please check spelling, or try searching for keywords, author name etc.

Reply to  Rob
September 19, 2019 5:09 am

Hi Rob, I’m not looking at Christie’s graph, I’m looking at the fixed graphs in the rebuttal. With smoothing they show satellite data as almost definitely below the 95% confidence range. Clearly Christie’s tweaks are something to criticize but actually have a minor effect on the basic data. It appears to be a clear symptom of how emotional the debate has become that the Real Climate author as well as yourself can basically say “because there are questionable graphing choices by Christie, the satellite temperature data even as we represent it going below the 95% confidence threshold has no significance”.

You said the temperature observation is above the modelling mean. That looks to be true for the most recent surface data based on the WattsUpWithThat link but it is scientifically inaccurate to read it that way. There is just what may be a temporary spike into the middle of the model predictions. The averaged, or smoothed, temperature trends will still show the trend as well below the models average for a while even if the spiked temperature into the average is a new normal.

I don’t know what to make of the temperature spike not showing in the satellite data but the surface data would still show the models as mostly running hot.

Reply to  Robbie
September 19, 2019 6:16 am

Thank you for your response. What you consider does not rescue the basic work from the garbage in – garbage out mistakes. I suggest you read up on all the known errors and slight of hand here:


Paul Penrose
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 18, 2019 9:45 am

According to Mosher we should just ignore old guys like Kinng and Attenborough because they just can’t understand the new hip science like the young people can. Like my children used to tell me, “Everything is different today daaaaaad!” Yet somehow they couldn’t point out anything fundamentally different about human nature, mathematics, engineering, or logic.

September 18, 2019 12:02 am

Lord Monkton missed the insulative effect of artic ice. Heat loss from open water is much higher, leading to more ice as it refreezes. And, my dear Chris, partial pressure of CO2 is negligible so Nicolov and Zeller does apply.

Alexander Feht
September 18, 2019 2:50 am

Always a pleasure to read Christopher Monckton’s articles.
His sense of humor goes side by side with his common sense.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Alexander Feht
September 18, 2019 3:42 am

British humor is realy s.th. special and much appteciated.

September 18, 2019 2:54 am

aww great…not,
either Ive missed this on the abc reports?
or I have it to NOT look forward to when R williams the aussie abc climate controller and full on warmist to the pschycopathic stage, slobbers all over jis bestie “sir” mate king
syncophantic smarm to the nth degree always when hes got this dude on air
makes you wanna upchuck.

Krishna Gans
September 18, 2019 3:04 am

OT here..
Lord Monkton, are there any news about the possible lawsuits in concern of Nature Communications ?

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 18, 2019 7:05 am

Sorry for the missing “c”

Patrick MJD
September 18, 2019 4:35 am

There are some people in Aus who still believe Thatcher wrote and made her speech to the UN in the 90’s. She ( didn’t write it (Monkton knows) and she gave it in 1989.

It’s like people believe the UK joined the EU in 1972. The EU didn’t exist then (No it was the Common Market, and the UK “joined” thanks to Heath in 1973, effective Jan 1st 1974).

Gary Mount
September 18, 2019 4:41 am

Total solar irradiance S = 1363.5 W m–2 is the average over a year and varies from a low of 1352.1 to a high of 1374.9 W m^-2 (+/ – 11.4 W m^-2) due to the earths non circular orbit. I don’t know what the range is for the time of year in this essay, nor do I know how much difference it makes to the calculations.

Reply to  Gary Mount
September 18, 2019 9:04 am

A few years ago, NASA changed the TSI calibration.
Now the yearly range of TSI is 1310 to 1415 watts per square meter. About 7 percent of the average 1361.
Current NASA plots show a range of 1360 to 1362 for the annual average over the last two solar cycles. Ie. about 1361 plus or minus one watt per square meter.

September 18, 2019 5:25 am

You ain’t seen nothing!
All over France-info on air and the Meteo.fr web site is the ludicrous idea the earth is now gonna warm by 7C by 2100. (YESTERDAY no less).



