By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
On the UAH data, there has been no global warming at all for very nearly seven years since January 2015 of 2015. The New Pause has lengthened by three months, thanks to what may prove to be a small double-dip la Niña:
On the HadCRUT4 data, there has been no global warming for close to eight years, since March 2014. That period can be expected to lengthen once the HadCRUT data are updated – the “University” of East Anglia is slower at maintaining the data these days than it used to be.
Last month I wrote that Pat Frank’s paper of 2019 demonstrating by standard statistical methods that data uncertainties make accurate prediction of global warming impossible was perhaps the most important ever to have been published on the climate-change question in the learned journals.
This remark prompted the coven of lavishly-paid trolls who infest this and other scientifically skeptical websites to attempt to attack Pat Frank and his paper. With great patience and still greater authority, Pat – supported by some doughty WUWT regulars – slapped the whining trolls down. The discussion was among the longest threads to appear at WUWT.
It is indeed impossible for climatologists accurately to predict global warming, not only because – as Pat’s paper definitively shows – the underlying data are so very uncertain but also because climatologists err by adding the large emission-temperature feedback response to, and miscounting it as though it were part of, the actually minuscule feedback response to direct warming forced by greenhouse gases.
In 1850, in round numbers, the 287 K equilibrium global mean surface temperature comprised 255 K reference sensitivity to solar irradiance net of albedo (the emission or sunshine temperature); 8 K direct warming forced by greenhouse gases; and 24 K total feedback response.
Paper after paper in the climatological journals (see e.g. Lacis et al. 2010) makes the erroneous assumption that the 8 K reference sensitivity directly forced by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases generated the entire 24 K feedback response in 1850 and that, therefore, the 1 K direct warming by doubled CO2 would engender equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) of around 4 K.
It is on that strikingly naïve miscalculation, leading to the conclusion that ECS will necessarily be large, that the current pandemic of panic about the imagined “climate emergency” is unsoundly founded.
The error is enormous. For the 255 K emission or sunshine temperature accounted for 97% of the 255 + 8 = 263 K pre-feedback warming (or reference sensitivity) in 1850. Therefore, that year, 97% of the 24 K total feedback response – i.e., 23.3 K – was feedback response to the 255 K sunshine temperature, and only 0.7 K was feedback response to the 8 K reference sensitivity forced by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.
Therefore, if the feedback regime as it stood in 1850 were to persist today (and there is good reason to suppose that it does persist, for the climate is near-perfectly thermostatic), the system-gain factor, the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature, would not be 32 / 8 = 4, as climatology has hitherto assumed, but much closer to (255 + 32) / (255 + 8) = 1.09. One must include the 255 K sunshine temperature in the numerator and the denominator, but climatology leaves it out.
Thus, for reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity of 1.05 K, ECS would not be 4 x 1.05 = 4.2 K, as climatology imagines (Sir John Houghton of the IPCC once wrote to me to say that apportionment of the 32 K natural greenhouse effect was why large ECS was predicted), but more like 1.09 x 1.05 = 1.1 K.
However, if there were an increase of just 1% (from 1.09 to 1.1) in the system-gain factor today compared with 1850, which is possible though not at all likely, ECS by climatology’s erroneous method would still be 4.2 K, but by the corrected method that 1% increase would imply a 300% increase in ECS from 1.1 K to 1.1 (263 + 1.05) – 287 = 4.5 K.
And that is why it is quite impossible to predict global warming accurately, whether with or without a billion-dollar computer model. Since a 1% increase in the system-gain factor would lead to a 300% increase in ECS from 1.1 K to 4.5 K, and since not one of the dozens of feedback responses in the climate can be directly measured or reliably estimated to any useful degree of precision (and certainly not within 1%), the derivation of climate sensitivity is – just as Pat Frank’s paper says it is – pure guesswork.
And that is why these long Pauses in global temperature have become ever more important. They give us a far better indication of the true likely rate of global warming than any of the costly but ineffectual and inaccurate predictions made by climatologists. And they show that global warming is far smaller and slower than had originally been predicted.
As Dr Benny Peiser of the splendid Global Warming Policy Foundation has said in his recent lecture to the Climate Intelligence Group (available on YouTube), there is a growing disconnect between the shrieking extremism of the climate Communists, on the one hand, and the growing caution of populations such as the Swiss, on the other, who have voted down a proposal to cripple the national economy and Save The Planet on the sensible and scientifically-justifiable ground that the cost will exceed any legitimately-conceivable benefit.