Next came the screaming and crying that Paris hasn’t any rain for quite a few weeks….
(It has a river running thru the middle of it which is badly maintained and often shows nasty signs of flooding at the opposite end of the year….)
Next of course came the predictable idea from the “cours de comptes” that they are going to reinstate the hated carbon tax system which started the “gilets jaunes” in the first place…with “compensation for poor rural families” whatever that is supposed to mean…

Having just had an eye opening grape picking session – rip off merchant viticulteurs who made 3500EURO in a bare week ripping their 30 workers off for mega overpriced food, I start to wonder where the definition of “rural poor” starts and rip off “lets scam the government yet again” true to true socialism starts….

The whole system is such a pile of total fuming excrement, I wonder when the executions start and the hanging of bankers & greenies from lamp posts will begin?

4 Eyes
September 18, 2019 5:27 am

“Climate change is the most serious threat we are facing today” he said. Wrong. The most serious threat we face today is people whose egos and credibility and financial well being are so tied up in AGW that they will never address a single fact that negates their hypothesis.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  4 Eyes
September 18, 2019 1:11 pm

====> 4 Eyes. No, the most serious threat we face today is vaping.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
September 18, 2019 4:23 pm

I thought it was the use of non-gender-neutral pronouns.

michael hart
September 18, 2019 5:55 am

“Bliar did as he was told, for your average Socialist politician knows little or no science and is instinctually deferential to anyone with pebble spectacles, a nicotine-stained beard and a chemical-stained lab-coat with leaky Biros sticking out of the breast pocket.”

Hey, the people with the stained lab coats are actually the ones doing the work in real science.

I’ve never yet found a photo of Michael Mann wearing any lab coat at all, much less one of the virginal-white ones put on when the photographers come round.

Alan Tomlin
Reply to  michael hart
September 18, 2019 7:48 am

But there is the 2017 Dilbert cartoon that one might construe to represent him in a lab coat……..

September 18, 2019 6:29 am

“However, high-Arctic insolation is only one-quarter of mean terrestrial insolation, requiring division by 4; summer ice loss endures for at most 3 months, or half the Arctic daylight period, requiring division by 2; and the Arctic has 75% cloud cover, requiring a further division by 4.”
That is an overstatement, because:
High-arctic insolation (before clouds) is about half the global insolation according to a graphic in the Wikipedia article on solar irradiance,
Ice coverage is decreased for more than three months,
And 75% cloud cover in the Arctic would make the Arctic a lot more than 25% as cloud-free as the world as a whole is.

September 18, 2019 6:43 am

Regarding “Minimum Arctic sea ice area is 4 million km2, or 0.8% of the Earth’s surface.”:
If one is to calculate the effect of the Arctic having no sea ice for three months, then one would not use the average annual minimum figure of recent years or recent decades, but the figure for the least icy three months which is significantly more.

September 18, 2019 7:42 am

Figure 8.1 is unpublished fiction. Typical Monckton nonsense. How is that cure for AIDS coming along?

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 9:09 am

Plant physiologists have been growing plants in CO2 controlled plots for many decades.
All plants show increased growth at higher CO2 levels, with C3 plants more than C4.


Reply to  bwegher
September 18, 2019 9:41 am

Increased growth is meaningless. The current elevated CO₂ levels are causing more stress than benefit as it is causing less protein to develop and the stromata to open less thereby impacting the N content in leaves as less water flows to lift sap into the vascular xylem. CO₂ without the other biogeochemical, photo and temperature autotrophic drivers and the right plant types i.e. C₃, has zero effect.

Stanford experiment: The mean net plant growth for all treatment combinations with elevated CO₂ was about 4.9 tons per acre — compared to roughly 5.5 tons per acre for all treatment combinations in which CO₂ levels were kept normal. Results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation — alone or in combination — promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO₂ consistently dampened those increases. http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

Steve the Revelator
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 12:21 pm

LOL, “dampened the INCREASES”…

They concluded that all of the requisite expected effects of warming (increased precip, nitrogen, and temp.) increased plant growth with max of 84% increase, while increased levels of CO2 “dampened” this to 40%.

Oh no! The increases aren’t enough for our liking, ring the alarm!!!


“In general the effects of global change factors tended to combine in an additive way, but there were many surprises. Warming increased evaporation and water loss from plants, but plants also grew faster, flowered earlier, and died sooner than in unwarmed plots. This left untapped moisture in the soil of warmed plots at the end of the growing season, so in summer the soil was wetter than in ambient plots, despite warming-driven evaporation. Elevated CO2 increased growth of yellow star-thistle but had little effect on grassland production overall, except in the years immediately following each of the fires. There were post-fire gains in carbon uptake, but they were matched by greater CO2 release from the soil, so net carbon storage did not increase.”

So, essentially a giant nothing-burger leaning to the side of additive. Got it…

Matt G
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 12:52 pm

The current elevated CO₂ levels are causing more stress than benefit as it is causing less protein to develop and the stromata to open less thereby impacting the N content in leaves as less water flows to lift sap into the vascular xylem.

‘High carbon dioxide levels “can” retard plant growth, study reveals’

Protein development is dependant on nutrients in the soil so if these are not replenished further growth has less advantage.

The study is flawed because further growth requires more plant food to feed its growth so is obviously misleading.

Increased growth is meaningless when it feeds more of the population? Farmers give them plant feed to take advantage of this due to more mineral intake it requires. Many have crops in greenhouses with CO2 levels around 1200ppm.

Greening of the planet is meaningless when nature disagrees.

Generally crops less rely on water and nutrients when CO2 levels are higher for growth, but can lack protein if nutrients aren’t replaced.

Reply to  Matt G
September 18, 2019 1:25 pm

Generally crops less rely on water and nutrients when CO2 levels are higher for growth

Junk science as three water molecules are required for every CO₂ molecule. More growth with same protein content is a negative production as more is required as feed to obtain equivalency. You will have to stop shilling for the CO₂ is good for the planet nonsense.

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 2:44 pm

Stress 😉

Matt G
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 2:53 pm

Junk science as three water molecules are required for every CO₂ molecule. More growth with same protein content is a negative production as more is required as feed to obtain equivalency. You will have to stop shilling for the CO₂ is good for the planet nonsense.

Not really as I know and many others that CO2 is essential for life on the planet and more is not a bad thing at realistic levels as it increases biomass. If it was ever required to make up for a little less protein, the person only needs to eat a bit more and there are many other alternatives to increase protein content in the diet.

More growth with same protein content makes little difference especially when farmers add more nutrients to the soil to help prevent this from happening. Naturally protein makes humans feel full after too much so they will just eat a little more to feel satisfied.

The amount of water is far in excess to the available amount of CO2, so watering a plant once a day for example gives 100,000ppm to 415ppm.

Compared for example half as much water 50,000ppm compared to 830ppm.

Reduced water still increases the rate of growth in plants with higher CO2 levels, so the ratio of 3 to 1 is irrelevant.

Reply to  Matt G
September 18, 2019 4:07 pm

Your thumb-suck science is pure garbage. I suggest you start reading up on biology and physiology and free soil moisture content. Published science disagrees with your nonsense, for example “Increasing CO₂ threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature, May 7, 2014, DOI: 10.1038/nature13179 or https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(89)90052-1 or “No cumulative effect of 10 years of elevated CO₂ on perennial plant biomass components in the Mojave Desert”, by Newingham, et al.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
September 19, 2019 11:17 am

“Although many microalgae, both marine and freshwater, posses “C3 biochemistry”, they nonetheless have physiological characteristics resembling those of C4 higher plants.”

Plants still show some increase biomass with higher levels of CO2 resembling C4 plants, but not as good as C3 plants.

In P. maximum the cumulative dry biomass production in two cuttings showed an increase of 59.24% and 43.17% in open top chambers (OTC) with elevated CO2 (600±50 ppm) (C600) and without elevated CO2 (COTC) respectively over the open field grown corps (Ca). In S. hamata the dry matter increased by 39.79% under C600 and 31.02% in COTC over Ca.