By now, most voters have seen for themselves that The Planet, far from being at risk from warmer weather worldwide, is benefiting therefrom. There is no need to do anything at all about global warming except to enjoy it.
Now that it is clear beyond any scintilla of doubt that official predictions of global warming are even less reliable than consulting palms, tea-leaves, tarot cards, witch-doctors, shamans, computers, national academies of sciences, schoolchildren or animal entrails, the case for continuing to close down major Western industries one by one, transferring their jobs and profits to Communist-run Russia and China, vanishes away.
The global warming scare is over. Will someone tell the lackwit scientific illiterates who currently govern the once-free West, against which the embittered enemies of democracy and liberty have selectively, malevolently and profitably targeted the climate fraud?
The Peruvian Current will remain very cold throughout December.
The Humboldt current feeding the Peruvian current is the coldest now it has been over the whole Holocene.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080634
(Fig 2 d, f-j)
Get used to more La Niñas.
Decrease in UV radiation in the 25th solar cycle and decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere.
<br></div>
“It is indeed impossible for climatologists accurately to predict global warming”
but…but….but there are floods and droughts and hurricanes and forest fires- doesn’t that prove catastrophic climate change? /s
There is no need to do anything at all about global warming except to enjoy it.
That’s my WUWT quote of the year 2021 right there!
Why did NASA/RSS stop reporting TPW after their Jan 2021 report?
The idea of a “pause” is ridiculous. Here is something to ponder.
Warmer oceans means less insolation over water relative to land. Oceans retain more heat when the water cycle slows down, which has been observed for the last 70 years:
https://www.bafg.de/GRDC/EN/03_dtprdcts/31_FWFLX/freshflux_node.html
No climate models predicts the total freshwater runoff to be reducing.
Insolation over water peaked in 1585 in the current precession cycle. It will decline for the next 10,000 years. The land surface will have slightly higher insolation. That means the water cycle, ocean to land and return, will continue to slow down. Oceans are in a 10,000 year warming trend. But Earth is already 400 years into the current cycle of glaciation so land ice accumulation will be observed to gradually increase over the next 10,000 years.
Whether or not one imagines the idea of a Pause to be ridiculous, it is happening. Get used to it. It may even lengthen somewhat.
Oh Brench you are still stuck in this ECS BS crap and the Willis back radiation bigger BS.
People do appreciate you for your fight against climate change alarmism, including me (who you have insulted recently) but you have to replace your climate change lukewarmist stance to one of no-evidence-whatsoever-that-atmospheric-CO2-causes-any-surface-warming-stance.
Like Willis you seem to belong to this group of of sceptics who believes the GHE is real but not seriously so. Others sceptics believe the GHE is just pure BS.
Belief that the GHE exists and contributes to surface warming but not in a serious way is like saying you believe unicorns cause damage in the forests but not in a serious way.
Skeptics that follow the actual science by actual physicists believe there is a GHE. Cranks that say they are skeptics are not following a skeptical path to the science; they make up their own and won’t let go of it despite having received mountains of evidence to the contrary.
So once again, Dave Unfair, when posed with the problem you have no evidence for the GHE.
Why do you even bother posting when you have nothing?
Its your job to do your own research, leitmotif, not mine. You have been directed to the work of real physicists. If you can’t see the difference between science and loony theories, I can’t help you.
All you are asked to do Dave Unfair is to produce some evidence that the GHE warms the planet surface and you consistently fail to do so.
“You have been directed to the work of real physicists.”
But I haven’t or else you would be able to point out how the GHE warms the planet surface.
Where is your evidence? Either put up or shut up you big girl’s blouse!
The furtively pseudonymous “leitmotif”, like so many of the trolls who post under pseudonyms because they lack the courage or integrity to use their own names, knows no science at all.
In 1850, as the head posting explains, the global mean surface temperature was about 287 K, but the emission temperature that would have prevailed in the absence of greenhouse gases was about 240-270 K, depending on how you do the calculation.
The entire difference between the emission temperature and the global mean surface temperature is the greenhouse effect. It occurs because there are greenhouse gases in the air.
No one denies, skeptics, physicists or global warming enthusiasts that CO2 absorbs radiation; modern furnaces designed for petroleum and pyrometallurgical industries rely on heat transfer calcs based absorption and emission of radiation from CO2 and H2O.
Robert, there are those posting on WUWT that deny the fact that CO2, through its radiative properties, affects global temperature.
But, Dave Unfair, don’t you have to produce some evidence “that CO2, through its radiative properties, affects global temperature”?
You keep leaving that bit out.
Maybe you think like our illustrious lord that citing Tyndall (1851) is enough evidence?
How do you think you would do in a court of law with that approach?
They would gut you Dave Unfair.
Yes CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in certain wave bands which is of importance in furnace radiant heat transfer calculations but absorption to extinction of this radiation in the atmosphere means that CO2 emitted beyond a certain threshold will not have any effect on global temperatures
As shown by the recent work of Physicist Dr. William Happer. If you bother to look at his radiation spectrum diagrams you will see the GHE of H2O, CO2, CH4 & etc. The diagram showing the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 400 ppm to 800 ppm is revealing. I suggest that everyone on WUWT, especially leitmotif “The Mouth” read and try to understand it.
Look at
Just Google Dr. William Happer and ignore the first reference since it is a hit-piece by Climate of Denial.
Yes the operative words are ‘try to understand it’. Scribbled lines on Planck’s distribution law diagram with some random figures do not not mean much particularly when figures for 400 ppm CO2 (277) are higher than 800ppm CO2 (274). They are of course approximately equal which is what I found – Co2 emitted beyond a certain threshold will have no effect on global Ts.
Dave Fair – If this work was less opaque and could be explained more fully it could convince the whole planet including the chinese to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow if not sooner.
Dave Fair – Also as I posted earlier re the debate ‘no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures’, water vapour absorbs the major share of the LW photons leaving very little for CO2 to correlate to. There is at least 60 times more water vapour than CO2 (maybe 100 times) in the atmosphere and there’s not a lot that can be done about that as a colleague pointed out to S Arrhenius.
lW photons
Yes, Robert, the physics show H2O has a far greater GHG effect than CO2. What’s the point you’re trying to make?
Yes Dave A Fair the point most definitely is that compared with water vapour the absorption of LW by CO2 pales into insignificance
Also and most importantly net zero carbon by 2050 refers to CO2 not H2O. The war is against CO2 not H2O; its against burning natural gas in my central heating boiler and its against coal fired power plants. I do not want an electric car I am happy with petrol driven one. Doubling CO2 to 800 ppm will have no effect on global temperatures.
The graph is simply a teaser; read Dr. Happer’s study.
Robert, you seem to misunderstand the graph. The figures given are simply the arears under the various curves shown in W/^2. The lower the number, the greater the “trapping” effect of the given concentration of CO2.
Leitmotif whines that I have insulted it. But one cannot insult someone who remains furtively pseudonymous. Anyone here who wants to cower behind a pseudonym can expect to be called a variety of names, because no harm can come to his or her reputation thereby, and because anyone who writes nonsense under the cover of pseudonymity can expect to be called out on it with particular vigor and rigor.
As I have explained countless times in these threads and shall now explain again, I accept – sed solum ad argumentum – everything that climatology proposes except what I can prove to be false. I cannot prove there is no greenhouse effect; and, on examining the molecular-level mechanics of the interaction between a photon and a heteroatomic or pseudoheteroatomic molecule, I find that a quantum oscillation occurs in the bending vibrational mode of the CO2 molecule. That oscillation is ex definitione thermal radiation – i.e., heat. Therefore, I – and anyone with any regard for science – must accept that some warming will result. The question, then, is not whether warming will result but how much – or rather how little.
That’s a great Stanley Unwin impression, Brench. You should think about taking it up full-time. I mean it.
Why can’t you just say a CO2 molecule does not have a dipole moment and that it emits a photon using one of its vibrational modes? Easy, eh?
And I didn’t ask for proof, I asked for evidence. You should know the difference. And you should also know the difference between thermal radiation and heat but none of you guys ever do which probably explains your lack of understanding. You even think gas molecules behave like black bodies to which you can apply the S-B equation. They don’t.
“The question, then, is not whether warming will result but how much – or rather how little.”
That’s not a question; that’s a delusion.
My advice to you? Stick to the Stanley Unwin impressions but cut back on the insults.