“Because of the economical relevance of sugarcane and its high potential as a source of biofuel, it is important to understand how this crop will respond to the foreseen increase in atmospheric [CO(2)]. The effects of increased [CO(2)] on photosynthesis, development and carbohydrate metabolism were studied in sugarcane (Saccharum ssp.). Plants were grown at ambient (approximately 370 ppm) and elevated (approximately 720 ppm) [CO(2)] during 50 weeks in open-top chambers. The plants grown under elevated CO(2) showed, at the end of such period, an increase of about 30% in photosynthesis and 17% in height, and accumulated 40% more biomass in comparison with the plants grown at ambient [CO(2)]. These plants also had lower stomatal conductance and transpiration rates (-37 and -32%, respectively), and higher water-use efficiency (c.a. 62%).”


“The majority of the experimental evidence indicates that
the growth of C3 plants is stimulated by CO2 enrichment
(Bowes, 1993). However, the results of these experiments
indicate that there is a large variability in response among
species. Growth of C4 plants can also be enhanced by
elevated atmospheric CO2, but the magnitude of response is
generally less than that observed with C3 species. In a
compilation of literature sources, Poorter (1993) reported
a mean stimulation of 37% in the growth of 156 species
with a doubling of the ambient CO2 concentration. The
growth enhancement was larger for C3 species (41%) than
for C4 plants (22%), with CAM species being even less
stimulated in growth (15%).”


Many papers have had results with increased biomass between C3 and C4 plants, but vary and reduced water conditions favour more growth in higher CO2 levels.

An increase in [CO2] reduces the amount of water needed to produce an equivalent amount of biomass. This improvement in water use efficiency (WUE) is due to a closing of the stomata to regulate the flux of [CO2] molecules and affects both C3- and C4-plants alike. More or less as a byproduct, these more narrow stomata restrict the amount of H2O molecules that are transpired by the plant (Steffen and Canadell, 2005; Lambers et al., 2008).

Reply to  Matt G
September 19, 2019 1:51 pm

Bookmarked for information on plant growth improvement as CO2 increases. Thank you.

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 5:09 pm

Rob once again demonstrates that he is an expert on how to lie with statistics.

In a small fraction of experiments, “scientists” were able to grow crops that had a lower concentration of some proteins under enhanced CO2 conditions.

1) Total proteins were increased as the increase in mass more than made up for the decrease in proteins.
2) Most of the protein “loss” was in stems and leaves, not the seeds.

Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 5:15 pm

Acquiesce and move on – your knowledge on the topic is non-existent. Peruse the published research papers and once you have absorbed what has been found, return and hold a sensible conversation. Your prejudiced feelings are not how science is done. Don’t bother to reply as I will not be wasting more time on scientifically illiterate people.

Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 7:56 pm

Wow, for someone who has categorically gotten everything wrong, you sure do think highly of yourself.
Let me guess, you are going to graduate from 5th grade soon.

Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 8:06 pm

Shadow boxing with straw men again?

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2019 7:25 am

I see you are still unable to deal with reality.
BTW, I thought you said you weren’t going to respond to me anymore.
I guess you were lying about that as well.

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 8:41 pm

So what’s a normal C02 level? So you are saying before man C02 levels where always normal?

Reply to  nc
September 18, 2019 8:51 pm

Extant life evolved and adapted under the extreme but steady range of 175 – 300 ppmV going back at least 3.5 million years. The changes due to axial orbital wobbles amplified by a lagging CO₂.

Arjan Duiker
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 9:40 am

You only question figure 8. What about the other figures? Nonsense as well? Don’t think so.

Reply to  Arjan Duiker
September 18, 2019 9:47 am

Garbage in – garbage out. Besides the Figure 8 nonsense most of the article is prejudiced feelings with no scientific evidence. For example more people die in the heat waves than cold but Monckton just excludes the subtropics and tropics in his cherry picking of data.

Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 10:22 am

The tropics wil not warm up much. Read up on polar amplification. Of takes a lot of energy to warm moist hot air. Not so much for cold air.

Reply to  Jeroen
September 18, 2019 3:56 pm

Not true – heat waves have been going over 50℃ with hundreds of thousands dying or moving north. Where are Monckton’s data on this? Hidden in his AIDS cure?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeroen
September 18, 2019 4:39 pm

“Not true – heat waves have been going over 50℃ with hundreds of thousands dying or moving north. Where are Monckton’s data on this? Hidden in his AIDS cure?”

I’m sure you just forgot to put a link so we can verify.

So I did a search on “heatwaves over 50c”. Several showing a heatwave in India reaching 50c. That’s it. “dozens” have died (17 to be precise).

Surely you have a link to the “hundreds of thousands dying”.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 18, 2019 5:04 pm

If your research was as thorough as you imply, you should be turning up different results. Have any links from a scientist or scientifically literate person who knows what they’re doing? If you had read the papers you would not be so sanguine or nescient as both conclude that the findings were not what Monckton and you assert who have the burden of proof. How did you miss that? Or do you just cherry-pick the bits you think supported your prejudiced feelings?

Heat is one of climate change’s deadliest manifestations. Sometimes its impact is unmistakable—a heatwave in Europe in 2003 is estimated to have claimed 70,000 lives. More often, though, heatwaves are treated as the two in the Netherlands in 2018. In just over three weeks, around 300 more people died than would normally be expected at that time of year. This was dismissed as a “minor rise” by officials. But had those people died in a flood, it would have been front-page news.

The havoc caused by extreme heat does not get the attention it merits for several reasons. The deaths tend to be more widely dispersed and do not involve the devastation of property as do the ravages of wind and water. Moreover, deaths are not usually directly attributable to heatstroke. Soaring temperatures just turn pre-existing conditions such as heart problems or lung disease lethal.

Reply to  Jeroen
September 18, 2019 5:11 pm

There you go again Rob, making it up.
There have always been heat waves, the current ones aren’t any stronger than those in the past, and the claims of 100’s of thousands dying is total BS.

Matt G
Reply to  Rob
September 18, 2019 12:07 pm

More people die due to cold than heatwaves and the figures are around 10 times more.

“There were almost 44,000 “excess deaths” between December and March last year – the largest annual rise in such figures for almost five decades.”


“According to the BBC, around 2,000 more people than usual may have died in the United Kingdom during the 2003 heatwave.”


Reply to  Matt G
September 18, 2019 12:44 pm

Last time I checked the UK was about >1% of the world population and well north of the subtropics. Come back when you have researched the warm climes too. Try science sources rather than tabloids and Wiki if you are trying to be scientific.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
September 18, 2019 2:16 pm

These are not controversial that’s why it was safe to use these.

“The 2008 cold spell increased mortality in subtropical China, which was mainly attributable to the low temperature rather than the sustained duration of the cold spell. The cold effects were spatially heterogeneous and modified by individual-specific characteristics such as gender and age.”


“As we focus on exposure to non-optimum temperatures only, we did not consider the mortality effects of extreme cold or hot days. Gasparini et al. [18] argue that most deaths are caused by exposure to moderately hot and cold temperatures, and the contribution of extreme days is comparatively low.

Our results reveal that the baseline PAFheat is 1.15% and the baseline PAFcold is 8.90%. Other studies reporting attributable risk measures for whole-year mortality find values relative close to ours—”


“Temporal changes in mortality impacts of heat wave and cold spell in Korea and Japan”

•RRs of heat waves significantly decreased in total population.
•RRs of cold spells have significantly increased in all regions.


Warm Tropical climates don’t have seasons and therefore winters, so its impossible to compare cold and heat related deaths.

Tropical temperatures hardly change at all because the high humidity around here leaves little room for warming. Heavy rains and thunderstorms are natures way of stabilising the Tropics especially with ENSO.

Reply to  Matt G
September 18, 2019 5:12 pm

I have researched what warm climates do.

In the tropics the IR bands are already saturated by water vapor. There is nothing left for CO2 to block.

Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 5:32 pm

In the tropics the IR bands are already saturated by water vapor. There is nothing left for CO2 to block.

Two rookie errors:- WV is altitude capped by temperature- The absorption of IR active gases have defined spectral lines that are independent of temperature. Save for the broadening of such lines from temperature and pressures effects, they are a constant. WV molecules have about 19,000 absorption lines between 5-25µm, over the same range CO₂ has 152,000

Reply to  Matt G
September 18, 2019 7:57 pm

1) Not relevant
2) While correct, once again no relevance whatsoever.

You really do like to show off your ignorance.

Reply to  Matt G
September 19, 2019 7:28 am

Point one, the absence of a stratospheric hotspot has disproven that. Beyond that when density gets low enough, more CO2 actually increases the rate at which heat can escape from a system.
Point two, The fact that one has more lines than the other does not prevent those lines from overlapping.

Reply to  Rob
September 24, 2019 6:44 am

I am getting tired of your comments. We simply don’t believe you and your putting people down all the time just makes you less credible.

Reply to  mikebartnz
September 24, 2019 9:24 am

Nothing is stopping you from leaving! Bye-bye! 👋 👋

September 18, 2019 8:02 am

See http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
Here are the First and Last Paragraphs
“A very large majority of establishment academic climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .The first is an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data. This causes the natural climate cycle variability to appear frightening and emotionally overwhelming. Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, ” The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future” Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to convince themselves, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions………..The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.”
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html See also https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html
and the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
September 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Dr. Page,

The collapse of Wesrern Civilization is a near certainty…if the Climate Alarmists ever accumulate enough power to put their idiotic Climate Action Plans into action.

Flight Level
September 18, 2019 9:01 am

Icing. It’s various effects have brought down countless airframes and souls, endanger lives every winter.

Known to mostly occur in cold weather.

Politically correct climate magnats. Known for their extensive air travel to “hot is bad, cold is good” propaganda junkets.

Question, are climate zealots that braindead or simply suicidal ?

Reply to  Flight Level
September 18, 2019 5:13 pm

They aren’t suicidal, since it’s always other people who are supposed to do the dying.

September 18, 2019 9:03 am

The albedo of water is only 0.06 when the sun is directly overhead.
In places were sea ice exists, the sun never gets anywhere close to directly overhead.
In places where sea ice exists, the albedo of water is not that much different compared to ice.

The only real climatic impact from the loss of sea ice, is the fact that energy from the water can escape to space much more easily.
Loss of sea ice is a negative feedback and a pretty strong one.

September 18, 2019 9:15 am

Sir David was the genius who advised the British Socialist government of Tony Bliar that . . .

I thunk I saw what you did there . . .

Matthew R Marler
September 18, 2019 9:50 am

children’s comic Science

That is too much. Most of Science Magazine’s research articles and research surveys are high quality.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Matthew R Marler
September 18, 2019 11:27 pm

If a clock strikes 13, it doesn’t matter how beautifully it struck the first 12 times.

The danger is that if They can suspend all scientific judgment in one field They will suspend it in other fields, because They know They can get away with it.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 19, 2019 12:00 am

How’s that AIDS cure of yours coming along? Magaret always thought you were a pompous prat. I am glad she gave us the heads up before meeting you in the mid 80s.

Reply to  Rob
September 19, 2019 7:29 am

Typical Rob, all bluster, no manners and precious little intelligence.

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2019 10:19 am

Not my fault you are charmed by the charlatan Monckton. I have known the cretin since the mid-1980s after winning a Queens Award for Outstanding Excellence and Export Award. Maggie was a scientist by training and education and no, Monckton was not a science advisor – he was a general factotum for economics. She understood global warming, acid rain, etc. and loved to show her science prowess. I disagreed with her politics but respected her professionalism.