Sadly, WUWT is 95% lukewarmists. You just give credibility to warmists and alarmists that they don’t deserve by discussing how atmospheric CO2 affects warming of the planet surface..
CO2.DOES.NOT.WARM.THE.PLANET.SURFACE.BY.BACK.RADIATION!
THERE.IS.NO.EVIDENCE.ANYWHERE.THAT.IT.DOES.SO!
THERE.IS.NO.EQUILIBRIUM.CLIMATE.SENSITIVITY(ECS)!
THERE.IS.NO.EVIDENCE.ANYWHERE.THAT.IT.EXISTS!
GET.THAT.INTO.YOUR.THICK.HEADS!
Besides that I like WUWT.:)
When furtively pseudonymous trolls such as leitmotif use bold caps, they advertise their childish ignorance at once of science and of communication of ideas.
In 1850 the emission temperature that would prevail without greenhouse gases was 240-270 K, depending on how you calculate it. But the observed temperature was 287 K. The difference is caused by the presence not of pixies or fairies or goblins but of greenhouse-gas molecules. Hint: That’s why it’s called the “greenhouse effect”.
For the record. I’m not “furtively psuedonmous” as you claim here and here. I provide my name to anyone who asks. My name is Brian Gideon. bdgwx is the handle I’ve been using on various weather forums for the last 20 years. You are still free to use whatever ad-hominem you like against me if you think it helps articulate any points you are making though. It doesn’t bother me. And you can rest easy knowing that I’ll never retaliate in kind even if you do post psuedonmously in the future.
With that said. I’m going to defend your post and point within. The abundance of evidence does indeed say that CO2’s vibrational modes are activated by terrestrial radiation near 15 um (among other bands) which happens to be close to where the terrestrial spectral radiance peaks. The UWIR energy that otherwise would have had a free escape to space is absorbed by the molecule and either thermalized in place or used to reemit the IR but this time as a 50/50 split between UWIR and DWIR. This causes Ein above to reduce and Ein below to increase. And because the 1LOT is an unassailable physic law of reality we know that ΔE < 0 above and ΔE > 0 below. And because ΔT = ΔE/mc where m is mass and c is the specific heat capacity we know that ΔT < 0 above and ΔT > 0 below. The evidence of this is massive even if leitmotif does not accept it. It is as settled as anything in science can be settled. What isn’t settled is the magnitude of the effect and the climate’s sensitivity in C per W/m2 which you and I can banter about knowing that we both want to comply with established laws of physics and the evidence available to us and that we both just want to know the truth.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz…the acme of climastrology…
Just so there is some understanding. A molecule is an isotropic radiator of EM energy. If you ould study Planck, you will see that an homogeneous body eits EM energy in a spherical shape and that the energy is the same in all directions. There are no photon bullets going in a vectored direction. Therefore to say that 50% goes up and 50% goes down is misleading at best.
Another misconception is that CO2 radiates much to begin with. Collisions are more likely by 1000 – 10000 times. Therefore thermalization occurs much more frequently.
To be pedantic here the split isn’t actually 50/50. For an observer above a flat body there is 180 degree viewing angle both toward the body and away. But for a spherical body that is only true if you are directly on top of the body. As you move further away the viewing angle toward the body is reduced. Here is the table for various heights above Earth.
1 km: 182.0 away and 178.0 toward or a 50.6/49.4 split
2 km: 182.9 away and 177.1 toward or a 50.8/49.2 split
3 km: 183.5 away and 176.5 toward or a 51.0/49.0 split
4 km: 184.1 away and 175.9 toward or a 51.1/48.9 split
5 km: 184.5 away and 175.5 toward or a 51.3/48.7 split
10 km: 186.4 away and 173.6 toward or a 51.8/48.2 split
15 km: 187.8 away and 172.2 toward or a 52.2/47.8 split
20 km: 189.0 away and 171.0 toward or a 52.5/47.5 split
Considering the split difference is less than 2.5 degrees up to 20 km I was assuming I was safe to just say a 50/50 split. I don’t know why you think this is misleading. Do you get significantly different numbers?
Do you know what an isotropic radiator is? It radiates the same power in all directions, i.e., a sphere. You’re like the folks that think when you heat a homogenous material like a plate, half the radiation goes out one side and one half out the other!
Yes. I know what an isotropic radiator is. I’ll ask again. Do you get significantly different numbers than those I calculated?
Yes. You keep saying 50% up and 50% down. It is 100% up, down, sideways, at any 3 dimensional angle you wish to specify. The power is NOT split by any angle or height. The power per unit of area does reduce as the wave spreads from the center of the sphere. The point of maximum intercepted power would be at a point directly below. PointS further away would intercept the wave and see a lesser value.
The temperature among other factors determine the power radiated. It is not divided by any other value.
JG said: “Yes.”
Ok. What do you think is the percentage of the total energy emitted is on a trajectory that intercepts the surface at a 1, 5, 10, and 20 km heights? What percent is on an escape trajectory?
JG said: “You keep saying 50% up and 50% down.”
Yep. And I’m going to keep saying it. 50% of the energy is directed up (escape to space) and 50% is directed down (toward the surface).
JG said: “It is 100% up, down, sideways, at any 3 dimensional angle you wish to specify. The power is NOT split by any angle or height.”
That is not correct at least for the angle. That would violate the law of conservation of energy. If an isotropic radiator is emitting 100 W its radiant intensity is 100 W / 4pi sr = 7.96 W/sr. In 1 second it emits 7.96 joules for each steradian. You are correct about height though. It doesn’t matter where the body is positioned. It will still emit 100 W regardless. This isn’t very relevant to the current discussion though because we aren’t concerned with the emitter as much as we with the absorbers. Except that the spherical shell surrounding the body will also absorb 7.96 W/sr.
JG said: “The power per unit of area does reduce as the wave spreads from the center of the sphere. The point of maximum intercepted power would be at a point directly below. PointS further away would intercept the wave and see a lesser value.”
Correct on all 3 statements. This is why as you increase the distance separating bodies the receiver will see less of the total energy being emitted by the sender. For a body suspended above Earth at 10 km the surface fills only 173.6 degrees of the possible 360 degrees field of view or about 6 steradians. At 6380 km above Earth the surface fills only 60 degrees field of view. At 378,000 km (the distance from the Moon to Earth) the surface fills only 1.9 degrees of the field of view. Interestingly…both the Moon and Sun fill about the same field of view as observed from Earth; about 0.5 degrees.
JG said: “The temperature among other factors determine the power radiated. It is not divided by any other value.”
For a blackbody isotropic radiator we can relate temperature (in K) to radiant exitance (in W/m2). To determine power you need to multiply by the surface area of the body (in m2).
“If an isotropic radiator is emitting 100 W its radiant intensity is 100 W / 4pi sr = 7.96 W/sr.”
“For a blackbody isotropic radiator we can relate temperature (in K) to radiant exitance (in W/m2). To determine power you need to multiply by the surface area of the body (in m2).”
You realize you just disproved your 50% up and 50% down, right?
Remember, this is the same clown with his own esoteric thermodynamics ideas.
50% upward and 50% downward (strictly speaking) is what the radiated energy split is for the 100Ws from the sphere being discussed?
There are certainly two hemispheres that could each radiate 1/2 the total power. But up and down strictly speaking? What about 1/2 left and 1/2 right, along a horizontal axis? Its not a flashlight – lense system with a boresite, aligned on a local vertical plane.
Think about it, 1/2 left and 1/2 right (along a horizontal axis) would just heat up neighboring mass, and not radiate earthward or skyward.
This is also wrong, as is 50% up and 50% down.
No it’s not.
Left and right can be split into lower (down) left and upper (up) left as can those photons going to the “right”.
It is just a case of demarking those with a trajectory towards the Earth’s surface and those with a trajectory towards space.
You are peddling semantics.
Bull pucky!
First, photons are not bullets that are shot out in a given direction. EM waves are emitted. The power of those waves determines how many photons are available for absorption at any given frequency.
Secondly, the Stephan-Boltzman equation determines the power emitted based on temperature. That power is transmitted via an EM wave that has a spherical shape. Every point on that sphere has the same power that is determined by the SB equation.
Lastly, the power is not divided into spheres. If it was how do you think infrared thermometers would work? Do they multiply readings by 2? Or perhaps 4 for a rectangular block. I don’t remember having to set mine for the shape of the measured object!
The energy is reflected in all directions, horizontally as well as vertically.
In this context up is in reference to upwelling IR (UWIR) and down is in reference to downwelling IR (DWIR). These terms cover all angles in which the radiation has an escape trajectory (up) or a surface trajectory (down). The tricky part is that if you draw a line tangent to the surface a photon directed with a slight angle below that tangent line can still miss the surface because Earth is a sphere that curves away from that line. That is an UWIR photon. I provided the angles above at different heights. For example, a photon emitted at 10 km randomly has a 48.2% chance of having a down (surface intercept) trajectory. The view factor of radiation emitted at 10 km wrt to the surface is 0.482. This is close enough to 0.5 that we can reasonable call it 0.5 on a first order approximation. For the left and right scenarios again about half of the “left” and half of the “right” labeled photons have down (surface) trajectories and half have up (escape) trajectories. Note that this does not mean the photons have a free path to the surface or for escape. They don’t because IR active molecules create an opaque environment that increases the probability of absorption with increasing IR active molecule cross sectional areas. The free path distance is a different topic for another conversation though. The important point is that 50% of the energy directed up (escape trajectory) and 50% is directed down (surface trajectory).
What happens if you put a layer of R30 insulation in there?
I don’t know. I’m not sure what the context is with the R30 insulation question, where you want to put it, or how it is even relevant to the discussion.
Reference requested on the 48.2% view factor, if you will.
For a point emitter and a spherical absorber the absorber view factor is VF = [180 – arccos(1/(1+d/r)) * 2) / 360 where d is the distance separating the bodies and r is the radius of the absorber. For example, for an emitter positioned 6380 km away from an absorbing sphere with radius 6380 km the absorbing sphere will receive 60 / 360 = 16.7% of the energy radiating from the emitter. Or with a 10 km separation it is 173.6 / 360 = 48.2%.
View factors can be incredibly difficult to solve for some arrangements of bodies, but it turns out a point source upon a sphere is trivial relatively speaking since we just need to know the conical angle of the two tangent lines at the Earth’s viewable limbs that intersect at the emitter. That’s why you see the arccos function. To assist with visualization the limit as d => 0 is 180 degrees. At d = r it is 60 degrees and the limit as d => infinity is 0 degrees.
Tangentially related…it is interesting to note that both the Moon and Sun fill 0.5 degrees in the sky for observers on the Earth’s surface. This coincidence can be seen most strikingly during a total solar eclipse. If you’ve not been in the path of totality I highly recommend doing so at some point.
The situation is far more complicated than this. 1. Radiation is an EM wave, not a bullet. 2. The energy flux goes down by the inverse square law – the further the radiation travels the less energy it has available to provide to an intercepting particle. 3. The longer the path the more chance of the IR wave being reflected by a non-absorbing particle.
All three of these factors affect the back radiation. There are probably others.
The “photons go up and photons go down” is very unsatisfying. If CO2 absorbs most of the 15cm radiation from the surface so it never reaches space then why doesn’t it intercept most of the 15cm radiation from the atmosphere as well thus preventing heating of the earth’s surface. Absorption of energy by CO2 is not a one-way street, only happening to a wave expanding to space and not happening to a wave expanding toward earth.
Definitely. When you start adding in the mean free path to the discussion things get complicated quickly.
See my above comment. Infrared is an EM wave whose power reflects the number of photons (or quanta if you will) that can be provided during absorption.
The EM wave has the same power in all directions. The distance traveled affects the power available as does the angle of. interception which affects absorption. Planck’s thesis on heat radiation covers this in excruciating detail.
Here are a couple of references.
https://wingsofaero.in/calculator/power-density-from-isotropic-antenna/
http://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/electronic_engineering/Isotropic_Radiator.pdf
The furtively pseudonymous bdgwx should publish under his own name, not under a furtive pseudonym.
Waiting for El Nino.
https://rclutz.com/2021/05/08/adios-global-warming/
I don’t understand the result in this line from the original post:
1.1 (263 + 1.05) – 287 = 4.5 K
My calculator gives 3.455 for the left-hand side which would round to 3.5, not 4.5.
Ric
You may want to spare yourself the trouble on that aspect of the post. As I have explained elsewhere, Lord Monckton’s feedback theory boils down to bad extrapolation.
The Born Liar is as wrong about his imaginative but nonsensical theory of “bad extrapolation” as he is about everything else. If he would get his care-home nurse to read him the head posting, she would explain to him that for compelling climatological reasons that are beyond his understanding the system-gain factor for 1850 may well apply today as well, but that, if it does not apply today, a very small increase in the system-gain factor would entail a very large increase in global temperature, rendering the accurate prediction of global warming impossible. That cannot by any stretch of a dispassionate imagination be described as “bad extrapolation”. Since the accurate prediction of global warming is impossible, declaring climate “emergencies” and demanding the shutdown of Western industries, one by one, in the name of Saving The Planet is a scientifically as well as economically unjustifiable course of action.
Throughout, the Born Liar – having been caught out lying and pretending to be an expert on control theory when in fact he is a long-retired shyster of no particular distinction, has altogether failed to take any account of the climatological side of things, preferring to consider feedback theory in the abstract, and thus to get it wrong when applying it to climate. He is wasting his time here, unless he is being paid for it.
A question for anyone willing to devote independent thought to Lord Monckton’s feedback theory: Who are you going to believe, Lord Monckton or your own eyes?
Two videos and half a dozen WUWT posts about Lord Monckton’s take on feedback theory culminated in a post “returning to the topic of the striking error of physics unearthed by my team of professors, doctors and practitioners of climatology, control theory and statistics,” listing objections to his theory and his responses thereto, showing pictures of his “team,” and capped by what he triumphantly described as “the end of the global warming scam in a single slide.”
You will note that Lord Monckton’s word salad above contains no attempt to distinguish between his theory and the way his slide portrayed it. And if you have even a rudimentary mastery of high-school analytic geometry, you can see that my post simply graphs his slide’s values and thereby demonstrates that his “end of the global warming scam in a single slide” boils down to bad extrapolation.
Or you can blindly follow Lord Monckton’s ravings.
The Born Liar as usual fails to address the head posting and instead refers to a past instance in which he took information out of context. The is out of his depth here, and is in any event unconcerned for objective truth.
I concur that the equation evaluates to 3.5.
Mr Howard is right: in rounding the inputs I failed to recalculate the output. Mea maxima culpa. I shall put that right in a future posting. But the main point remains the same: since a very small change in the system-gain factor would entail a disproportionately large change in equilibrium sensitivity, our future impact on the climate cannot be reliably predicted.
An influx of Arctic air over the Great Lakes in three days.
Let’s see where it might be cooler in December.
The warm spot below Greenland was characteristic of the Maunder Minimum.
The number of spots at the start of the 25th solar cycle (2021) is lower than at the start of the 24th solar cycle (2011).
The eruption of the Semeru volcano in Java.
https://youtu.be/hHG6FTzEg5w
Why the polar vortex is still active in Australia.
You can break the UAH data into a series of 4 PAUSES, each one associated with a strong el Nino at the start. The 1978-12 to 1986-02 would have started before 1978-12, so I am not sure how long that one would be (already a minimum of 7 years). Just an observation. CO2 is obviously not playing any significant role on global temperature.
“CO2 is obviously not playing any significant role on global temperature.”
The evidence you present does not say that. It only says that CO2 is not the only thing playing a significant role on global temperature. To show that CO2 is not playing a significant role on global temperature you need to control for all of the other factors that modulate ΔE in the UAH TLT layer.
In my calculations, the 255 K is obtained supposing the earth is a grey body (not a blackbody) without atmosphere and with 0,3 albedo (0,7 absorptivity). To reach such value, people take out the atmosphere but leave the reflection of the clouds. In fact, I believe that an absorptivity of 0,9 (albedo of 0,1) is much more realistic since the oceans (2/3 of the surface) have an albedo of 0,06 and the forest and jungles have similar values. With that albedo of 0,1 I obtained an earth temperature of 278 K which is only 10 K of the so called greenhouse effect. If anyone is interested I can show the calculations.
Mario is of course quite right. The venerable Professor Lindzen did similar calculations based on Mario’s argument: that in the absence of greenhouse gases there would be no clouds. He came to the conclusion that emission temperature was 271 K. However, such calculations ought also to take into account Hoelder’s inequalities between integrals (the quantum of solar radiation at various solar zenith angles varies). Correction for Hoelder’s inequalities brings the emission temperature back to around 255 K.
Provided that the correct feedback regime is implemented, it makes surprisingly little difference whether emission temperature is 240 K or 270 K or anywhere in between. But climatology persists in allocating all feedback response solely to greenhouse-gas warming. That is the real problem. And climatologists are increasingly nervous as they realize how large was the mistake they made.