Paul Penrose
September 18, 2019 9:56 am

David King is the idiot that said that if we don’t stop global warming, by the end of this century the last breeding pairs of humans will only be able to survive in Antarctica. So I think you can easily dismiss whatever he says out of hand.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
September 19, 2019 1:03 am

To see King in action read chapter 5 of ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker. He led a British team to Moscow for a Climate seminar; started by wanting two thirds of the other contributors banned from speaking and went on to be disruptive throughout, including walking out in a tantrum when he was challenged. The Russian organiser was damning: ‘the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title ‘Sir’ has sustained heavy damage.’

September 18, 2019 12:09 pm

Why is it Christopher Monckton, a man who does have a good grasp of the english language, feels he needs to call someone “Britain’s bedwetter-in-chief.” This is an insult a two year old would use….not a grown man. At that point I stopped reading.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Simon
September 18, 2019 1:55 pm

Hell, its why I continued.

Reply to  Jean Parisot
September 18, 2019 3:57 pm

That says it all.

Reply to  Simon
September 18, 2019 5:15 pm

Simon, any excuse in a storm.
It’s better than reading something you aren’t paid to know.

Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2019 1:44 am

So MarkW thinks calling someone a “bed wetter” is classy. Well I say if you have to resort to that level of name calling you can’t have an argument that is particularly strong.

Reply to  Simon
September 19, 2019 7:31 am

1) Who cares whether it is classy or not, especially when it is appropriate.
2) I notice that you have completely ignored all the arguments that were put forth in order to whine about one single phrase. So I guess the comment about lack of arguments was meant as self referential.

Steve Z
September 18, 2019 12:11 pm

I like Lord Monckton’s calculation of the temperature increase due to melting of the Arctic icecap of 0.009 C. Actually, it might be less than that, due to the latent heat required to melt the ice, which didn’t figure into Monckton’s equations.

Dr. Idso’s calculation of increased crop yields due to doubling CO2 is about 35 to 50% for most crops, but 66% for grapes. Let’s use some of those extra grapes to make wine for Sir David King, and he might be too drunk to worry about global warming.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Steve Z
September 18, 2019 11:26 pm

In response to Steve Z, who is very kind about the sea-ice calculation, it is of course only a first-order calculation. That was quite enough to show that the ice-albedo effect of losing the current sea ice for 3 months in the summer is negligible.

As for the hapless King, he is not really worried about global warming. The real worry that these people have is that, given the divergence between prediction and observation, they may have gotten something fundamental wrong – like, for instance, forgetting that feedback responds not only to changes in emission temperature but also to emission temperature itself.

Harry Passfield
September 18, 2019 1:15 pm

The unspeakable BBC, in its daily “let’s foment climate panic to shut down the West” slot

Spot on, Chris!!!
I have visions of the Chinese (anyone of that persuasion) invading the West while our electric tanks and APCs are being re-charged. Our leaders do not understand that WWIII will be -is – a two-generation extent – nothing like the experience of WWI and II where war was a five or six year event – which then took a generation to recover from.

September 18, 2019 1:28 pm

Lord Monckton I believe in your equation for the wind mill speed the 60 min/ 1 km should be / 1 hr.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  mkelly
September 18, 2019 3:12 pm

No, it should be divided by 1000 m (= 1 km) to convert to km/hr.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 19, 2019 6:53 am

The minute in rpm cancels with minute in 60 min. The meter in 88.5 m cancels with meter in 1000 m (km). There is no /hr in the equation.

Or change 20 rpm to 1200 rev/hr and delete the 60 min/1 km.


Jean Parisot
September 18, 2019 2:02 pm

Wouldn’t a lack of water vapor in the atmosphere be a stronger driver for arctic ice formation than temperature?

Don Andersen
September 21, 2019 5:02 pm

Under Fig. 4, should “Climate Model Intercomparison Project” be “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project.” ?

Johann Wundersamer
September 23, 2019 4:43 am

“Phillip Bratby September 17, 2019 at 10:33 pm

I noticed tat when King was being interviewed on the BBC, we also had some woman on who said the Arctic was on fire! There is no limit to the BBC propaganda.”


And there’s some women on the MSM like dlf.de that even heard about “arctic rain forests”.



In their eagerness to prove the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change”, this women readily confuse human experience with geological processes.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights