The New Pause Lengthens to 7 Years 10 Months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The New Pause paused last month because I was ill. Many apologies for the interruption. Now, however, it resumes – and it has lengthened from 7 years 7 months to the end of April 2022. To the end of June 2022, the New Pause is now 7 years 10 months in length:

This Pause, like its predecessor, which was an impressive 18 years 8 months (UAH), or 18 years 9 months (HadCRUT4), is, as always, not cherry-picked. It is derived from the UAH monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies as the period from the earliest month starting with which the least-squares linear-regression trend to the most recent month for which data are available does not exceed zero. Whatever the data show, I show. Or, in the immortal words of Dr Roy Spencer, speaking of his dataset, “It is what it is”. In that splendid dictum speaks all true science.

The least-squares trend, which Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia used to recommend as the simplest and most robust method of deriving global-temperature trends, takes due account of all monthly values, not merely of the starting and ending values.

England, said the Portuguese-American philosopher George Santayana, is the paradise of eccentricities, hobbies and humors. One of mine is jurisprudence, the philosophy of law. I have lectured on it at universities: indeed, one of my talks was given in the faithful replica of the Supreme Court Chamber at Liberty University, Virginia. I also give tutorials to law students on jurisprudence from time to time, for law lecturers generally do not love the subject, for it is inspirational rather than perspirational, though their students love it.

The Roman Emperor Justinian knew this. When he wrote his Institutes, a digest of his Digest of Roman law, he did so for the benefit of the law students of the empire, each of whom he addressed thus in the first Institute

“Let this be thine: to lead a life upright,

“Do harm to none, but give to each his due.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero, who wrote the most beautiful, Ciceronian Latin, made a similar point, a century before the Lord of Life and Love and Laughter was admired by snuffling kine rubbing flanks with thrones and dominations in a stable at Bethlehem. Cicero, in his treatise de Legibus on jurisprudence, wrote: “The law is founded upon and rooted in love.” At root, then, love is – or, at any rate, ought to be – the mischief of every law. The framers of your magnificent Constitution knew this, for they were widely read and deeply learned.

The framework of the Constitution is the ancient doctrine of the separation of powers between the legislature (Congress), the executive (the President) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court). For political power, like money and muck, “is not good except it be spread”. I once won a debate on the desirability or otherwise of judicial activism before the Chicago Bar Association simply by citing Article 1, Section 1, which opens with these simple words:

“All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Period.

That period is the most important period in history. On this side of the pond, we call a period a “full stop”. That full stop is the most important full stop in history. Right from the outset, your founding fathers made it very, very clear that they did not intend anyone, however high and mighty, to make or muss up or unmake the law unless you, the people, had elected him and his colleagues in Congress to do so. If anyone else, such as an overpaid, self-aggrandizing official of a government agency such as the EPA, purports to make law, he contravenes that full stop of full stops that fully stops anyone but those whom the people have elected as their only legislators from exercising the legislative function granted by the Constitution to Congress, and to Congress alone.

Why is that splendid opening sentence at once an embodiment and an expression of the love of which the Jews and then Cicero and then the Lord of Life and then Justinian spoke? It is because democracy – government of the people, by the people, for the people, as Lincoln trenchantly put it in the finest speech in history, the Gettysburg Address – depends absolutely on the principle that each of the people so deeply loves his neighbors that he is willing, nay eager, to entrust to them no less cheerfully than to himself the power to make and unmake those who govern him and them and the nation of which the people are the embodiment.

Therefore, it has been a delight to read the Supreme Court’s learned opinion at last curbing somewhat the bureaucratic overreach of the EPA, which had tortured the purpose and intent (which lawyers call the “mischief”) of an Act of Congress so as to usurp unto itself the power of Congress to make laws regulating the sins of emission perpetrated by the great industries and enterprises of your busy nation.

Even if it be ungenerously imagined that the Trump administration achieved little else, the President picked three winners – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch – and parked them firmly on the banc of the Supreme Court, there to work their beneficial magic for decades to come. Justice Gorsuch’s masterly concurring opinion in the EPA case, which cites the vesting clause of the Constitution, meditates brilliantly, and eloquently, on the jurisprudential aspects of the Court’s opinion. In particular, it cites with approval the vesting clause at the beginning of the Constitution, and pokes fun at the three cry-babies on the Bench, who, in their whining dissent, here as in the Court’s recent decision that it is for the States and not for the Court to legislate on whether and when their citizens may torture, dismember and kill their babies without even giving the holy, wholly innocents an anesthetic first, seek to suggest that the Constitution is out of date and that the opinions of the mere proletariat and their mere elected representatives in their mere duma are of no account compared with the Party Line laid down by the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise apparatchiki.

If you read nothing else this year, read the Gorsuch concurrence. That resounding and profoundly learned endorsement of the vision and the wisdom of your founding fathers, and of the mischief of your noble Constitution, ends with these words –

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula­tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre­sentatives. In our Republic, ‘It is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern­ment of society’ (Fletcher v. Peck, 1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.”

The gulf fixed between the libertarian majority and the totalitarian minority on the Court is precisely the gulf fixed between the Communist and Republican Parties in Congress. The dissent of the Court’s three witches opens thus –

“Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time’ (Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007). Climate change’s causes and dangers are no longer sub­ject to serious doubt. Modern science is ‘unequivocal that human influence’ – in particular, the emission of green­house gases like carbon dioxide – ‘has warmed the atmos­phere, ocean and land’ (IPCC 2021).

“The Earth is now warmer than at any time ‘in the history of modern civ­ilization’, with the six warmest years on record all occur­ring in the last decade (USGCRP 2017; Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae) The rise in temperatures brings with it ‘increases in heat-related deaths’, ‘coastal inundation and erosion’, ‘more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods, and other extreme weather events’, ‘drought’, ‘destruction of ecosystems’ and ‘potentially significant disruptions of food production.’ (American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 2011). If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean (Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae). Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions could force ‘mass migration events, political crises, civil unrest’ and ‘even state failure’ (Dept. of De­fense, Climate Risk Analysis 2021). And, by the end of this century, climate change could be the cause of ‘4.6 mil­lion excess yearly deaths’ (R. Bressler, The Mortality Cost of Carbon, Nature Communications 2021).”

The long whinge that follows is predicated upon that improperly selective opening list of generally mendacious, imagined and imaginary harms from mildly warmer worldwide weather. It is that list that misleads the dissenters into grouching – more than somewhat banausically – to the effect that the evil demon Siotu is a “pollutant” and, therefore, falls within the broadly-drawn regulatory power granted to the EPA by Congress at section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

Yet the rebel reds contradict themselves when they conclude thus –

“The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints it­self – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

The contradiction lies in the dissenting coven’s assertion that “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change.” But, by the same token, the Court, and in particular the three unbecomingly partisan dissenters, does not have a clue about whether or not the various official-sounding sources for their contention that “the stakes are high” are talking through their hats. The dissenting opinion fails, therefore, on the very same ground on which the dissenters accuse the plurality of failing: they have appointed themselves, instead of Congress or what they unsoundly describe as the “expert” agency [x, an unknown quantity; spurt, a drip under pressure], as the decision-maker on climate science and, accordingly, on climate policy.

I set out something of the two opposing opinions, with particular attention to the dissenters’ opinion, because, given that the constitutionally-minded plurality on the Bench are at last minded to uphold the fine vision of your founding fathers and to rein in the power grab by the 3 million ambitious cuisses-de-cuir in the various Federal departments and agencies by reference to long-established principles of jurisprudence, it may now have become possible to persuade the Supreme Court that it should take one more step, and a decisive step, to topple the entire edifice of nonsense in support of and motivated by hostile alien powers that is global-warming fanaticism.

When the legal doctrine that administrative action by the entities of the State was reviewable by the Courts first emerged in the Courts of Equity in 14th-Century England (I remember it well, not least because the weather was so much warmer then), the purpose of judicial review of administrative action was – as it remains to this day – to put the citizen on a level playing-field with the State before the Courts. Judicial review is no less a feature of U.S. than of U.K. jurisprudence. In the U.K., we have a special Administrative Court to hear judicial-review cases. In the U.S., the ordinary civil courts hear such cases.

One of the principles of administrative law is that any action by any agency of government that is irrational is ipso facto unlawful. On both sides of the Atlantic, the courts have occasionally – and I stress occasionally – struck down the actions of ministers or their officials on the ground that no reasonable person, even in the exercise of the wide discretion delegated to ministers and, through them, to their officials in an administration elected by the people, could possibly have taken the decision in question.

Let us now examine the pseudo-scientific basis for the Supreme Court’s dissenters’ decision to the effect that because of the wickedness of the demon Siotu the EPA was duty bound to treat it as though it were a dangerous “pollutant” – which, of course, on any dispassionate and objective scientific tandard, it is not.

“The Earth is now warmer than at any time ‘in the history of modern civ­ilization’”. No, it isn’t. It was at least as warm in the mediaeval warm period, which led to the Renaissance, to the building of the great cathedrals of Europe, and thus provided the environment within which the then emergence of modern civilization was possible.

“The six warmest years on record all occur[red] in the last decade”. Depends what you mean by “the record”. It is warmer today than since the first global temperature record began in 1850 – but so what? A couple of centuries are a mere blink of an eye sub specie aeternitatis. Most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than the present in many parts of the world. Yet the planet somehow did not fry. Our predecessors were not all toast, and nor shall we be.

“The rise in temperatures brings with it ‘increases in heat-related deaths’”, but also decreases in cold-related deaths, which, as Willis Eschenbach has demonstrated in one of his many distinguished columns here, outstrip the increases in heat-related deaths in every region of the planet, and in some regions by an order of magnitude.

What about “‘coastal inundation and erosion’”? Well, that, as any rock jock will tell you, has been going on ever since there was first an ocean. It was only 10,000 years ago that, painted in then-fashionable woad blue, I could walk from my simple, ancestral trilithon house in rural Kent to what would many millennia later become Parisii Lutetiorum in Gaul without getting the aristocratic tootsies wet. But then sea level went and rose by 120 feet – and that, as Professor Ian Plimer often says, is sea-level rise.

What about “‘more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods, and other extreme weather events’”? Hurricanes are if anything a little less frequent and intense than they were (there has been nothing like the 1815 hurricane in the Caribbean at any time since then – I remember it well, for it made a mess of my plantations); even the hideous nest of vested-interest vipers that is IPeCaC says the evidence for more flooding is insubstantial; and the same goes in general for other extreme-weather events, as IPeCaC’s report on extreme weather grudgingly but definitively concluded.

By the same token., “‘drought’” is no more prevalent than before. Indeed, if the three dissenters had bothered to inform themselves of just a little elementary meteorology rather than taking their pseudo-science from talking-points issued by a variety of innocuous-sounding but actually malevolent front groups acting in the interest of foreign powers inimical to Western democracy, prosperity and freedom, they would know that, by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, warmer worldwide weather increases the capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere to carry water vapor, the most important of all the greenhouse gases by virtue of its sheer volume, so that droughts are less likely, not more likely. Unsurprisingly, therefore, as early as 1981 it was reported by Nicholson et al. that the Sahara’s southern margin had retreated, allowing 300,000 square kilometres that had formerly been arid to bloom once again, and permitting nomadic tribes to return to areas that they had not inhabited in recorded history.

Likewise, “‘destruction of ecosystems’” is not what happens in net terms when the climate gets warmer and, therefore, wetter. One might have thought that even extreme-Left justices would have learned enough geography (geology rocks, but geography is where it’s at) to appreciate that hardly anyone lives in the Arctic or Antarctic, where it is cold and dry, but nearly everyone lives where it is warm and, therefore, wet.

As for “‘potentially significant disruptions of food production’”, the worst that can be expected is that, exactly as has always happened as a result of shifting weather patterns whether natural or anthropogenic, what can be grown where will change from time to time. In Roman times, we grew grapes in Scotland’s Great Glen (I remember it well: the wine was quite good, too, if a little on the sweet side for my taste: one had to water it down for best effect, as recommended by Homer). However, what is certain is that the worldwide harvest in recent years – notwithstanding, or, rather, in no small part because of, warmer and wetter weather worldwide – has reached record highs, compromised recently only by the special military massacre in Ukraine, which, until the war, produced a tenth of the world’s grain exports.

“If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean”. Yup. That’s been happening along our own East Coast here in Blighty for the past 10,000 years. As we scientists say, “sh*t happens”. But it will not happen significantly more rapidly or severely just because sea level rises at the terrifying mean worldwide rate of 1 mm per year (after correction for regional variations in post-ice-age isostatic rebound rates), as the late Tom Wysmuller concluded after what proved to be his last research project. I miss him.

“Rising waters” are not as much of a threat as the dissenters wish to imagine: for 1 mm per year is about 4 inches per century. Oo-er! Pick up your skirts and run for the hills, nan!

As for “scorching heat”, that is offset in the tropics by earlier afternoon convection (i.e., thunderstorms) as the temperature rises, and elsewhere by greater rainfall. Again, Willis Eschenbach has done the research on that.

“Mass migration, political crises and civil unrest”, in the near-perfectly thermostatic climate of our age, is caused almost exclusively either by purely economic factors or by totalitarian regimes, such as that of the dissenters’ fellow-Communist Vlad the Invader.

Finally, the three naysayers reveal their true political colors when they end their list of imaginary cataclysms with the vapid and naively-parroted assertion that global warming, which is thus far causing a handsome reduction in global mortality, will somehow cause “‘4.6 mil­lion excess yearly deaths’” by 2100. No, it won’t. You heard it here first.

Here, then, is my modest proposal for taking advantage of the constitutionalist plurality that has at last cleared its throat and found its voice at the Supreme Court.

First, a casus belli must be identified, and a credible plaintiff found. The simplest casus belli is the sheer irrationality that is evidenced by the three Communists’ list of blatantly bogus bugaboos.

The shuttering of coal-fired power stations in the name of Saving The Planet from negligible and (in the last eight years or so, at any rate) non-existent global warming is, objectively speaking, irrational. It is not something that any rational minister or official would do or demand that taxpayers and energy-users should pay for unless he had been misled, as the three dissenters had – whether wittingly or unwittingly – allowed themselves to be misled.

In my submission, the plurality of the Court as at present constituted – but not the three recusants, for, as with all totalitarians, their minds are closed to aught but the Party Line – can be readily invited to understand three things.

First, the notion of rapid and dangerous global warming is predicated upon a monstrous and elementary error of physics that misled clahmatawlagiests into imagining that at the global-temperature equilibrium in 1850, when the global temperature record began and before we could have had any significant impact on the weather, the 8 K directly-forced warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases had become 32 K final warming – the “natural greenhouse effect”.

It was imagined, therefore, the predicted 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment over the entire 21st century would become 4 K final warming after accounting for temperature feedback response, chiefly driven by more water vapor in warmer air.

What the poor saps had forgotten is that the Sun is shining. Therefore, at the global-temperature equilibrium in 1850, very nearly all of the 32 – 8 = 24 K feedback response was actually responding not only to the puny 8 K direct warming by all the naturally-occurring noncondensing greenhouse gases that had accumulated in the atmosphere up to that date but also to the 255 K emission temperature itself.

Therefore, the correct final or equilibrium warming in response to each 1 K of direct warming by noncondensing greenhouse gases, as matters stood in 1850, was not 32 / 8 = 4 K, but rather (255 + 32) / (255 + 8) < 1.1 K (see below): a mild, gentle, net-beneficial warming, not the “catastrophe” imagined by the three dissenters.

To head off the trolls who tend to maunder on to the ineffectual effect that that calculation is “inappropriate extrapolation”, there is no extrapolation at all: for there was a temperature equilibrium in 1850. It was, of course, the perpetrators of the error, not I, who had extrapolated, in that they had imagined that the ratio of equilibrium to directly-forced warming in 2100 would be about the same as it was in 1850.

Actually, that is not an unreasonable assumption: after correction of their silly error of physics, we may indeed expect about 1.1 K to be the anthropogenic component in global warming over this century; and the slow rate of warming to date is consistent not with the perps’ 4 K 21st-century anthropogenic component in warming but with the corrected 1.1 K.

However, one consequence of correcting climatology’s error is that even a 1% increase in feedback strength would engender a 340% increase in equilibrium-temperature response compared with the response derived for the equilibrium in 1850.

To put it another way – and to reveal another piece of our research that has not hitherto been made public – if the absurdly exaggerated feedback strengths listed in IPeCaC’s 2021 report were true, then equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) would not be 1.1 K, nor even the 4 K imagined by the usual suspects on the basis of their error. It would be more like 450 K. And nothing like that is actually happening, or someone would have noticed by now.

Therefore, either the models from which the vastly inflated feedback strengths are diagnosed or the diagnostic method are nonsense – or, more probably, both. No surprise then, that for 18 months our paper explaining all of this with limpid and irrefutable clarity has been languishing marked as “with editor” on the editorial-management system of the learned journal of climatology to which we had submitted it. The journal cannot refute it but dare not publish it for fear of reprisals from the totalitarian army of haters.

Secondly, the economic error. To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the fatuous and economically destructive target set by governments on both sides of the pond, would cost the West quadrillions but would make no measurable difference to global temperature.

Thirdly, the strategic error. The gainers by the economic hara-kiri being committed by the West in the name of Saving The Planet are Putin, who is making so much profit by the increase in oil, gas, nickel, grain and other commodity prices consequent upon his invasion of Europe that he will have paid off Russia’s entire national debt within three to five years, and Xi Jinping, the oppressor of Tibet, Sinkiang and Hong Kong, who, having ordered his feeble-minded stooge Biden to withdraw precipitately from Afghanistan rather than continuing to maintain inexpensive hard-point defense at a couple of key airfields there, has been rewarded by China’s Taliban proxies with control of the vast lithium fields in Afghanistan, the richest such deposits in the world. China now controls almost 100% of lithium carbonate production worldwide, and soon the West will ban real cars altogether, ostensibly in the name of planet-saving but in reality to place the West’s economies heavily under the thumb of China.

What we now need is a coal-mining or coal-fired power generating corporation to have the guts to mount a root-and-branch case against the present maladministration’s climate policies and then to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the teams with which I work will be preparing the following amicus briefs:

1: To answer, with definitive evidence, all the untruthful misstatements about the climate uttered by the three refuseniks as the preface to their moaning dissent from the plurality’s opinion in the EPA case;

2: To inform the Court of climatology’s central error of physics, and to explain that, therefore, all government-mandated controls on free markets and industrial activities arising from the covert Russian and Chinese promotion of the global warming nonsense over many decades are not only irrational but arguably treasonous;

3: To inform the Court that the proven costs of emissions abatement will buy no measurable reduction in global temperature, so that the real and provable costs of mitigation will inevitably and prodigiously exceed any legitimately-conceivable benefits;

4: To inform the Court of the long-planned strategic threat to the West posed by Russia’s and China’s sedulous promotion of the global warming narrative over many decades, and of the implosion of the Western economies that will result as the comparatively inexpensive coal-based static and oil-based locomotive energy sources are replaced by Russian gas and Chinese-controlled lithium carbonate respectively.

To take just one example, if Germany were to ban all real cars and replace them with Teslas and suchlike electric buggies, she would, on her own, consume the entire global annual production of lithium carbonate, enriching China as the price of that precious raw material soars, just as prices tend to do whenever a managed market replaces a free one, and just as Germany is already paying through the nose to fund Putin’s continuing massacre by the inflated prices she now pays for Siberian gas. Without the global-warming nonsense, and the consequent shuttering of Europe’s coal-fired power plants, which once produced electricity at a tiny fraction of the current cost of Siberian gas per terawatt-hour, Putin could not have afforded to invade Europe, and would not have dared to do so.

So far, the many major industries most directly targeted by Russia’s and China’s global warming campaign, and therefore with the most to lose by their inaction, have trembled cravenly and have done little or nothing to fight back, for fear of the Rufmord (Goebbels’ term for reputational destruction) that is meted out by numerous anti-Western front groups to those of us who dare to speak out against the collapse of Western civilization.

Somebody has got to tell the Supreme Court a few home truths about just how irrational is the global warming nonsense, and about just how vulnerable are the West’s interests to any further perpetuation thereof. As the lamented Ron Reagan used to say, “If not we, who? If not now, when?”

4.9 73 votes
Article Rating
645 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 2, 2022 10:19 am

This is your occasional reminder that the “they forgot the sun was shining” theory is mathematically incoherent.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 10:26 am

You and the IPCC forget whatever natural effects that the climate was influenced by now were also operating in 1850.

steve
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 2, 2022 10:53 am

Do you mean IPeCaC? . Yes that organisation has the same effect on me.

Gotta love the Lord.

Rich Davis
Reply to  steve
July 2, 2022 3:36 pm

Induces vomiting through the ministrations of demon Siotu
(CO2)!

Sage
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 2, 2022 12:13 pm

The U.N. Panel is just doing its job.
You have to remember that the IPCC was created to investigate how man is causing Climate Change, not if man is causing Climate Change.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Sage
July 2, 2022 1:17 pm

No it wasn’t! It was created as a propaganda outlet for the WEF to enable them to get control of the idiot children they have indoctrinated over the last 30 years. You probably think that energy rationing (on its way) is a good way to save the planet.

Reply to  Sage
July 2, 2022 1:40 pm

“Science” is easier when you start with a conclusion.
Junk science, that is

AndyHce
Reply to  Sage
July 2, 2022 4:24 pm

If investigating how, it would have to properly conclude the how operates mainly in local and regional area through land use changes

mal
Reply to  AndyHce
July 2, 2022 8:47 pm

Land use change has a far greater effect than CO2. Oh when are the idiots going to figure out all the carbon atoms in their bodies can from CO2. If you think CO2 is a pollutant you are anti life! Not just human life, all life.

Last edited 1 month ago by mal
Patrick healy
Reply to  mal
July 3, 2022 11:02 pm

But Mal that is precisely ‘their’ point – ‘they’ are anti human life.
Unlike our esteemed Lord, I do not blame Communists for this charade. As a Catholic he should be the first to recognises the demonic influences.

TallDave
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 2, 2022 1:16 pm

Young Earth Climatology is the best climatology

John Larson
Reply to  TallDave
July 2, 2022 3:56 pm

Is consensus science the best science?

mal
Reply to  John Larson
July 2, 2022 8:52 pm

Is consensus science the best science?” short answer, is is anti-science. Of course the left’s useful idiots will never figure that out! Even while they starve to death in a cold dark house.

Redge
Reply to  John Larson
July 3, 2022 12:15 am

The consensus says “yes”

The data doesn’t have an opinion

HotScot
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 3, 2022 3:41 am

There is no reliable data from 1850. The Stevenson screen wasn’t invented until around 1870, and it wasn’t widely deployed until the beginning of the 20th Century.

Nor were they ever designed as a connected global network, they were local weather stations. Calibration between them could only have, somehow, been accomplished by written communication delivered by sail and early steam ships.

Even now there are millions of square miles of land without a weather monitoring station on them, but we’re expected to believe scientist’s can judge the overall global temperatures down to hundredths of a ºC.

Utter nonsense. My head doesn’t zip up the back!

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  HotScot
July 3, 2022 7:10 am

Yeah, especially if one is aware of their surroundings when outdoors, it is obvious that temperatures can show considerable differences over a few feet of distance or a few minutes of time. Easily more than a degree or two.

DrEd
Reply to  HotScot
July 3, 2022 10:00 am

Calibration was done by measuring known temperatures with their thermometers. Not a problem

MarkW
Reply to  DrEd
July 3, 2022 7:28 pm

You are aware that equipment needs to be recalibrated from time to time. How was that done for thermometers in the field?
You are aware that for calibrations to be accurate, everything regarding the immediate environment of the thermometer must be kept unchanging. Do you have evidence that this was done? There is plenty of evidence that it was not done.
You are aware that when equipment is moved or swapped out, you need to run measurements. Are you aware that few such moves of swaps were properly documented?
Do you have any documentation that proves that everybody who made the readings was properly trained in how to make such reading accurately?

You’re, “not a problem”, just goes to prove that you have never actually studied the issue.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2022 1:46 pm

You are aware that equipment needs to be recalibrated from time to time.”

None of the major weather/climate government departments/agencies calibrate their equipment before deployment or after deployment.
What calibration is performed is done at the factory.

Performing maintenance usually means the entire structure is replaced. Without calibration or certification.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
July 4, 2022 3:06 pm

Most Pt RTD probes are not calibrated prior to use. Instead they rely on the resistor temperature coefficient of resistance to be within either the ASTM or the ISO tolerance curves.

HotScot
Reply to  DrEd
July 4, 2022 2:18 am

That’s the least of the issues I pointed out.

John Tillman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 10:46 am

In your opinion, what has caused Earth’s six years and four months long cooling trend, with no sign of letup?

The ongoing triple dip Las Niñas is a rare phenomenon. It has happened only twice since 1950 and shouldn’t even be possible now, under CACA theory.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01768-y

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
mal
Reply to  John Tillman
July 2, 2022 8:55 pm

A person who know what science is, would as Feynman put is “the guess was wrong” of course our present educated idiots don’t know that!

Last edited 1 month ago by mal
Doonman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 11:08 am

Conclusion
To be clear, there are indeed good reasons for believing that ECS is low, and some of those reasons even make occasional appearances in the thousands of words Lord Monckton has written about the purported “grave error.”

Reply to  Doonman
July 2, 2022 11:20 am

Indeed. Unfortunately, they largely get buried in his mathematically incoherent ravings about modelers’ having forgotten that the sun is shining. They’ve made mistakes, but that isn’t one of them.

Fig 02.png
Graemethecat
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 1:22 pm

How do you even know ECS is not zero?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 2, 2022 2:22 pm

That is an easy one.

There are several ways to calculate the zero feedbacks ECS of CO2 alone. Judith posted one back in 2010 at Climate Etc. My preferred equation is the one Monckton published. It says 1.16.
Now we know from Dessler 2010 that the cloud feedback is about zero. And we know the watervapor feedback must be positive. IPCC says sum of all other feedbacks nets to about zero. So ECS must be something greater than 1.16.

My preferred value is about 1.65-1.7, because that can be derived in at least 3 very different ways: Calendars 1936 curve, observational energy budgets (2nd Lewis and Curry is in my opinion best), and Bode feedback using Lindzen’s 2011 zero feedbacks=1.2 curve plus water vapor feedback estimated from observed rainfall (lowering model WVF since there is more actual ocean rain (measured by ARGO) than in models). Have posted those derivations in comments here several times before.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2022 3:08 pm

The ISCCP found the net effect of clouds to be 5 degrees C of cooling.

What are the net feedback effects on ECS of evaporative cooling and evapotranspiration by vegetation?

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
July 3, 2022 2:12 pm

Thus an increase in cloud cover from more water in the air would be a negative feedback. Positive feedbacks are rare in nature.

Our water world’s climate is homeostatic, until altered by more or less insolation, lower or higher albedo, continental drift, oceanic oscillations, etc.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2022 4:09 pm

That’s all very fine and dandy, but where is the observational evidence that siotu (sic) is actually determining temperatures?

Derg
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 3, 2022 4:55 am

This ^

Mike
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2022 7:27 pm

” So ECS must be something greater than 1.16.”
It’s funny how people actually think they know what they’re supposed to be calculating when it comes to the climate system. This is of course utter nonsense.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Mike
July 3, 2022 3:42 pm

So explain why. My reasoning from first principles was clear. Your ‘utter nonsense’ judgement isn’t.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 3, 2022 7:31 pm

The problem with calculating things from first principles is that both all of the first principles are not known, and that many of them that are known are too complex to calculate accurately.
For example, clouds. Nobody fully understands how changes in climate impact clouds, or how changes in clouds impact climate. Until you know both, any attempt to calculate ECS is a fool’s errand.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 3, 2022 10:27 pm

We’re still waiting for you to present hard physical evidence that ECS is a real phenomenon rather than a mathematical fiction.

Richard M
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 4, 2022 7:56 am

You are using the wrong starting point. The 1.16 C of claimed warming from doubling CO2 does not exist. Hence, there cannot be be any feedback either.

Why doesn’t added DWIR cause warming? Because over 99% of the energy originates within the boundary layer. The boundary layer exists in thermal equilibrium with the surface. As a result, the surface returns an equal amount of energy back into the atmosphere. Much of it by simple conduction but also added latent energy.

There is some added energy via the wings of the CO2 15 micron frequency range which is countered by an increase in upward radiation to space throughout the atmosphere.

When all is said and done, no measurable change in temperature occurs due to doubling CO2.

The biggest error in climate science, ignoring the boundary layer, is also common among skeptics.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 5, 2022 1:40 am

Rud Istvan could well be right. Truth is, no one knows what ECS is, but the basis on which official climatology decided it must be far higher than what is being observed is plainly erroneous. One cannot even safely say that, across the very small interval of temperature change we are dealing with, the water vapor feedback will be net-positive. For a start, it is substantially offset by the lapse-rate feedback. Secondly, it is offset by Eschenbach early convective cooling in the tropics, the engine-room of the climate. Thirdly, the hard upper bound of 30 C on tropical ocean surface temperature limits the magnitude of the water vapor feedback in a fashion that, like Eschenbach convection, is not represented, whether properly or at all, in most models.

Whichever way one cuts it, 2 K per CO2 doubling is very much the upper bound – and that’s not enough to justify doing anything at all to attempt (futilely) to mitigate global warming.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 5, 2022 7:07 am

I would have thought that the observation from the Vostok ice-cores that temperatures always change before CO2 shows climate sensitivity to CO2 is essentially zero, disproving the central hypothesis of CAGW.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 5, 2022 1:00 pm

Trying to judge temperature anomalies based on a singular item is what is commonly called futile. All of the various things you name are part of the climate and CO2 just isn’t the Ring to Control Them ALL!

MarkW
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 2:02 pm

Are you related to Nick?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2022 3:23 am

Nah, Nick is a wide-issue troll, Joe is a one-issue troll. He seems to have a personal grudge against Lord M.

Doonman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 4:00 pm

The conclusion I posted was yours at your link. So it is good to know that you agree with a low ECS value as shown by Monckton, Calendar, Lewis and Curry and Lindzen all derived using different methods.

Reply to  Doonman
July 2, 2022 4:38 pm

The difference is that none of the others has deluded himself into thinking that modelers’ high ECS estimates result from their forgetting that the sun is shining. And all of them, I’m sure, are just too polite to voice their opinions publicly that Lord Monckton has gone off the rails.

John Larson
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 5:24 pm

If he had instead said, “neglected to sufficiently bear in mind that sunlight is the only reason the planet is not close to the ambient temperature of space”, would that have allowed you to entertain the possibility that he’s right?

Lrp
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 12:19 am

Semantics; where do their high ECS estimates come from?

Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 2:35 am

Yes, They forgot the Sun was shining. When deriving the feedback-driven system-gain factor at the global-temperature equilibrium in 1850, They attributed all of the 32 K natural greenhouse effect by that year to the 8 K directly-forced warming by, or reference sensitivity to, the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

Thus, based on the equilibrium position in 1850, They imagined the system-gain factor at that equilibrium would be 32 / 8 = 4, implying that there would be 4 K final warming by, or equilibrium sensitivity in response to, the 1 K direct warming by doubled CO2 concentration, and likewise 4 K final warming in response to the 1 K direct warming by all anthropogenic influences predicted for the 21st century.

However, the Sun – like it or not – was shining. Of the 287 K global mean surface temperature that year, 255 K was emission temperature – the global mean temperature that would prevail at or near the Earth’s surface in the total absence of any greenhouse gases in the air, simply because – get this – the Sun was shining.

As any professor of control theory (the science of feedback) would tell Them, at any given moment in the evolution of a dynamical system moderated by feedback, especially where that system is at that moment in equilibrium, the total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals to which the feedback processes extant in that system at that moment respond.

Thus, some 29/30ths of the 32 – 8 = 287 – 255 – 8 K = 24 K total feedback response that obtained in 1850 was attributable not to the 8 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases but to the 30-times-greater 255 K equilibrium or sunshine temperature. As everyone except climatologists has noticed, the Sun is indeed shining, and was shining in 1850.

So, let us insert the fact that the Sun is indeed shining (it really is, you know) into these numpties’ equation for the system-gain factor (the multiplier that turns a direct warming before feedback response into a final warming after feedback response).

The climate Communists’ equation, based on Their data for 1850, is 32 / 8 = 4.

After correcting Their error in forgetting that the Sun was shining and was, therefore, responsible for very nearly all the 24 K total feedback response up to 1850, Their equation, based on Their data, would look like this:

Corrected equation: (255 + 32) / (255 + 8) < 1.1.

Therefore, based on Their data for 1850, equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (broadly equivalent to the final warming from all anthropogenic influences over the 21st century) will not be of order 4 K, as They erroneously but profitably imagine, but closer to 1 K.

It is, of course, official climatology, and not we, that extrapolates by taking Their system-gain factor for 1850 and assuming – not necessarily incorrectly – that whatever system-gain factor obtained in 1850 will also obtain in 2100.

However, as the head posting fairly points out, after correction of Their catastrophic error of physics in forgetting that the Sun is shining, and, therefore, that the emission temperature it engenders was and remains far and away the largest source of feedback response, a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender an almost 350% increase in the system-gain factor, and hence in final warming per degree of direct warming, compared with the value derivable from the position in 1850.

But They have made a second and still more catastrophic error of physics. Their table of feedback strengths in IPCC (2021) is definitely and embarrassingly incorrect. Their feedback strengths are far, far too large. After correction of Their first error, if one applied Their ridiculously overblown feedback strengths, the final warming per degree of direct warming would not be little more than 1 K, as we find, or 4 K, as they find, but 450 K.

Mr Born should spend less time on hate-speech and more time thinking.

Richard M
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 4, 2022 10:35 am

Explaining how they got the math wrong, when in fact the physics is entirely wrong, is not going to move us ahead. The Earth’s atmosphere is not warmed from the top down, it is warmed from the bottom up.

Until skeptics understand this basic physical difference between climate pseudo-science’s view and reality, they will continue to make no progress.

The first step is to understand the lowest layer of the thermodynamic system is the coupled surface – boundary layer and NOT the surface.

From there, energy is radiated upward and shared proportionally by each ensuing layer of the atmosphere based primarily on the density of that layer. This is necessary due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.

This process helps form the lapse rate which then determines the overall temperature structure.

The result is a planet’s surface temperature ends up as Nikolov-Zeller observed. It is directly based on the mass of the atmosphere, gravity and the energy available.

Skeptics need to start focusing on the right physics. Only then will we be able to bring down climate pseudo-science.

Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 6:06 am

Joe – when temperature appears in a physics equation, it does seem to be a cruel and unusual thing to do to chop up that temperature into different parts. Temperature is just temperature. Occam’s razor would favour Monckton’s argument in this case that a feedback operating on temperature operates on the whole temperature and nothing but the temperature.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
July 3, 2022 6:16 am

I agree that feedback operates on the whole temperature. But his logic is that feedback theory requires that it do so linearly, and feedback theory imposes no such requirement. He repeatedly denies that this is what he’s doing, but such linearity is the only premise from which his conclusion follows. Otherwise it’s a non sequitur.

Fig 02.png
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 6:24 am

And you again do not understand the method he is using.

Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 8:19 am

Indeed where feedbacks are involved things tend to become nonlinear. But doesn’t this nonlinearity undermine the whole concept of ECS?

Reply to  Phil Salmon
July 3, 2022 8:42 am

A caveat in my Naptown Numbers piece was that “we’re averting our eyes from the questionable nature of various assumptions such as that anyone actually knows what the temperature would be without feedback and that there’s a one-to-one relationship between values with and without feedback—and, indeed, that there really is such a thing as an equilibrium global-average surface temperature in a nonlinear, chaotic climate system.” I’m merely assuming there is such a thing (as I think Lord Monckton is) for the sake of discussion.

Whether “where feedbacks are involved things tend to become nonlinear” is a vexed question. A major purpose of much human-designed feedback systems is instead to suppress nonlinearity.  But, as I’ve said elsewhere, it’s complicated.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 8:52 am

If the feedback is not linear then what is it? 2nd order? 3rd order?

If it is squared then the feedback is always positive meaning eventual runaway (except for when feedback is zero)

Cubic? Eventual runaway.

Are you sure you aren’t mixing up non-linear systems versus non-linear feedback loops?

Even for non-linear systems you many times find the system being broken down into a power series and then linear feedback approximations used for each separate element.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 3, 2022 9:06 am

If you want an example of nonlinear feedback in electronics, look at my pieces linked to above. They will demonstrate that positive feedback doesn’t necessarily mean the system will blow up.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 9:35 am

Where have you given an example of non-linear feedback?

I don’t see any. I see linear feedback with different slopes but no non-linear feedback.

temp_ecs.png
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 3, 2022 10:24 am

Different slopes is practically the definition of nonlinear.

Anyway, my last WUWT piece shows a circuit in which the feedback current is proportional to voltage raised to the power 2.63. Now, it’s been over a half century since I took a math class, but in those days they called that nonlinear.

(Incidentally, in those days the term order would have come up only in dynamic analysis, whereas Lord Monckton’s theory deals only with equilibrium questions.)

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 2:31 pm

Nonsense.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 4:59 am

I have attached your graph with a curve rather than lines for slope. It does illustrate what you said, that the feedback is non-linear as you calculate it.

However, as with all curves, it continues indefinitely. Your interpretation would mean there is no such thing as saturation where the effects of more CO2 would result in little change in the increase in temperature.

Because of this your result is unlikely to be correct. You need a function that results in little temperature increase at some point.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 4, 2022 5:26 am

Of course it’s unlikely to be correct. It’s intended to show properties analogous to a high-ECS climate system, which I don’t think we have.

The curve’s purpose is to show that a high-ECS system would not, as Lord Monckton contends, contravene the tenets of feedback or control-systems theory. Modelers get high ECS values because they make bad parameter guesses, not because they’ve flubbed basic feedback theory.

You may wish to consider what Steve McIntyre said (https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/19/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-in-global-climate-models-part-1/) about Lord Monckton’s theory: “I discourage people from thinking in over-simplistic terms.”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 6:16 am

And you still don’t understand CMoB’s methods.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 4, 2022 4:54 pm

I see my picture didn’t attach.

temperature to ECS(2).jpg
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 1:34 pm

Different slopes is practically the definition of nonlinear.”

Huh? A linear equation is of the form y = mx + b. “m” can anything from near negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity and the equation remains a linear equation.

The example you use is for putting a diode in the feedback loop. Yes, that is not a linear feedback component. But the current through the diode is *not* KV_f^a. The diode is not an amplifier and cannot generate current on its own so it cannot raise V_f to any kind of power. In fact, with a diode V_f is fixed, about 0.7v for a silicon diode. So the current is not determined by V_f once it is saturated, it is determined by (V_out-V+in) divided by the resistance in the feedback loop – which you don’t bother to show.

So why don’t you use a feedback component that *can* raise V_f to a power?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 4, 2022 2:17 pm

It’s linear only if the local slope doesn’t change and there’s accordingly only one slope. If the slopes at different places differ, it’s not linear. Again, maybe the terminology they use these days is different, but that’s how we described it in the middle of the last century.

Anyway, the feedback element in my last WUWT post was a diode-resistor ladder, not just one diode. I explained this all to you over a year ago. As I said then, it appears you’re just not going to get this.

I understand; not everyone can get his mind around this kind of stuff. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I discontinue what appears to be a futile effort.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 2:28 pm

You’ve never heard of doing a piece-wise analysis of a function?

I know they were teaching that in EE clases in 1968.

A resistor ladder is *STILL* a passive component. It can’t generate a V_f^a current output. If the feedback is KV_f^2 then you can raise or lower K but that doesn’t seem to be what you are trying to describe.

There isn’t any thing to get my mind around. You are still peddling that you can separate out the feedback from the signal and get the same output. You can’t.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 4, 2022 3:14 pm

You’ve never heard of doing a piece-wise analysis of a function?

Exactly, this is the purpose of transistor and tube bias networks—to operate them in a region that is linear and small signal gain approximations can be used.

Mr David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Joe Born
July 5, 2022 11:56 pm

Hilarious

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 3, 2022 7:34 pm

Why does feedback have to be the same function over the entire range?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2022 2:09 pm

It doesn’t, but you then need something that either switches various devices into the path or you need “reactive” components that have various impedance at varying frequencies. CO2 is not considered a reactive component with radiation, what goes in must come out.

That’s why GHG theory needs water vapor feedback that feeds back onto itself. Yet water vapor has not increased along with CO2 so that feedback path is bogus.

Joe Born’s depiction of temp change is a crude attempt of showing the derivative of a curve. It is non-linear and requires power function of some kind to follow it.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2022 2:20 pm

Why does feedback have to be the same function over the entire range?”

It doesn’t. For non-linear processes you many times break the transfer function down into a power series and then treat each component with a different feedback function. Thus the slope of the feedback function changes throughout the range.



Mr David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Joe Born
July 5, 2022 11:53 pm

Joe Born is the original one hit wonder with his continual repetition of the “forgot the sun was shining” crap he picked up in youtube. Joe can you write a post that doesn’t contain that phrase?

Last edited 1 month ago by Mr David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 2:34 am

Yes, They forgot the Sun was shining. When deriving the feedback-driven system-gain factor at the global-temperature equilibrium in 1850, They attributed all of the 32 K natural greenhouse effect by that year to the 8 K directly-forced warming by, or reference sensitivity to, the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

Thus, based on the equilibrium position in 1850, They imagined the system-gain factor at that equilibrium would be 32 / 8 = 4, implying that there would be 4 K final warming by, or equilibrium sensitivity in response to, the 1 K direct warming by doubled CO2 concentration, and likewise 4 K final warming in response to the 1 K direct warming by all anthropogenic influences predicted for the 21st century.

However, the Sun – like it or not – was shining. Of the 287 K global mean surface temperature that year, 255 K was emission temperature – the global mean temperature that would prevail at or near the Earth’s surface in the total absence of any greenhouse gases in the air, simply because – get this – the Sun was shining.

As any professor of control theory (the science of feedback) would tell Them, at any given moment in the evolution of a dynamical system moderated by feedback, especially where that system is at that moment in equilibrium, the total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals to which the feedback processes extant in that system at that moment respond.

Thus, some 29/30ths of the 32 – 8 = 287 – 255 – 8 K = 24 K total feedback response that obtained in 1850 was attributable not to the 8 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases but to the 30-times-greater 255 K equilibrium or sunshine temperature. As everyone except climatologists has noticed, the Sun is indeed shining, and was shining in 1850.

So, let us insert the fact that the Sun is indeed shining (it really is, you know) into these numpties’ equation for the system-gain factor (the multiplier that turns a direct warming before feedback response into a final warming after feedback response).

The climate Communists’ equation, based on Their data for 1850, is 32 / 8 = 4.

After correcting Their error in forgetting that the Sun was shining and was, therefore, responsible for very nearly all the 24 K total feedback response up to 1850, Their equation, based on Their data, would look like this:

Corrected equation: (255 + 32) / (255 + 8) < 1.1.

Therefore, based on Their data for 1850, equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (broadly equivalent to the final warming from all anthropogenic influences over the 21st century) will not be of order 4 K, as They erroneously but profitably imagine, but closer to 1 K.

It is, of course, official climatology, and not we, that extrapolates by taking Their system-gain factor for 1850 and assuming – not necessarily incorrectly – that whatever system-gain factor obtained in 1850 will also obtain in 2100.

However, as the head posting fairly points out, after correction of Their catastrophic error of physics in forgetting that the Sun is shining, and, therefore, that the emission temperature it engenders was and remains far and away the largest source of feedback response, a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender an almost 350% increase in the system-gain factor, and hence in final warming per degree of direct warming, compared with the value derivable from the position in 1850.

But They have made a second and still more catastrophic error of physics. Their table of feedback strengths in IPCC (2021) is definitely and embarrassingly incorrect. Their feedback strengths are far, far too large. After correction of Their first error, if one applied Their ridiculously overblown feedback strengths, the final warming per degree of direct warming would not be little more than 1 K, as we find, or 4 K, as they find, but 450 K.

And that is not happening, and is not going to happen, or we'd have kinda noticed by now.

Derg
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 4:54 am

Maths 😉

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 1:29 pm

Your proposition is that Man is God, Hmmm…

Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 1:53 pm

CO2 is up from 400ppm in 2015 to almost 420 ppm….about 4% increase…..IPCC is supposed to explain stuff like this …no?

czechlist
Reply to  Anti-griff
July 2, 2022 5:27 pm

I live in Texas and just looked up record weather events for the State.
Not a single event – heat, cold, rain, drouth, snow, hurricane nor tornado severity has ocurred in this century and most records are pre 1970.
If greenhouse gases are the driving force someone needs to tell them to get busy.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Anti-griff
July 3, 2022 8:57 am

As a part of the atmosphere, the increase from 400ppm to 420ppm would be two thousandths of one percent.

dk_
Reply to  Joe Born
July 2, 2022 2:05 pm

comment withdrawn

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 2:31 am

Yes, They forgot the Sun was shining. When deriving the feedback-driven system-gain factor at the global-temperature equilibrium in 1850, They attributed all of the 32 K natural greenhouse effect by that year to the 8 K directly-forced warming by, or reference sensitivity to, the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

Thus, based on the equilibrium position in 1850, They imagined the system-gain factor at that equilibrium would be 32 / 8 = 4, implying that there would be 4 K final warming by, or equilibrium sensitivity in response to, the 1 K direct warming by doubled CO2 concentration, and likewise 4 K final warming in response to the 1 K direct warming by all anthropogenic influences predicted for the 21st century.

However, the Sun – like it or not – was shining. Of the 287 K global mean surface temperature that year, 255 K was emission temperature – the global mean temperature that would prevail at or near the Earth’s surface in the total absence of any greenhouse gases in the air, simply because – get this – the Sun was shining.

As any professor of control theory (the science of feedback) would tell Them, at any given moment in the evolution of a dynamical system moderated by feedback, especially where that system is at that moment in equilibrium, the total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals to which the feedback processes extant in that system at that moment respond.

Thus, some 29/30ths of the 32 – 8 = 287 – 255 – 8 K = 24 K total feedback response that obtained in 1850 was attributable not to the 8 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases but to the 30-times-greater 255 K equilibrium or sunshine temperature. As everyone except climatologists has noticed, the Sun is indeed shining, and was shining in 1850.

So, let us insert the fact that the Sun is indeed shining (it really is, you know) into these numpties’ equation for the system-gain factor (the multiplier that turns a direct warming before feedback response into a final warming after feedback response).

The climate Communists’ equation, based on Their data for 1850, is 32 / 8 = 4.

After correcting Their error in forgetting that the Sun was shining and was, therefore, responsible for very nearly all the 24 K total feedback response up to 1850, Their equation, based on Their data, would look like this:

Corrected equation: (255 + 32) / (255 + 8) < 1.1.

Therefore, based on Their data for 1850, equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (broadly equivalent to the final warming from all anthropogenic influences over the 21st century) will not be of order 4 K, as They erroneously but profitably imagine, but closer to 1 K.

It is, of course, official climatology, and not we, that extrapolates by taking Their system-gain factor for 1850 and assuming – not necessarily incorrectly – that whatever system-gain factor obtained in 1850 will also obtain in 2100.

However, as the head posting fairly points out, after correction of Their catastrophic error of physics in forgetting that the Sun is shining, and, therefore, that the emission temperature it engenders was and remains far and away the largest source of feedback response, a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender an almost 350% increase in the system-gain factor, and hence in final warming per degree of direct warming, compared with the value derivable from the position in 1850.

But They have made a second and still more catastrophic error of physics. Their table of feedback strengths in IPCC (2021) is definitely and embarrassingly incorrect. Their feedback strengths are far, far too large. After correction of Their first error, if one applied Their ridiculously overblown feedback strengths, the final warming per degree of direct warming would not be little more than 1 K, as we find, or 4 K, as they find, but 450 K.

Note that none of this depends upon any "extrapolation" whatsoever by us. Perhaps Mr Born should close his discourteous mouth and open his shuttered mind.

Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 3:05 am

As my Naptown Numbers piece linked to above says, it seems you actually can fool some of the people all of the time. Lord Monckton has apparently managed to convince many of the commenters upthread of the preposterous proposition that the reason for high ECS values is that modelers forgot the sun is shining.  And Lord Monckton seems to think that if he repeats that proposition often enough it will become more compelling.  (More-sober observers instead attribute high ECS estimates to bad parameter guesses.)

Despite his protestations to the contrary Lord Monckton can arrive at his conclusion only by assuming that a feedback system’s response must be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.  As he puts it, the climate’s feedback processes “must perforce respond equally to each degree of the 263.5 K total reference temperature.”  The feedback circuit in my Naptown Numbers piece demonstrated that nothing in feedback theory requires such linear proportionality. 

And at least to anyone capable of high-school analytic geometry my previous WUWT piece demonstrates—again, Lord Monckton’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that his “end of the global warming scam in a single slide” boils down to bad extrapolation. 

If some of the comments upthread are any indication, though, some of the WUWT readership remains convinced by Lord Monckton’s non sequiturs.  I sincerely hope that such comments are not representative of the WUWT readership generally.  

Fig 06.png
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 10:29 am

There are climate Communists, useful idiots, just plain idiots, and the Born Liar.

The Born Liar uses all the tricks in the climate Communists’ arsenal. Personal reputational assault is his favorite, and, like all of his ilk, he doesn’t like it when, having tried politeness and straightforward exposition, I give him – as I do now, and with the justification meticulously set forth below – a taste of his own poisonous medicine.

The Born Liar is now caught out lying again.

One of the nastiest and most deliberate forms of lying is to wrench a quotation out of its context, truncate it so as to leave out an important qualifying element of it, pretend that the selective part of the quotation is the whole and then attempt to trash the selective part when the full quotation would have revealed the trashing of the selective part to have been mendacious.

Here is a full paragraph of the comment by me to which the Born Liar is attempting to reply. The Born Liar is in reality unable to refute that paragraph, for it is in all respects true –

“As any professor of control theory (the science of feedback) would tell Them, at any given moment in the evolution of a dynamical system moderated by feedback, especially where that system is at that moment in equilibrium, the total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals to which the feedback processes extant in that system at that moment respond.”

Now read the selective quotation by the Born Liar by which he seeks to mislead readers. Unlike the Born Liar, I have embodied that selective quotation in the full paragraph by the Born Liar in which he has himself embodied it –

“Despite his protestations to the contrary Lord Monckton can arrive at his conclusion only by assuming that a feedback system’s response must be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback. As he puts it, the climate’s feedback processes “must perforce respond equally to each degree of the 263.5 K total reference temperature.” The feedback circuit in my Naptown Numbers piece demonstrated that nothing in feedback theory requires such linear proportionality.”

The Born Liar has actually embodied a sextuple lie in that paragraph –

  1. Though the Born Liar is replying to the immediately preceding comment by me, in inadequatly and mendaciously attempting to refute it he does not actually take his quotation from it at all. Later herein, I shall explain why it was that he was unable safely to do so.
  2. The Born Liar is not even citing my words in the head posting either.
  3. Instead, the Born Liar is using a quotation from a previous piece by me, but without disclosing that that is what he is doing.
  4. The Born Liar then takes a selective quotation from that previous piece, leaving out the vital qualifier without which he could not have used that quotation as the basis for his attempted and – as we shall see – abjectly failed refutation.
  5. The Born Liar precedes that doctored quotation with a lie to the effect in general and, therefore, specifically in the head posting and in the comment to which he is replying, I had been “assuming that a feedback system’s response must be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.”
  6. The Born Liar, in uttering that false representation, neglects to state that, not only in the head posting but also in the comment to which he is replying, I had explicitly addressed his rebarbatively-repeated but actually false representation that I assume linearity in feedback response. I had explained exactly why that lie by the Born Liar is indeed a lie.

Now, I know of three classes of persons who are trained to lie in this specific and very deliberate and calculated fashion. The first are members of a certain National Socialist Workers’ Party in the unhappy Europe of the mid-20th century, who were trained by their chief propagandist in Rufmord – organized reputational slaughter of all who had proven effective in speaking out against the Party or the Party Line.

The second are those trained to lie by the Desinformatsiya Directorate of the KGB, whose Director, General Ion Mihai Pacepa, defected to the West in 1978 after a third of a century in his post, and told us everything. I have a signed copy of his book describing how the Rufmord method, which the then MGB had found in the records of the largely-undamaged Propaganda Ministry in Mauerstrasse (Wall Street) in the Mitte district of Berlin in 1945, led them to found the Disinformation Directorate within the month so that they, too, could practice Rufmord on all who (outside Russia, which they already controlled) proved effective in speaking out against the Party Line.

The third are the worst form of shysters, who, despite their duty as officers of the court to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, decide to abuse their training in the artes forenses in the hope of dishonestly doing down their opponents. I am about to send one such to jail in the courts here, where lying by a solicitor in a witness statement attested to by a statement of truth merits up to two years in the calabozo, where the other inmates seem to display for some reason a particular aversion to shysters.

Now, I cannot tell you whether the Born Liar falls into either of the first two categories. However, it is proven that he was an undistinguished shyster by profession.

The Born Liar’s purpose in perpetrating his sixfold lie is to divert attention away from what I had actually said in the comment to which he was pretending to reply.

Let us repeat that paragraph and then demonstrate why it was that the Born Liar found he could not safely extract a misleading quotation from it:

“As any professor of control theory (the science of feedback) would tell Them, at any given moment in the evolution of a dynamical system moderated by feedback, especially where that system is at that moment in equilibrium, the total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals to which the feedback processes extant in that system at that moment respond.”

The reason why the Born Liar dared not try to take and then falsely try to rubbish that paragraph by selective quotation therefrom is that, since I am trained to make life difficult for the practitioners of Rufmord, I had made it very difficult him.

First, I was talking about a specific moment in the evolution of the climate. That moment was 1850, when the climate was in temperature equilibrium, in that during the following 80 years the trend in global mean surface temperature would prove to be zero.

Secondly, I had used the words “at any given moment” and separately “at that moment” and, a third time, to leave no room for doubt and to make it still more difficult to find an extract from the quotation that could be used out of context, “at that moment” almost at the end of the paragraph.

Now, it is a truth universally acknowledged in control theory, and – to make assurance doubly sure – confirmed by us in a series of experiments at a national laboratory of physics, that at any given moment the feedback processes extant at that moment must perforce respond proportionately to the relative magnitudes of each distinct element in the input signal. It is not at all difficult to prove this mathematically, but this is not the place for that proof.

Thus, if there are two input signals entering the feedback loop via the summative input node – in 1850 they were, in round numbers, the 255 K sunshine temperature fatally neglected in this respect by the climate Communists and the 8 K directly-forced warming by (or reference sensitivity to) the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases – the feedback processes extant at that moment must perforce respond proportionately to each of the two input signals. Since 255 K is about 30 times 8 K, very nearly all of the 24 K feedback response in 1850 is in reality attributable not only to the 8 K direct warming by the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases, as official climatology would have us imagine, but also to the 255 K emission temperature that would be present if there were no greenhouse gases in the air at all, simply because the Sun is shining.

However, in dozens of papers throughout the long and largely nonsensical literature on climate sensitivity, starting with Hansen (1984), and particularly in Lacis et al. (I2010, 2013), the climate Communists – in this vital respect – forgot the Sun was shining. They attributed the entire 24 K feedback response up to 1850 to the 8 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases, and none of it to the 255 K emission temperature driven by the undeniable fact that the Sun is shining. In doing so, they were unquestionably, indubitably, unchallengeably wrong, though of course the Born Liar cannot bring himself to admit this actually obvious fact.

The Born Liar could not get away with misrepresenting the paragraph emboldened above, because he would have had to torture it so obviously that his manipulation would have been instantly evident to all. He could not safely have removed all three of the references to the particular instant at which the calculation was performed: so he chose to cite – without saying that that is what he was doing – a different piece by me altogether.

Even then, he had to truncate it to make sure he concealed the fact that we are not dealing with an evolutionary curve across time, where the feedback processes might not necessarily respond linearly to changes in temperature as the climate evolves. We are dealing with a particular moment, and a moment of equilibrium in the crucial variable at that.

The Born Liar ought not to have done that.

I was once representing a corporate consultancy client that had been libeled in a newspaper. A journalist from that newspaper had telephoned the corporation for a cooment before running its story, and was passed to me. Knowing that the journalist was, like the Born Liar, well-kent for his habitual and malevolent mendacity – indeed, like the Born Liar he had his own apt and just soubriquet, “Liar Maguire” – I sent him a single, carefully-constructed, one-sentence comment on behalf of the corporation. I sent it to him in writing, and took care to be able to prove that he had received it.

Sure enough, the newspaper published a spectacularly libelous piece calculated to operate poisonously and damagingly to the detriment of my clients. However, in order to stand the piece up, Liar Maguire had had to cut the sentence he had been given in half, for the second half of the complete quotation, if published, would have made it clear to all, beyond any doubt, that his story had been fabricated and had no legitimate foundation in fact.

I did not demand a retraction and apology from the editor. Instead, I prepared a brief to Counsel and sent it not only to the injured corporation’s solicitors and to their standing Counsel but also directly to the managing director of the group that owned the newspaper. The brief was a single page in length, and it showed how Liar Maguire had truncated the quotation deliberately so as to fabricate his lie.

While the lawyers for my corporate clients were holding a meeting to work out how to respond to the libel, the editor got in touch to say that the managing director had read my brief to Counsel and had instructed him to offer to run a full-length, op-ed piece by me, which he would not alter in any way, to set the record straight, as well as to pay my clients’ costs up to that point. I accepted; the piece was published at once, and the editor told me that, as a result of his carelessness in not checking what Liar Maguire had gotten up to, he was “moving on” – which, on this side of the pond, means he had been fired.

The Born Liar then perpetrates a seventh lie and an eighth lie, again by wilful omission. For not only in the head posting but also in the comment to which the Born Liar was replying, I had made it explicit that one could not assume what the Born Liar had falsely represented that I had assumed: namely, that the feedback regime as it stood in 1850 would necessarily remain today or the day after tomorrow exactly as it was in 1850.

What is more, both in the head posting and in the comment to which the Born Liar was futilely attempting to respond, I had drawn particular attention to the fact that, after correction of climatology’s error in forgetting that the Sun was shining, even a minuscule change in the feedback-driven system-gain factor would engender a very large change in final warming per unit of direct warming, compared with 1850. By a ninth lie and a tenth lie, the Born Liar willfully neglected to mention that fact.

What is more, both in the head posting and in the comment to which the Born Liar was responding, I had stated that official climatology had perpetrated a further error, in grossly exaggerating the magnitudes of the chief climate-relevant temperature feedbacks: so much so that, after correction of climatology’s egregious error in neglecting, at a vital point in its calculations, the observable fact that the Sun is shining, the effect of climatology’s second error would be to lead us to expect that 1 K direct warming, before feedback response, by doubled CO2 in the air would engender 450 K equilibrium warming, after taking account of feedback response. And that ain’t happenin’. But, by an eleventh lie and a twelfth lie, the Born Liar makes no reference to that further demonstration, both in the head posting and in the comment to which he was purporting to reply, that we well understand that the system gain factor need not remain invariant with global mean surface temperature.

By a 13th and – for the Born Liar – unlucky lie, the Born Liar also withholds from his attempt at an analysis the fact, stated in the head posting, that it is not we but official climatology that assumes that its erroneously-derived 4 K post-feedback warming for each 1 K of pre-feedback warming will be observable by the end of the 21st century just as it was observed at the temperature equilibrium in 1850. It is official climatology, not we, to whom the Born Liar should direct his ire for their failure to take any account of the possibility that with warming the feedback regime may change somewhat.

When I give talks on climatology’s error, I generally, though not always, remember to mention that when we apply the regime in 1850 to derive one possible estimate of global warming by 2100 we do so precisely because that is what official climatology does. In our paper on this, of course, we point out – as I had fairly done in the head posting – that after correction of climatology’s first error of physics its second error, the gross overstatement of feedback strengths, would suggest a final warming of 450 K this century.

But I do not know whether our paper will ever see the light of day in a leading journal. For all of them have made asses of themselves by declaring their undying and unqualified subjection to the climate-Communist Party Line. However, in the philosophy of religion, that we call theology, there is an ancient wisdom: Magna est veritas, et praevalet. Great is truth, and might above all things. The likes of the Born Liar may weave and spin and peddle their mendacities, but – as here – they will be found out in the end.

Now, I usually follow a simple rule when dealing with the Born Liar. If he confines himself to something recognizable as legitimate scientific argument, I do not refer to him as the Born Liar. Instead, I simply deal with his latest pseudo-scientific word salad in a straightforward way.

But if he lies, as he has lied on 13 occasions here, I call him what he is – the Born Liar. For that is what the theorists of jurisprudence call a condign sanction, and what the Mikado called “letting the punishment fit the crime”.

To sum up the scientific point at issue. on the basis of the state of the climate at the temperature equilibrium in 1850, the final warming in response to 1 K direct warming will not be 32 / 8 = 4 K. Recalling that, like it or not, the Sun is shining, we include the sunshine-driven emission temperature of 255 K in the equation, thus –

(255 + 32) / (255 + 8) < 1.1.

So there will be not much more than 1 K global warming by 2100 compared with 2000. Of course, it is possible that in what is a powerfully thermostatic system some small change in the feedback regime will make the value a little greater. But, once one accepts – as any honest observer will – that official climatology got it wrong about 1850 and, therefore, assumed that there would necessarily be of order 4 K anthropogenic contribution to global warming over the 21st century, so very large a warming becomes merely one – and a not particularly likely one – element in a spectrum of possibilities.

Therefore, the certainty of large enough warming to be catastrophic vanishes away. Thereupon, the actual observed changes in temperature become of far greater importance than official climatology imagines, which is no small part of the reason why I post these monthly summaries of the latest Pause.

The rate of global warming is consistent with our estimates after correcting the error of physics; but it is not consistent with official climatology’s midrange estimate. If our estimate, evidenced by the outturn to date, proves to be accurate, there was not, is not and will not be any “climate emergency” requiring the West to sacrifice any more of its economic strength on the altar of Saving The Planet.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 3, 2022 10:49 am

My, my, I do seem to have struck a nerve.

John Larson
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 1:52 pm

That seems to me to be a rather childish response, and something someone guilty as alleged would say.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Larson
Editor
Reply to  Joe Born
July 3, 2022 8:39 pm

My, my, you didn’t even try to defend yourself maybe because you don’t have one.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 4, 2022 6:47 am

The “Editor” legend that shows up on Sunsettommy’s comment does not reflect well on this site, because it suggests he hasn’t the wit to recognize that I have elsewhere already demonstrated how meaningless Lord Monckton’s word salad is.  

Consider in this connection the assertion Lord Monckton so goes on about and claims “any professor of control theory (the science of feedback)” would make:

“[A]t any given moment in the evolution of a dynamical system moderated by feedback, especially where that system is at that moment in equilibrium, the total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals to which the feedback processes extant in that system at that moment respond.”

This assertion is meaningless: nothing in the physical world depends on its truth or falsity. It can neither be proved nor disproved.  And it would irrelevant to the ECS question even if it could be proved; the Fig. 4 circuit in my Naptown Numbers piece has already shown that.  

That circuit’s characteristic curve numerically matches the high-ECS values in Lord Monckton’s American Thinker piece. When that circuit’s input x numerically equals any given R value in Fig. 3, its output y numerically equals the E value on Fig. 3’s dashed curve corresponding to that given R value.  That is, replacing R and E with x and y and replacing kelvins with volts makes that dashed curve the characteristic curve of the Fig. 4 circuit.  And that dashed curve exhibits a high ECS value.

Now suppose that the input x is the 263 volts that results from a series combination of a 255-volt battery and an 8-volt battery.  Fig. 3 says that the resultant output y would be 287 volts, or 24 volts more than the 263 volts it would be without feedback: the “feedback response” is 24 volts.

Lord Monckton says that “total feedback response must be attributed in strict proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals,” i.e., to the batteries’ 255-volt and 8-volt values.  Lord Monckton’s assertion would mean that the feedbacks apportioned to the 255-volt and 8-volt batteries would respectively be about 23.3 volts (≈ 255/263 × 24 volts) and 0.7 volt (≈ 8/263 × 24 volts). 

But his assertion, with or without the “at any given moment” language he’s so proud of, isn’t falsifiable: there’s no way to prove it or disprove it. You know the total “feedback response” is 24 volts, but there’s no experiment you can perform to prove or disprove the apportionment Lord Monckton asserts.

Now, you could easily disprove it, you may think, by merely removing the 8-volt battery and observing the feedback that remains in response to only the remaining 255-volt battery.  Specifically, you would observe that instead of falling the 0.7 volt that Lord Monckton’s assertion dictates when you remove that battery the feedback would be reduced by the 17 volts (≈ 24 volts – 7 volts) that Fig. 3’s dashed line illustrates.  You might infer from this that the 8-volt battery causes 17 volts of “feedback response,” which is not at all the 0.7 volt that would be “in strict proportion” to the 8-volt battery’s “relative magnitude” in the two-battery series combination.

But if instead of the 8-volt battery you removed the 255-volt battery and left 8 volts as the only “direct input signal” you’d find that the output is almost exactly 8 volts, so the “feedback response” is essentially zero—which is less than the 0.7 volt that would be “in strict proportion” to the 8-volt battery’s “relative magnitude” in the two-battery series combination. 

That is, the two experiments give different results. Moreover, Lord Monckton would probably tell you that, since neither experiment is carried out at the “given moment” when the batteries are in series combination, neither is valid.  The assertion can’t be disproved. 

Nor can it be proved. Let’s say I make the contrary assertion that the total feedback response must be attributed out of proportion to the relative magnitudes of the direct input signals. You can no more disprove my assertion than you can disprove his.  In short, his assertion is meaningless.  Any “professor of control theory (the science of feedback)” who would tell you otherwise is not to be trusted.

Even if his assertion were true, moreover, it would be irrelevant to the ECS question, because it would be just as true for high ECS values as for low ones. Again, this can be seen in my Naptown Numbers piece. 

Let’s add a 1-volt battery to our series combination of 255-volt and 8-volt batteries; i.e., let’s raise the input by 1 volt.  The Fig. 3 circuit’s response would increase by 4 volts and thereby show that it’s analogous to a high, 4°C ECS value. This would mean that the total “feedback response” increases by 3 volts, from 24 volts to 27 volts. To the extent that Lord Monckton’s assertion is ever true, it’s true in this high-ECS case, too. 

Specifically, attributing about (255/264 × 27 volts ≈) 26.1 volts, (8/264 × 27 volts ≈) 0.8 volt, and (1/264 × 27 volts ≈) 0.1 volt of the 27-volt “total feedback response” respectively to the 255-volt, 8-volt, and 1-volt “direct input signals,” would be “in strict proportion” to their “relative magnitudes.” So high ECS values are just as consistent with his assertion as low ECS values are: Lord Monckton’s assertion is as irrelevant as it is meaningless.

The Naptown Numbers piece similarly shows that Lord Monckton’s other assertions are meaningless, too. But going over them here won’t do much good. It’s already appreciated by the heavy hitters in the skeptic community that Lord Monckton has gone off the rails, so they don’t need to read it. Recall what Steve McIntyre said in response to citation of Lord Monckton’s theory:

[Y]ou will find very little, if any, discussion of Monckton on this blog. I discourage people from thinking in over-simplistic terms. If you wish to pursue, better to do so at WUWT.

 
And most who are left here to lap up Lord Monckton’s word salad seem unable to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. 

Fig 03.png
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 6:54 am

And most who are left here to lap up Lord Monckton’s word salad seem unable to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.

J. Born is vying with MCG for the crown of Irony King.

Last edited 1 month ago by Carlo, Monte
ATheoK
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 4, 2022 3:10 pm

I would call those miscreants kings of irony.
Instead words that begin with st or du or id come to mind.

Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 9:51 am

My, my! I do seem to have struck a nerve! The Born Liar lacks the common sense or common morality to apologize for and retract his 13 lies perpetrated in a single earlier comment. His lies included substituting one quotation by me with another and then truncating the quotation he did cite, but without declaring that fact, and then arguing against the truncated quotation in a manner that would have at once been seen as dishonest and, indeed, preposterous if he had supplied the entire quotation.

So I called out the Born Liar for his lies – lies that were meticulously proven to be lies.

Yet the Born Liar, instead of apologizing, doubles down with a set of further lies.

For good measure, he displays the vicious arrogance of the totalitarian – an arrogance that our Professor of Control Theory, on first seeing his drivel, said was extraordinary, unpleasant and malevolent. He is not the only observer of the Born Liar’s misconduct to have said much the same.

First, the Born Liar presumes to lecture an editor who had rightly pointed out that his original one-line response to my detailed exposure of his lies was so inadequate as to constitute an admission that he had lied. And the Born Liar doesn’t just lecture the editor: he tells him he hasn’t the wit to recognize that the Born Liar had – somewhere else altogether – “demonstrated how meaningless Lord Monckton’s word salad is”.

Like all liars caught out in the very act of lying, and lying not once but 13 times in a single malicious comment, the Born Liar decides to try to brazen it out, long after that approach would have had any chance of success.

But that is not all. The Born Liar is so much more vastly, ineffably superior to all of you mere proles who read WattsUpWithThat that he concludes his latest lying comment with these words about you all: “And most who are left here to lap up Lord Monckton’s word salad [how he loves that phrase, which I throw back at him from time to time] seem unable to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.”

Of course, you and I don’t put wheat or chaff in our salads, so that the Born Liar’s mixed metaphor is inapposite. He shouldn’t count his Coronation chickens till the fat lady sings.

Be that as it may, the Born Liar says, in effect, that he regards you all as knuckle-dragging ignoramuses. Not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people.

So to the meat – or, rather, the putrid, rotting carcass – of the Born Liar’s “argument”, if one can even call it that.

Let us begin with an uncontroversial proposition. At any moment in the evolution of a feedback-moderated dynamical system, the system-gain factor is the ratio of the total output of that system to the total input to that system.

Thus, at the temperature equilibrium in 1850, the system-gain factor was the ratio of the equilibrium or measured global mean surface temperature of 287 K in that year (it can be quite a bit either side of 287 K without much affecting the result) to the 263 K sum of the sunshine or emission temperature of 255 K and the 8 K directly-forced warming by preindustrial non-condensing greenhouse gases: namely, 287 / 263, or about 1.09.

What that means is that, for as long as the feedback regime as it obtained in 1850 remains unaltered, for every 1 K of directly-forced global warming there will be 1.09 K of final warming, of which 0.09 K will be feedback response.

As any textbook of control theory would tell the Born Liar if he had ever read one, at any given moment – here, 1850 – the unit feedback response is simply 1 less than the system-gain factor. Thus, for a system-gain factor of 1.09, the unit feedback response is 0.09 K per Kelvin of the input signal.

However, official climatology’s method of calculating the system-gain factor is to ignore the fact that the Sun is shining, leave out the 255 K sunshine-driven emission temperature that would have prevailed in 1850 without any greenhouse gases in the air, assume incorrectly that all of the 32 K natural greenhouse effect, the difference between the 255 K sunshine temperature and the 287 K measured temperature that year, arises from direct warming by the noncondensing greenhouse gases, and thus imagine that the system-gain factor is 32 K / 8 K, or 4, implying a unit feedback response of 4 – 1 = 3 K for each 1 K of directly-forced greenhouse-gas warming. But that implies a unit feedback response of 0 K for each 1 K of the 255 K sunshine temperature, and yet, somehow, 3 K for each 1 K of the 8 K direct warming by the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

Now, here’s the rub. One can of course construct an electronic circuit with a differencer built in, with the same effect as if the principal input signal did not enter the feedback loop at all but was instead fed in between the output node of the feedback loop and the output terminal of the system.

But there was no such differencer in the climate of 1850. The climate is an inanimate object. The feedback processes therein are inanimate objects. At any given moment, such as 1850, they have no freedom to pick and choose between the various quanta of the input signal to which they respond. “Oo-er, stap me vitals, guv’nor, ’ere comes a Kelvin o’ that borin’ ol’ sunshine temperature. Let’s ignore that one. But ’ere’s a Kelvin o’ direct warming forced by that nasty demon Siotu. Strewth! Better multiply that one by 3, toot sweet, or Siotu will frow all ’is toys outta the stroller, innit, bruv?”

Yet that nonsensical position is what official climatology imagines. It imagines that, in 1850, there was no feedback response at all to the first 255 K of the 263 K reference temperature, but that there was a vastly exaggerated feedback response to the final 8 K of that temperature.

The Born Liar simply cannot bring himself to admit that in this respect official climatology is plumb wrong. No ifs, no buts. It’s wrong. Hansen (1984) screwed up, and his profitable error was enthusiastically copied throughout climatology. Without it, there would be no reason to predict an anthropogenic “climate emergency”.

Official climatology, and the Born Liar with it, pretends that because it imagines the unit feedback response in 1850 was 3 rather than 0.09 K per Kelvin of directly-forced warming, and the system-gain factor in 1850 was 4 rather than 1.09 K per Kelvin of directly-forced warming, therefore the system-gain factor and unit feedback response in 2100 will be 4 and 3 respectively, rather than 1.09 and 0.09 respectively.

For official climatology not only assumes a vastly exaggerated system-gain factor for 1850: it also implicitly assumes a linear relationship between the input signal and the output signal, at least under anything like modern conditions, so that the same exaggerated system-gain factor will obtain in 2100.

However, as we have shown, once climatology’s original error of physics is corrected, any change in the feedback regime with temperature responds acts not only upon the directly-forced warming by natural and anthropogenic noncondensing greenhouse gases but also upon emission temperature itself.

Therefore, even a 1% increase in the system-gain factor will engender a 340% increase in equilibrium sensitivity, as mentiond in the head posting.

However, if one starts out – as official climatology does – by imagining that the system-gain factor in 1850 was about 4 times what it actually was, and, therefore, that the unit feedback response was more than 30 times what it actually was, one is starting out in altogether the wrong place. That is climatology’s first error of physics.

The Born Liar says that climatology perpetrates a second error of physics, by assuming that the system-gain factor and, therefore, the unit feedback response will remain invariant with temperature in the modern era. But, being the liar he is, he misattributes that imagined (and probably imaginary) error to us: for he cannot and will not admit that the Party Line to which he is so clingingly devoted could in any respect be materially in error.

In reality, the climate system is powerfully thermostatic, for various well-understood reasons, so that small changes in global mean surface temperature may well make not that much difference to the feedback regime.

But if one were to correct climatology’s first error of physics, and if one were then to apply the ludicrously overstated feedback strengths listed in IPCC (2021) to the equation, one would be misled into expecting not 1.09 K final or equilibrium warming per 1 K of directly-forced warming but instead some 450 K, which is simply not happening. Why so large a response? Because the feedback processes respond not only to the puny direct warming by noncondensing greenhouse gases but also to the far larger 255 K emission temperature. So a very small change in the feedback regime will engender a very large change in system response.

One of the Born Liar’s many lies is to devise electronic circuits that he thinks will prove his point (whatever that point is, for he writes in a haplessly obscurantist fashion). That is why we went to an independent national laboratory to get our testing done, for then we were able to ensure that there was no prejudice.

Then the Born Liar adds to his lies by pointing out that merely because the system gain factor in 1850 was 1.09 there is no reason to suppose that it will remain at 1.09 by 2100. It might just as well be 4.

For underlying the Born Liar’s lies is another lie. In order to try to prove us wrong – and he knows, with a sinking heart, that he can’t – he has to pretend that the real climate isn’t there. That’s a trick we’ve seen before. When Nick Stokes inexpertly commented on our result, he said that if one put a differencer in the circuit one could get the startlingly different unit feedback responses to solar and to greenhouse-gas direct forcings that official climatology unwittingly assumes. But there’s no differencer in the climate circuit.

Likewise, the Born Liar fails to point out that we have not actually seen 4 K of final warming for each 1 K of direct warming. We’ve only seen about 1.3 K – a third of what official climatology, based on its error of physics, had predicted. Now, of course, one might legitimately argue that perhaps the feedback regime has changed more than we think, so that actually there will be a lot more warming in the pipeline to make up the difference.

But no: that won’t work. For one keeps getting these long pauses, which indicate that the climate is very close to temperature equilibrium. And, in any event, IPeCaC’s table of feedback strengths shows them to be less in its 2021 report than in its 2013 report (though still way too high). If IPeCaC says feedback strengths are declining, why does the Born Liar insist that they must be increasing?

The Born Liar says that “high ECS values are just as consistent with” our assertion of climatology’s error “as low ECS values are”. And he announces this as though it were some sort of revelation that demonstrates our work to be erroneous. Except that, in our paper (which, remember, the Born Liar has not even read, not that stops him inexpertly trying to comment), we point out, as we had pointed out in the comment to which the Born Liar was responding, that the corrected model of the climate system is far more sensitive to very small changes in the feedback regime than climatology’s uncorrected and erroneous model.

Therefore, we drew in that comment the correct conclusion that 4 K final warming per 1 K direct warming was a possibility: but it was one, and a not particularly likely one, of a spectrum of possibilities, which was why looking at what is actually happening to global temperature becomes important.

For our result demonstrates that, unless one had a far more perfect knowledge of the magnitudes and rates of change of the principal feedbacks in the climate, there is actually no way to constrain equilibrium climate sensitivity. It can’t be done. But what one can say is that if, as climatology assumes, the feedback regime remains as it was in 1850, then little more than 1 K final warming per 1 K of direct warming can be expected: and that is far closer to the actual outturn to date than official climatology’s silly error has led it to expect on the basis of the position in 1850.

Finally, like all liars, the Born Liar is spiteful. Indeed, he has been called out on his spiteful, vituperative manner on many occasions. He cites Steve McIntyre as saying, in that lofty manner that he likes to adopt, that he discourages “over-simplistic” thinking. McIntyre, of course, like the Born Liar, is no control theorist.

So I shall end with a remark sent to me by the convener of a group of control theorists in Australia who had come across our result. He said we had presented the elements of a simple feedback loop in a simpler fashion than any of them had ever seen, and that was manifestly correct at all points.

Therefore, the Born Liar should not assume that because we have thought hard enough about the operation of the feedback loop to make it look simple our analysis is accordingly simplistic. In reality, it is simply correct.

The Born Liar has one more spiteful arrow in his limp quiver: he says the “heavy-hitters” in the skeptical community say I have “gone off the rails”. Except that it’s not just my paper: it’s a paper by a dozen heavy-hitters in the skeptical community. Oops!

ATheoK
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 3:08 pm

Joe Born

Reply to Sunsettommy July 4, 2022 6:47 am

The “Editor” legend that shows up on Sunsettommy’s comment does not reflect well on this site”

Oh, boohoo, jbore’s feelings are trashed because Lord Monckton Identified and destroyed all, that is every one, of jbore’s falsehoods and fabrications.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
July 4, 2022 3:28 pm

Yes, he whines, a lot.

Editor
Reply to  Joe Born
July 4, 2022 8:04 pm

My, my, I do seem to have struck a nerve.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 5, 2022 1:44 am

I am most grateful to Sunsettomy for his timely and well-judged intervention in the cause of right and truth.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 5, 2022 5:00 am

Look, provoking Lord Monckton into placing such outlandish ravings on the public record has all been great fun. But there’s a serious side to all this. He has threatened to insert himself again into high-stakes climate litigation, where his mathematical incompetence has the potential to do serious harm. So I’m going to make a serious request to Anthony Watts, you, and anyone else responsible for this site’s content.

Before this site again misleads its readers by promulgating Lord Monckton’s theory, please make a serious attempt to understand why it has gained no serious traction.  You and Mr. Watts have apparently failed recognize that Lord Monckton’s they-forgot-the-sun-is-shining theory is logically and mathematically incoherent, so it’s clear you don’t understand it yet.  (Indeed, the mutually inconsistent claims Lord Monckton has made suggest that he doesn’t, either.)  

But here’s a question you should be able to understand. If modelers really had made so fundamental an error as failing to take the sun into account, Lord Monckton’s theory would be a scientific kill shot. So why haven’t heavyweights like William Happer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer embraced it?  Why hasn’t the CO2 Coalition’s Web site featured Lord Monckton’s theory?  Why hasn’t Dr. Spencer championed it on his blog?

Instead, I have it on good authority that serious skeptics like Drs. Lindzen and Spencer have quietly attempted to dissuade Lord Monckton from taking so nonsensical a position. Yet his only response of which I’m aware is his “unit feedback response” argument, which I thoroughly dismantled in my Naptown Number post’s “Apples to Oranges” section.

So before this site again promulgates that theory, wouldn’t it be more responsible to try seriously to understand the flaws in his theory that have prevented knowledgeable skeptics from adopting it?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
July 5, 2022 6:34 am

More whining?

Reply to  Joe Born
July 5, 2022 7:41 am

The Born Liar no longer has any credit here. He has been caught out lying systematically, systemically and unquestionably. He has not apologized for it, as he should have done. No one except his fellow climate Communists is listening. Whom should we believe? A proven, serial liar, and a shyster at that, or a tenured Professor of Control Theory of more than usual competence? My team prefers to pay attention to the latter and to ignore the former as not a credible source. Let us leave it at that.

Editor
Reply to  Joe Born
July 5, 2022 1:21 pm

What is wrong with publishing material that YOU think is bunk, but if it is bad as YOU state then it will eventually die of natural causes thus your continued replies here seem to make many here wonder why you are so upset when everything you have posted in the thread has been completely uncensored in attacking what YOU think is bunk.

The Administrators are well aware on what is to be published as there is a roll call for several postings in the near future already installed ready to publish.

I am not going to answer your speculative questions since they are not as important as YOU think they are, I have no idea what they are seeing from their point of view.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
July 6, 2022 5:59 am

where his mathematical incompetence has the potential to do serious harm.”

His math is unassailable. If the system gain is 2 then going from an input of 5 to 5.1 will raise the output from 10 to 10.2. If you only look at the feedback change of 0.1 then going from 10 to 10.2 would require a system gain of 100 to get to 10 and a system gain of 102 to get to 10.2. Even the system gain would have to go up and I can find nothing in the literature that shows how the feedback of CO2 suddenly increased from pre-1850 to post-1850!

In fact, Happer has shown that CO2 feedback goes DOWN as the amount of CO2 goes up!

“You and Mr. Watts have apparently failed recognize that Lord Monckton’s they-forgot-the-sun-is-shining theory is logically and mathematically incoherent, so it’s clear you don’t understand it yet.”

It’s perfectly logical and mathematically coherent. It is your KV_f^a factor that is not logical and is mathematically incoherent. First, how does V_f get an exponent in a passive system? And if K is changing then you really have K(V_f), i.e. K is a function of V_f. What physical process in our biosphere explains this?

But here’s a question you should be able to understand. If modelers really had made so fundamental an error as failing to take the sun into account,”

Almost all of the models run *way* too hot. So apparently they *do* have some fundamental error – such as failing to take the sun into account when setting some of their parameterized settings.

I don’t agree with much of climate science because it does not take uncertainty into account which would question almost all of their conclusions. I’m not even sure ECS is a real thing. But at least CoM’s logic and math is internally consistent. That’s just not true for models that ignore the total input to the system and only focuses on delta’s as being the cause of everything.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 4, 2022 1:44 pm

The output of the circuit Joe likes to use has the input and the feedback loop tied to the inverting (negative) input of the op amp with the non-inverting input tied to ground. An op-amp will respond to the voltages between its two inputs. Since the non-inverting input is tied to ground, that input is at a fixed potential. So the op-amp will respond to the *total* voltage applied to the inverting input. It won’t respond separately to V_in and to V_f but to V_in + V_f.

You can’t just take V_in away and look at just V_f. Which I think is what you are trying to get across. If your input is 5.1v you will get a totally different V_out than you will for an input of just 0.1v. The only way to get them the same is to have the system gain at a different value for 5.1v vs 0.1v. The gain would have to be much, much higher in the second scenario for the same output. Which seems to the error in the ECS if the total input is not considered.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 5, 2022 2:05 am

Mr Gorman is right. Take any feedback circuit that does not contain a differencer forcing the feedback loop to ignore the major part of the input signal. At any given moment, the feedback block must perforce respond to the entire input signal. Therefore, at that given moment, it must respond proportionately to the relative magnitudes of the components in the input signal. One cannot arbitrarily assume, as climatology does, that there is no feedback response to the 255 K emission temperature, and then an enormous feedback response to the 8 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

The unit feedback response – which is simply 1 less than the system-gain factor – is thus applicable in the same degree to each Kelvin of the input signal, regardless of where that Kelvin came from. Feedback processes, being inanimage, simply cannot decide that they will ignore the large emission temperature from the Sun and that they will respond only, and exaggeratedly, to the reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, there are those who simply refuse to understand that merely because the strict proportionality rule holds fast at each individual moment, that fact does not, repeat not, necessarily entail invariance of the system-gain factor as the input signal – and, therefore, potentially, the magnitude of the feedback fraction – changes.

What is definite, though there are some who cannot bring themselves to depart from the Party Line sufficiently to admit it, is that official climatology has been doing the calculation for 1850 incorrectly for well over a third of a century, leading it to imagine that the unit feedback response in that year was 30 times what it was in reality. On any view, that order-of-magnitude error is serious.

Climatology then makes the (probably broadly correct) assumption that certain commenters here inappropriately attribute to us – namely, that given the modest change in the reference temperature in the anthropogenic era the feedback regime will not change.

Again, what is definite is that, because any change in the feedback regime and consequently in the system-gain factor with temperature must be applied not merely to the small greenhouse-gas-driven reference sensitivity but also to the 30-times-larger emission temperature, even a small change in the system-gain factor will engender a disproportionately large change in equilibrium sensitivity.

Yet global temperature is responding to the anthropogenic influence as though there is practically no change at all in the system-gain factor with temperature in the modern era.

Again, what is definite is that if, after correcting climatology’s first error of physics, one tries to apply the vastly exaggerated feedback strengths listed in IPCC (2013) or (2021) to the corrected sensitivity equation, one will expect an ECS of some 450 K. That, of course, is not occurring. therefore, it is certain that the feedback strengths diagnosed from the models are nonsense. Either the method of diagnosis is grossly at fault, or the models are grossly at fault, or, more probably, both.

Our result, which we continue quietly to refine, is, therefore, devastating to the official position. And that is why certain individuals here have taken to lying on an industrial scale to try to confuse the issue for the sake of keeping the scam going so that Europe, having foolishly interfered in the energy market to the extent of stamping out coal-fired power generation, will continue to pay for Putin’s invasion of it.

We are very close now to putting the material together for a submission to the police in various jurisdictions, so that those whom we can prove to have deliberately fostered the lies on which the climate-change nonsense is predicated will be prosecuted for fraud and, in one or two instances, treason. For now I shall say no more than that those who, even in the comments here, have chosen to lie in a brazen fashion for the sake of keeping the dying climate scam alive should in future be very, very careful to adhere scrupulously to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 5, 2022 6:59 pm

It took me a while to figure out what you were saying but I can’t find any fault with it the more I look at it. A watt is a watt, a meter is a meter, a joule is a joule. The Earth’s biosphere doesn’t differentiate between one and the other. And I don’t think there are any kind of diodes up there in the sky!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 7, 2022 2:10 am

Bingo! I’m most grateful to Mr Gorman and to so many others here who have been kind enough to think carefully about our result. We have been guided by a more than competent professor of control theory, and we have done our best to find out and disseminate the objective truth.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 5, 2022 8:02 am

Note that in his circuit he has identified Vf as being between the output terminal and the inverting input of opamp #1; because the non-inverting input is grounded (0V), this means the inverting input is a virtual ground, then Vout = Vf, and Vi is meaningless.

All this is likely doing to do is force the amplifier out of linear mode and jam the output at one of the voltage rails, probably the positive.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 7, 2022 2:18 am

Monte Carlo has been most steadfast in refuting some of the nonsense about our result in which an ever smaller number of climate-Communist trolls have unwisely attempted to persist.

When we first came across climatology’s error – which is strikingly obvious once one understands it – we took the trouble to brief a national laboratory of physics to design and operate a circuit to test what is in any event obvious and, indeed trivial – namely, that in the absence of any differencer (and there is none such in the climate) at any given moment the feedback block must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the total input signal. It cannot decide to respond not at all to the 255 K emission temperature from the Sun and then suddenly, in an exaggerated fashion, to warming directly forced by the greenhouse gases. No amount of bluster by the trolls can alter this very simple truth.

Of course, the ratio of output to input signals (the system-gain factor) today may not be the same as it was in 1850. Even a very small change in feedback strength and hence in the system-gain factor will cause a disproportionately large change in eventual climate sensitivity.

But what is certain is that the IPCC’s feedback strengths are far, far too large. They would imply ECS of 450 K, which is simply not occurring.

Carlo, Monte
July 2, 2022 10:23 am

*applause*

Excellent, thank you Christopher!

Editor
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 2, 2022 10:45 am

Christopher, I agree wholeheartedly with Carlo, Monte!
*applause*

And please keep at it. It’s good to see these posts every month.

Regards,
Bob

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2022 1:46 pm

Standing applause! Those of us who were taught proper civics knew that our founders with the constitution well understood the proper methodology of science, even while spending more time with the necessary legal aspects, both requiring the same basic principles.

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 3, 2022 2:46 am

Mr Hoese is most generous. Underpinning all true science, as all true law, is objective truth, a notion unknown to all totalitarians, who deny their own humanity by abandoning their intelligence and, instead, adhering sullenly and unthinkingly to the Party Line.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 3, 2022 2:36 am

Dear Bob, how unfailingly kind you are!

John V. Wright
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 2, 2022 1:48 pm

One of the most interesting, elucidating and elegant articles that has ever appeared on this excellent scientific blog – thank you Christopher Monckton!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  John V. Wright
July 2, 2022 8:53 pm

Absolutely!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John V. Wright
July 2, 2022 9:00 pm

Agree. I read Monckton’s essay on jurisprudence and the Constitution aloud! It’s a strange treat for a geologist/mining engineer I must say

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 3, 2022 2:51 am

In response to Mr Pearse’s amiable comment, I am currently moderating the drafting of a doctoral thesis on jurisprudence by a more than usually talented and right-thinking law student from the United States. I have had the pleasure of introducing him to the notion, explicit in Roman law and implicit in all systems of law derived therefrom, including our own, that the law is founded upon and rooted in love, and that, in the Jewish and, therefore, in the Christian understanding truth is near-exactly co-extensive with love. He is going to frame his thesis around these propositions. He is more widely-read than anyone of his age that I have come across, and his thesis will be a fascinating read. I am very much hoping that, once he has his doctorate under his belt he will publish it as a book.

Reply to  John V. Wright
July 3, 2022 2:47 am

Mr Wright has uttered one of the most flattering comments I have ever been fortunate enough to receive. I shall try not to let it go to my head.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 3, 2022 10:45 am

Monte Carlo is very generous. I am so glad he enjoyed reading the piece as much as I enjoyed writing it.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2022 10:41 am

Christopher Monckton,

I appreciate your attribution at the end of your second paragraph in your above article:
“Or, in the immortal words of Dr Roy Spencer, speaking of his dataset, ‘It is what it is’. In that splendid dictum speaks all true science.”

This is, obviously, aligned with Richard Feynman’s famous statement:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Isn’t it time that we all looked back and just admitted that AGW/CAGW claims of CO2-caused global warming were a theory, beautiful or not, that was and is just wrong.

Mr.
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2022 2:05 pm

The “CO2 as control knob for global climate” is patently observationally wrong.

But as with all great deceptions, it has just that scintilla of believability about it to make it a basis for overwhelming propaganda.

Yes climate(s) change, yes some climate(s) warm up for many reasons (just as others cool down).

But to bet the whole world’s economies and standards of living on modest CO2 reduction in the atmosphere “stopping climate change” is the sort of play one would expect from a Jim Jones or a David Koresh.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 3, 2022 3:00 am

In response to Mr Dressler, Dr Spencer is one of the most valuable allies we have in the search for scientific truth. He is a man of the very highest principle and integrity, and the world is very lucky to have him.

For various reasons, it would be wrong to assume that CO2 cannot cause any warming, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the climate behaves as a mathematically-chaotic object, so that – to use the well-worn metaphor – even the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings on one side of the world may be so magnified as to cause a hurricane on the other.

The physics by which the interaction of a CO2 molecule with a photon in on one of CO2’s absorption bands induces a symmetric oscillation in the bending vibrational mode of the molecule is well understood. That oscillation, arising from the symmetric disposition of the carbon atoms either side of the oxygen atom, by definition causes heat. But not much, and not for long.

Our best approach, as it seems to me, is to accept that CO2 and other heteroatomic gaseous molecules may cause direct warming, or reference sensitivity, as it is known. However, if that were all the warming we had to worry about, no one would ever have panicked about anthropgoenic warming large enough or fast enough to be catastrophic.

In the Party Line, the amplification of the direct warming by feedback processes that multiplies the small and net-beneficial direct warming by 3 or 4 or even up to 10, turning a non-event into an imagined and imaginary catastrophe. For after correction of climatology’s elementary errors of physics, one can leave feedback response out of the equation without much error, for it is very small.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 3, 2022 7:45 am

“disposition of the carbon atoms either side of the oxygen atom,” 

You might like to reconsider this structure of CO2.

Reply to  Sceptical Sam
July 3, 2022 2:36 pm

Mea culpa: it is of course the other way about.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 3, 2022 8:35 am

Isn’t CO2, at a current atmospheric concentration of about 420 ppmv, essentially saturated in its ability to cause any further global warming?

Aren’t CO2’s LWIR absorption bands overwhelmed by overlapping absorption bands of water vapor (see attached figure), except for a relatively narrow band centered around 4.3 microns?

Compared to a water molecule which has a permanent dipole moment, isn’t it true that a CO2 molecule is a relatively weak absorber of surface-emitted LWIR due to:
a) it does not have a permanent dipole moment, only an inducible one,
b) it’s atmospheric concentration in ppmv is one to two orders of magnitude less than the range of water vapor concentration over the range of humidity seen in Earth’s atmosphere?

Sure, CO2 probably has accounted for some “global warming” in the distant past (probably when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were < 200 ppmv).

Have CO2 atmospheric concentration’s over the last 250 years created any additional global warming effect or contributed to any additional ECS? I seriously doubt it based on the scientific data, in particular the growing database that indicates long term changes in global atmospheric CO2 content almost always follow long term changes in global temperature. Effect cannot precede cause.

GHGs.jpg
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 3, 2022 9:30 am

Don’t forget, the highest density of CO2 will be near the earth. So the back radiation from higher in the atmosphere will have to traverse most of the CO2 gradient closer to the earth before it warms the earth.

If that CO2 gradient is not saturated then much of the back radiation will get absorbed and won’t warm the earth. If it is saturated then more will get back to warm the earth. Of course if it is saturated then more of the LWIR from the earth will reach space.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 3, 2022 10:19 am

Your comments are close, but somewhat tangential, to the central point.

The critical facts are:

1) all LWIR-absorbing GHGs distribute their temporary excess energy, within the order of nanoseconds, to all other atmospheric gases—predominately N2 and O2—via molecule-to-molecule collision exchanges resulting in those other molecules increasing their average translational velocities and molecular bond vibrational energies (together what we call “temperature”),

2) all atmospheric gases are continuously radiating wide-spectrum thermal energy because their temperatures are above absolute zero, the amount of energy radiated per second increasing with increasing temperature to the power of 4, all other factors being the same,

3) the “back radiation” toward Earth (what some define as the greenhouse effect) comes from the entire atmosphere, whether or not certain of its species are considered to be “saturated” w.r.t. greenhouse effect capability. All gases radiate thermal energy isotropically.

Macha
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 3, 2022 6:03 pm

True and one must not forget emissivity and conductivity. Different matter can absorbs energy or heat, without giving it up thermally easily .

Years ago, 2 physicists published a comprehensive 115-page scientific paper entitled “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009

Richard M
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 4, 2022 11:42 am

The use of the term “saturation” is often misunderstood. In this case it means all the **surface** radiation in the relevant frequency bands is already being absorbed. What’s more, it’s all absorbed within 10 meters of the surface.

That means the other 99.99 km of atmospheric CO2 is completely free to absorb/emit radiation. This means that all the back radiation from any higher layer in the atmosphere is easily absorbed by lower layers due to their higher density of CO2. This essentially eliminates any back radiation flux.

All of the 3.7 w/m2 of back radiation which leads to the 1.16 C calculation comes from the very lowest layer of the the atmosphere, the boundary layer. Since this layer exists in thermal equilibrium with the surface, there’s no warming. The entire greenhouse effect is imaginary.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard M
July 4, 2022 1:49 pm

” . . . there’s no warming. The entire greenhouse effect is imaginary.”

Hah!

1. Any radiation that is “absorbed” ultimately ends up being re-radiated, eventually to deep space, since there is no means for the Earth-atmosphere system to continuously shed energy other than via thermal radiation. Even the “atmospheric window” allows direct radiation of LWIR energy to space.

2. Any LWIR radiation absorbed within 10 meters of Earth’s surface is promptly distributed to all gas constituents in the atmosphere, in the process “warming” all molecules, especially since the troposphere has ample convection and is considered “well mixed”. There is no such thing as a distinct hot layer near the surface according to the definition of Earth’s standard atmosphere. If fact over most of Earth, the atmosphere within several meters of the surface is very likely to be cooler than higher levels since it is most probably being actively cooled by evaporation of water from the surface.

3. All atmospheric gases emit thermal radiation isotropically, so it is a misnomer to state that “back radiation” is somehow different than outward-directed radiation, or that it is a unique feature of greenhouse gases, or that is it due solely to greenhouse gases.

4. Continuous isotropic thermal radiation has a large component in the infrared spectrum (in the range of 3 to 70 microns as a result of atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen molecules having typical temperatures in the range of 288 to 220 K). Hence, CO2 throughout the height of the troposphere is always absorbing some large amount of IR radiation, including LWIR, and either isotropically thermally radiating that absorbed energy or, more significantly, distributing it to nitrogen and oxygen via molecular collisions, said molecules themselves continuously thermally radiating. This is true at least up to the altitude of the tropopause, where molecular collision rates decline substantially due to decreased pressure and temperature.

The greenhouse effect (absorption of surface-emitted radiation by LWIR-active gases such as water vapor, CO2 and methane) is certainly real, but how it actually results in warming Earth’s surface is poorly understood by most people.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Richard M
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 4, 2022 2:07 pm

Your definition of the “The greenhouse effect” is incomplete. It also requires energy radiated back to the surface which warms it.

The boundary layer response eliminates the warming. Hence, there is no greenhouse effect.

PS. The atmospheric boundary layer is much larger than 10 meters. Usually it is viewed at 1-2 km in depth over land. Closer to 100 meters over the oceans.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard M
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard M
July 5, 2022 7:43 am

Please look up the definition of isotropic, as in “isotropic thermal radiation”, and then get back to me.

P.S. I never mentioned “atmospheric boundary layer”. Why did you see the need to bring up this ill-defined term? According to https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?word=boundary%20layer ,
there are these various “boundary layers” that one can refer to:
planetary boundary layer, “roughly the lowest one or two kilometers of the atmosphere . . . the ‘top’ of this layer cannot be defined exactly”
surface boundary layer, “roughly 10 meters thick (from the surface up to 10 meters above the ground), but again the exact depth is indeterminate”
convective boundary layer, “forms at the surface and grows upward through the day as the ground is heated”
stable boundary layer, “the stably-stratified layer that forms at the surface and grows upward, usually at night or in winter, as heat is extracted from the atmosphere’s base in response to longwave radiative heat loss from the ground. Stable boundary layers can also form when warm air is advected over a cold surface or over melting ice.”
There is no mention of a boundary layer of approximately 100 m depth that forms over Earth’s oceans.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Richard M
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 5, 2022 8:45 am

Here’s a couple of views of the boundary layer.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0012825294900264

http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/akp_thes/node6.htm

the part of the troposphere that is directly influenced by the presence of the earths surface, and responds to surface forcings with a time scale of about an hour or less.

It’s not a specific height as I indicated. The key aspect in my use is the boundary layer exhibits thermal equilibrium with the physical surface. Maybe I should use the term Thermal Equilibrium Layer (TEL) to make it more obvious.

This is a part of the atmosphere where energy is constantly being shared with the physical surface through all energy transport mechanisms. The key one that is left out of most climate discussions is conduction.

Conduction tends to be ignored because the net change is generally quite insignificant. However, the total energy movement in both directions is huge. As you’ve stated in the past, kinetic energy transfers occur at a very high rate with CO2 molecules. At the surface, all molecules are involved.

The key point is that the energy transfers involved in maintaining equilibrium are doing so as a direct result of changes in forcing. For example, when the sun comes up you get a lot more transfers of energy from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.

My main point is that the total volume of energy transfers is so great that small changes are essentially invisible. Adding more CO2 and seeing a small change in DWIR from within the TEL is one of those small changes. All that happens is you see slightly more energy transfers from the surface back into the TEL.

As a result, to get any warming from the DWIR you would need the radiation to come from outside the TEL. However, almost all the DWIR from higher in the atmosphere is absorbed before reaching the surface. This neutralization of the DWIR is never accounted for in radiation models.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
July 5, 2022 9:20 am

I’m not saying that this effect should be accounted for in radiation models. However, simply taking the output of these models and claiming it will lead to warming is not true. The TEL feedback needs to be accounted for before claiming the total energy found in the radiation models will have a warming effect as is currently done by climate science.

Also, the feedback is not all conductive. There’s also some added evaporation due to the low energy signature of the DWIR from CO2 molecules. This should enhance the water cycle but again not generate any warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard M
July 4, 2022 2:13 pm

This means that all the back radiation from any higher layer in the atmosphere is easily absorbed by lower layers due to their higher density of CO2. This essentially eliminates any back radiation flux.”

I think that was one of the points I was making.

That lower layer is either saturated (cannot absorb any more radiation – from the sun, from the higher atmosphere, from the sun, etc) or it isn’t.

If it is saturated then the earth’s LWIR will pass through to space (no greenhouse effect). If it isn’t saturated then back radiation from higher in the atmosphere will get absorbed and not affect the surface of the earth.

Richard M
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 4, 2022 2:45 pm

Correct. My addition was to show your latter choice was the right one.

stinkerp
July 2, 2022 10:50 am

I would love to see a least squares regression analysis of the last 23 years going back to 1998 to extract a trend. Looking at the UAH Monthly Global Lower Troposphere Anomaly plot, I suspect the warming trend, while not exactly zero, is pretty darn close to it. Time to dig out R Studio…

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  stinkerp
July 2, 2022 12:24 pm

The trend from 1998/04 to 2022/06 is +0.12 C/decade.

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 2, 2022 2:25 pm

The trend since February 2016 is cooling.

bigoilbob
Reply to  John Tillman
July 2, 2022 3:26 pm

The trend since February 2016 is cooling.”

With a qualitatively higher chance that it’s in fact, increasing, than either the chance that either Edim’s or bdgwx’s are in fact cooling. It’s simply because they both have more data, over a longer period, and that their data is probably more physically representative of what is actually going on than yours.

John Tillman
Reply to  bigoilbob
July 2, 2022 8:51 pm

My data are every single set, even the most adjusted”. It’s not just UAH, but even the “surface data”, totally stepped on, adulterated, massaged beyond all recognition, such as HadCRU and GISS that show the unhideable decline.

Arctic sea ice extent has grown since 2012. Nature is yet again falsifying CACA, as it did in the 20th century before the PDO shift of 1977.

QED and here endeth the lesson.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Graemethecat
Reply to  John Tillman
July 3, 2022 12:41 am

It is also falsified by the enormous litany of failed predictions and projections (Arctic ice-free by 2014 etc. etc.)

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
July 3, 2022 4:59 am

Word salad is in the house. Dude you need more windmills.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
July 3, 2022 6:26 am

blob desperately needs temperatures to go up.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
July 3, 2022 7:45 pm

Bad data ,is bad data, regardless of how much of it you have.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
July 3, 2022 5:54 am

And the trend since 2010 is warming at 2x the rate as compared to that from 1979.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2022 6:27 am

Undetectable in the noise.

Richard M
Reply to  bdgwx
July 4, 2022 1:57 pm

So many short term wiggles. What’s the 6,000 year trend?

Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2022 2:42 am

The least-squares linear-regression trend on the entire UAH dataset from December 1979 to June 2022 inclusive is equivalent to 0.133 K/decade, or 1.33 K/century. That is one-third of the 4 K/century equivalent that Hansen had predicted in 1984 in the paper in which, as far as we can discover, They first perpetrated their elementary error of physics. The real-world outturn is in the ballpark that one might expect after correcting Their error; Hansen’s error-driven prediction is what the scientific illiterates who govern us found their policies on.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 3, 2022 5:44 am

Here is the Hansen et al. 1984 paper. The paper contains multiple experiments. None of them show 4K/century. Ironically the instantaneous pulse experiment showed 4.2 K over only 35 years which is actually 12 K/century. Anyway, the experiment most closely matching the emission pathway that actually played out shows only +0.06 C/decade from 1850 to 2010 or +0.17 C/decade from 1979 to 2010. Refer to table 4 and figure 18 and associated commentary for details. That +0.17 C/decade rate is pretty close to the UAH, RSS, RATPAC, BEST, GISTEMP, NOAA, HadCRUT, and ERA composite rate of +0.19 C/decade from 1979 to 2022. Note that if anything Hansen et al. 1984 actually underestimated the warming rate.

You have also claimed that the warming is “little more than a third of the midrange rate originally predicted by IPCC in 1990″ which is also patently false as I discuss here. Notice that the IPCC prediction from 1990 to 2020 is for a warming of +0.18 C/decade. Again, if anything the IPCC underestimated the warming rate.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2022 7:47 pm

Multiple runs of a model are not “experiments”. This goes double when the models are unable to duplicate reality.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2022 2:29 pm

Why is this so hard for statisticians to understand?

Reply to  bdgwx
July 5, 2022 2:13 am

The furtively acronymic “bdgwx” is, as usual, departing scandalously from the objective truth. One has only to read as far as the second sentence of the abstract to come across the following: “Our £D global climate model yields a warming of ~4 C for either a 2% increase of [total solar irradiance] or doubled CO2. This indicates a net [system-gain factor] of 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the Earth’s surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3 C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.”

Hansen goes on to produce the wildly excessive feedback strengths that have been a feature of official climatology ever since.

The error in not including the emission temperature as part of the input signal is then explicitly made in the Introduction.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 5, 2022 6:37 am

bdgwx is a dyed-in-the-wool data Mannipulator.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 5, 2022 6:58 am

4 C is not the same thing 4 C/century. Those are two different concepts with completely different units of measure. I want you to actually read the Hansen et al. 1984 publication. Pay particular attention to the authors’ best guess at the emission pathway presented in table 4. Then look at the prediction in figure 18 with the full mixed layer and thermocline heat capacity for that emission pathway. Notice that the warming is predicted to be about +0.17 C/decade. This compares to +0.19 C/decade from UAH, RSS, RATPAC, GISTEMP, NOAAGlobalTemp, HadCRUT, BEST, and ERA. That means Hansen et al. 1984 underestimated the warming rate by about 10%. I have include the actual prediction below.

comment image

Reply to  bdgwx
July 7, 2022 2:07 am

The reason why ECS is in the same ballpark as anthropogenic warming from all sources over the 21st century is that the forcings in each case are close to one another.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 3, 2022 7:38 am

There is no trend in this graph which is the reason for using this depiction. It shows a process that has plus and minus excursions but reverts back to the mean. It shows that temps are not controlled by CO2 other than a being a partial, and probably small, factor in the overall temperature of the globe. It certainly shows that CO2 is NOT a control knob.

Edim
Reply to  stinkerp
July 2, 2022 1:41 pm
bigoilbob
Reply to  Edim
July 2, 2022 3:19 pm

Use bdgwx’s exact dates, AND the last 2 months that WFT has not included.

bdgwx
Reply to  Edim
July 3, 2022 6:00 am

I used 1998/04 to 2022/06. Note that is actually 23 years and 3 month. But I felt compelled to go back an extra 3 months otherwise I would have been accused of intentionally ignoring the El Nino peak which occurred in April of 1998.

Eric Harpham
July 2, 2022 10:54 am

Thank you. A brilliant article. Now all we’ve got to is make the powers that be listen and understand. A more difficult job. Please keep up the good work.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Eric Harpham
July 2, 2022 12:49 pm

You know, I really do think they understand already.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Eric Harpham
July 2, 2022 1:22 pm

Eric, the powers that be are the children being inculcated with the lies of AGW. They are the ones who need savig3.

Michael in Dublin
July 2, 2022 11:01 am

I wish I could cross question each justice taking them through the following:

CO2 is plant food. Increased amounts in greenhouse experiments promote growth.

What is the optimum amount of CO2 for the best growth of all plants and trees?

I believe anyone who gives the answer is a liar because do we really know?

If the Supreme Court has to work with real evidence how can they rule for the EPA?

Empirical scientific evidence not models, projections and opinions must guide us.

With no scientific experiments supporting alarmism, case closed. QED.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael in Dublin
T Gasloli
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 2, 2022 12:00 pm

The Supreme Court does not decide the science, they are only authorized to decide the law. It is not a question for them whether CO2 does anything.

For them the question is does the law allow EPA to promulgate a specific regulation under a specific section of the law. In this case they decide that EPA could not promulgated this grid-wide program under Section 111.

EPA still has authority to regulate CO2 in other ways under the same & other sections of the law.

DHR
Reply to  T Gasloli
July 2, 2022 12:35 pm

The Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to decide matters of law and equity, not just law. I do not know how the “equity” issue has been interpreted over the years but, perhaps, a fossil fuel power plant owner might be able sue the Government over loss of his or her right to make a living (equity) off of a large investment now made illegal because of false doctrine. Ask your local constitutional lawyer.

Reply to  T Gasloli
July 5, 2022 2:28 am

Mr Gasioli is, to a large extent, correct: the duty of the courts in general, and of the only Court specifically mentioned in the Constitution in particular, to decide matters of law rather than of fact.

There is, however, one exception: and that arises in administrative law, which is a common-law process in the UK but is statutorily enacted in the Civil Code in the U.S.

In judicial review of the administrative action of the officers, officials and entities of government, one of the grounds of review – though admittedly it is relied upon far more rarely in the U.S. than in the U.K. – is what is known in UK law as the test for “Wednesbury unreasonableness” or, more punchily, “irrationality”, and in U.S. law as “rational-basis review”.

The irrationality doctrine in administrative law is to the effect that, if a decision of an officer, official or entity of government is one that no reasonable person in possession of his senses and of the facts could possibly take, then that decision is irrational and, accordingly, ultra vires the perpetrator.

The Courts will not decide complex questions of science, for instance. However, the error of physics underlying the climate nonsense is sufficiently elementary that it can be clearly described in nothing longer than an amicus brief for the Supreme Court, whose length is strictly limited.

And it is even easier to demonstrate that even if the whole of the West – against which the climate scam is selectively, malevolently and exclusively targeted – were to succeed in attaining nut-zero emissions by 2050 (which it won’t), the global warming abated would be negligble, but the cost may yet bankrupt the West. That can be definitively demonstrated in little more than a single paragraph.

There may, therefore, be room for timely intervention in the next climate case to reach the Supreme Court.

AndyHce
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 2, 2022 4:35 pm

While I do think the evidence is that increasing CO2 does little in regard to raising atmospheric temperature, the fact that it increases the rate of growth of plants is not dependent on that. It could be that, in spite of available evidence, increasing CO2 could be improving plant growth right up to the point where it burns them to death.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 5, 2022 2:31 am

AndyHce is deluding himself if he thinks that little more than 1 K of global warming over the 21st century would be enough to “burn plants to death”. There are far fewer and less extensive fores fires now in North American than there were in the 1930s – and many of those that now occur are started either by overhead electricity cables that ought to have been buried or by careless discarding of glass bottles or smoldering matches, or by arson, sometimes on the part of climate Communists who know that their fellow-Communists in the news media can be trusted to report that, whatever the real cause, climate change is to blame.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 6, 2022 4:07 am

Since the rise in the global average temperature is almost certainly because of an increase in minimum temps rather than maximum temps there is no possibility of the Earth turning into a cinder or of “burn plants to death”.

This is just a scare tactic by those who have an agenda and simply don’t care about the actual truth.

Again, an average going up does *NOT* mean the maximum values have gone up. If a true statistical description were used with all of the climate data you would find that the variance of the temps have gone down almost everywhere because the range between minimum and maximum daily temps has gone down and thus the variance has gone down. It’s why the climate scientists are so reticent about including the variance of their daily averages with their calculations. In fact, it’s not obvious to me that the minimum and maximum temps represent a Gaussian distribution which means that standard deviation (variance) and average is not a proper representation. They should really be described using the five number method: minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, maximum. If that were done the meaning of all this data would become much more clear!

Mike Maguire
July 2, 2022 11:07 am
Editor
Reply to  Mike Maguire
July 2, 2022 11:56 am

The only problem with La Ninas, Mike, is that they serve as the recharge phase of ENSO. La Ninas cause a reduction in sunlight over the tropical Pacific, and, in turn, allow more sunlight-warmed water than normal to collect in the West Pacific Warm Pool for fuel for the next El Nino.

Regards,
Bob

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2022 12:54 pm

Bob,
For a steady state system that would be correct but in reality there are times when the recharge La Niña phase is weaker than others and so fails to fuel a powerful subsequent El Niño.
I have explained elsewhere how solar variability causing global cloudiness changes could alter the balance between the recharge and discharge phases for a warming or cooling world.

Editor
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 2, 2022 2:50 pm

There has been a slight change in the amount of energy entering the ocean by sunlight due to specific changes in the sun.

Doonman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 2, 2022 4:14 pm

Also a recent reduction of SO2 in the atmosphere by humans and a lack of recent VE5 and greater volcanic eruptions.

RickWill
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2022 4:22 pm

There is a hard limit on ocean surface temperature of 30C. 30C ocean surfaces are always mid level convergent zones and upper level divergent zones. They always get more rainfall then they evaporate. Cooler regions supply the 30C pools with water.

All the net precipitation in a warm pool eventually reduces salinity and that increases the latent heat of evaporation. Eventually a portion of the ocean at higher salinity will become the dominant convective zone. This flips the mode. There are also subsurface effects across the Equatorial Pacific due to differences in head and salinity changes. But it is gradually being recognised that sanity is the ENSO trigger.

It does not really matter though what ENSO does because there is a 30C ocean surface limit that can never be overcome as long at the atmospheric mass remains around the 10t/m^2 mark. This is why all climate models are wrong. None can replicate this hard limit because they do not have the vertical resolution to resolve deep convection.

Nino34_CSIRO_CIMP3.png
Rich Davis
Reply to  RickWill
July 2, 2022 5:26 pm

You meant salinity of course. If sanity were a trigger for anything then these days, the trigger would be well and truly locked.

RickWill
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 2, 2022 6:03 pm

Yep – salinity is the trigger and too late to edit.

This link has a recent paper but it does not go into the lower latent heat of evaporation for higher saline water.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06821/

I have not checked in detail on the salinity as ENSO is weather and not climate. Climate has much longer time frames and the tropics are very stable because they are limited to 30C ocean surface temperature.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  RickWill
July 2, 2022 6:04 pm

Ric,
Mixing sanity with salinity? What a lovely typo.
Geoff S

AndyHce
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2022 4:37 pm

Did you not mean to say
La Ninas cause a reduction in clouds over the tropical Pacific?

Ron Long
July 2, 2022 11:26 am

Good report, and entertaining, as usual, from Lord Monckton. I should be upset at him calling the 3 dissenters on the Supremes (communists”, but………

Editor
Reply to  Ron Long
July 2, 2022 11:59 am

The Supremes, Ron?
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGJQPkfwlAc&w=560&h=315%5D

Regards,
Bob

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2022 5:49 pm

Ah memories from before popular culture got ugly.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Ron Long
July 2, 2022 1:07 pm

Adding “sans RINOs” to Republicans better describes those in the party who mostly look out for the
people’s best interests!

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
AndyHce
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 2, 2022 4:39 pm

You mean those who keep some people confused about the one and only uni-party?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ron Long
July 2, 2022 5:31 pm

Don’t shoot the messenger, Ron. It is what it is. Three commie witches.

otropogo
Reply to  Ron Long
July 2, 2022 10:19 pm

I see the Supreme Court split differently – hypocrites on the left, brazen liars on the right. Take your choice. It’s reassuring to think that Cicero and the Emperor Justinian were straight shooters, but I certainly wouldn’t take the “lord”‘s word for it. Methinks he doth protest too much (certainly too long, yawn…).

Reply to  otropogo
July 5, 2022 2:34 am

The whining and furtively pseudonymous climate Communist “otropogo” should remember that it is not compulsory to read postings at WUWT. If his kindergarten mistress finds my thoughtful essays too long, or if he falls asleep before she has finished reading them to him at bedtime, he should ask her to read him the Noddy stories instead. They are shorter, and more suited to “otropogo’s” limited intellectual capacity.

Vuk
July 2, 2022 11:27 am

Long read, might finish it some time later, but let’s say it again:
Concedamus magnos esse eos qui de principiis vitae disputant, quod quidem verum est; agnoscamus eos doctos et veritatis et virtutis doctores.

David Dibbell
July 2, 2022 11:41 am

Monckton of Brenchley, a pleasure to see you back in action. Continued good health to you.

I enjoyed this point: “…warmer worldwide weather increases the capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere to carry water vapor…”.

Indeed so, that water vapor needs no carrier fluid to fill an empty space. But the carrier fluid does provide the medium in which buoyancy effects help drive the heat engine. Humid air is less dense than dry, at whatever temperature, and there is a ready supply of dry air at altitude to circulate back to the surface to displace the dense working fluid that has taken on more water vapor. In my view, this is the main physical concept supporting your refutation of exaggerated feedback.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Dibbell
David Dibbell
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 2, 2022 12:18 pm

Instead of “…to displace the dense working fluid…” I should have said, “to displace the compressed working fluid…” to make the point more clearly.

Rud Istvan
July 2, 2022 11:59 am

The Kagan dissent to WV v EPA is almost incoherent. It is self contradictory.

The case itself is an easy application of the ‘major questions doctrine’, itself part of a SCOTUS rulings history on ‘clear legislative statements’ going back to 1801. The Gorsuch concurrence is well worth a read for those interested in jurisprudence.

Separate observation. The significance of the now two big pauses is not that they falsify the climate models, which do not produce them. There are simpler ways to falsify the models, such as absence of the modeled tropical troposphere hotspot, or observational ECS half of modeled. The significance is that natural variation is still both present and important, while alarmists assume it away and attribute CO2 as the ‘temperature control knob.’

Doonman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 2, 2022 1:47 pm

Belief in fairies, angels, witches and demons was once universal and many otherwise educated people promoted those ideas for whatever reasons they decided they should.

Nothing has changed in the human realm, except for who we choose to point to in order to justify our beliefs.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 3, 2022 12:37 am

And where exactly is the “major questions” doctrine stated in the constitution? This is nothing more than a power grab by the Supreme Court that has decided that it and it only has the right to decide when a regulation is sufficiently major and thus can be overturned by the court. Cynics might point out that the same justices who decided that there is no right to abortion since it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the constitution are also perfectly happy to create and apply a new doctrine concerning “major questions” if it allows them to get rid of regulations they don’t like.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 3, 2022 3:20 am

“Izaak Walton” has misunderstood the principles underlying the justices’ consideration of both baby-butchering and coal-fired-generation-butchering. In the first matter, the Supreme Court itself had, in Roe v. Wade and still more in Roe v. Casey, usurped the legislative power vested by Art. 1(1) of the Constitution solely in the elected Congress, and had laid down not merely a legislative principle that baby-butchering was permissible but even, in Casey, a series of detailed prescriptions covering such matters as the age above which baby-butchering was to be regarded as a “reproductive right”. If Congress wishes thus to legislate, it may do so, provided that its legislation does not fall foul of the Constitution. However, such legislation was not permitted to the Court, which is why the plurality struck down the Court’s earlier attempts at legislation in this field. Significantly, the Roe in Roe v. Wade eventually came to realize that the baby-butchering she had originally sought was wrong, and spent the rest of her life campaigning against it.

In the second matter, the EPA was the governmental entity that had attempted to legislate in place of Congress by declaring that coal-fired power generation was illegal and was to be stamped out, because global warming. It had sought to shut down coal-fired generation by an unduly ambitious interpretation of s. 111 of the Clean Air Act.

Neither in the abortion case nor in the coal-fired power case did the Supreme Court make any finding as to whether either abortion or coal-fired power was right or good in se. In both cases, the Court said no more than that it was the job of Congress, and Congress alone, to legislate. If, therefore, Mr “Walton” wishes to legislate Federally in favor of abortion and against coal-fired generation, it is to Congress that he must look.

Mr.
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 3, 2022 4:07 pm

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had stated before her SCOTUS appointment that the R vs W case should not have been a matter for consideration by the SCOTUS, but rather determined by Congressional legislation.

Reply to  Mr.
July 4, 2022 12:30 pm

An excellent point.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 3, 2022 4:53 am

Don’t whine, your side lost. Get over it.

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 3, 2022 5:02 am

Power grab 😉

Take your Russia colluuuusion and Benghazi was started by an internet video outta here.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 3, 2022 7:50 pm

In what is laughingly referred to as your mind, you believe that the only organization that is qualified to determine when a regulation passes constitutional muster, is the organization that is making the regulations?

It really is amazing the mental back flips that lovers of big government will put themselves through in order to justify ever more regulations.

July 2, 2022 12:20 pm

Thank your Christopher Monckton of Brenchley for this thorough coverage of the climate change issues, misinformation, legal and international political consequences. I also appreciate your humor and insights.

Reply to  Kay Kiser
July 3, 2022 3:21 am

Mr Kiser is very kind. I shall hope to contribute more frequently as my health recovers from what seem to be the lingering after-effects of two bouts of the Chinese virus.

Bruce Cobb
July 2, 2022 12:22 pm

Have the Pause Deniers said “Take your stinking Pause off me, you damned dirty ape!” yet?

July 2, 2022 12:25 pm

From my latest Blog
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans the UAH 6.0 satellite Temperature Lower Troposphere anomaly was seen at 2003/12 (one Schwab cycle delay) and was + 0.26C.(34) The temperature anomaly at 06/2022 was +0.06C (34).There has been no net global warming for the last 18 years. Earth passed the peak of a natural Millennial temperature cycle trend in 2004  and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700…………….
See more at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/

All readers should take note of the Nature Climate change paper Fig 1 C in the link.

Ronald Havelock
July 2, 2022 12:31 pm

Excellent piece again from the “lord” (can I say that?)
However, while I agree with everything said, I must ask why nobody is listening?
At bottom, it is very simple:
1. There is no climate crisis! There is no evidence that it is occurring or will occur on any timeline that is meaningful for policy makers. 4 inches of sea level rise in 100 years?
One degree C or is tt 1.5 or even (horror) two C in 100 years? No crisis, present or impending;
no supporting data; worse than that, the wobbly temperature data contradicts the “crisis” term.
2. The very term, “climate change” is utterly meaningless. The e-fanatics came to this term in the early part of this century when the global temperature data “paused.”
3. CO2 is a beneficial gas on which life forms are totally dependent. Its presence in the atmosphere is nevertheless tiny, so tiny that it is implausible that it could ever have a measurable effect on climate, let alone a harmful effect. Therefore, any programs designed to lower its “emissions” have no knowable value, whereas the unlocking of stored carbon in coal or petroleum to make usable human energy is invaluable to the sustenance of human life, and particularly the quality of human life.
4. Extensive world-wide data collection has so far exhibited no long term trend that is alarming, whatever the cause might be: no storm data, no drought data, no ice data, no sea level data.
Theories are fine, theories can be useful, but theories without data are meaningless, regardless of the human thinker’s idea of what “common sense” is. No data > no science; no data> no meaningful policy making. The emperor really has no clothes on; the e-world wants you to see the clothes, how beautiful they are, and how vast we must change our ways, change our very eyes, so we can see the beautiful truth.
So I said its SIMPLE: there is NO CRISIS! You don’t agree? Prove it!

bdgwx
Reply to  Ronald Havelock
July 2, 2022 12:55 pm

Ronald Havelock said: “The very term, “climate change” is utterly meaningless. The e-fanatics came to this term in the early part of this century when the global temperature data “paused.””

The term, or at least the close variation “climatic change”, was first used in the late 1800’s.

Chamberlin 1887

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
July 2, 2022 2:31 pm

And –

the term “bullshit” has been used as early as 1915 in British and American slang

Wikipedia.

Graham
Reply to  Ronald Havelock
July 2, 2022 5:39 pm

This is a very good posting Ronald Havelock.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
This is a fact as without CO2 this earth would be a lifeless rock like the Moon.
CO2 has warmed the earth BUT the minuscule extra warming from now will not be a problem.
It has always been know-en that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic so the present level in our atmosphere

Graham
Reply to  Graham
July 2, 2022 5:50 pm

My computer posted this before I had finished .

The effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic so any increase in CO2 will have very little effect on temperature .
All climate models run hot .
This is a fact .
They run hot because they are tuned to more CO2 = more heat .

bdgwx
July 2, 2022 12:43 pm

Using the Monckton Method…

The pause period (<= 0.00 C/decade) is 94 months (7 years, 10 months).

The halved warming period (<= 0.067 C/decade) is 100 months (8 years, 3 months).

The doubled warming period (>= 0.266 C/decade) is 147 months (12 years, 3 months).

The positive warming period (>= 0.00 C/decade) is 523 months (43 years, 7 months).

The peak warming period (0.33 C/decade) is 139 months (11 years, 7 months).

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 2, 2022 1:51 pm

All of which are meaningless during interglacials driven by celestial mechanics.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
July 3, 2022 6:12 am

I’m not sure I’d go as far as to say that Monckton Pause is meaningless. I will say that the Monckton Pause has no more or less meaning than any of the other periods using the same method of analysis. I would be interested in CMoB’s response here concerning the challenge that his pause period is meaningless.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 4, 2022 12:29 pm

If the New Pause were really meaningless, these columns would not attract more comments, on average, than just about anything else published at WUWT, which is in turn the world’s most-visited climate website.

It is elementary to us classical architects that if one lengthens the run of a stair in relation to the rise the slope of the stair will become less steep. Since the slope of the global-warming stair is supposed to be very steep, these successive long runs between the smallish rises are a graphic, simple and effective demonstration, for those unfamiliar with trend analysis, of just how far adrift the climate Communists’ prognostications of large, rapid and dangerous global warming are.

Why do the same climate Communists come back and whine here month after month, trying every sort of dishonest dodge, including reputational assault, to try to divert attention away from the truth that global warming is happening at a rate far, far slower than is predicted?

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 4, 2022 1:25 pm

…these successive long runs between the smallish rises are a graphic, simple and effective demonstration, for those unfamiliar with trend analysis…

I appreciate the honesty here, though I’m not sure how many people wouldn’t understand a rate of warming, say of 0.13°C / decade, but would understand some hand-waiving about staircases. If a step happens every 20 years but causes a rise of 0.26°C, why wouldn’t someone unfamiliar with trend analysis still not understand that it will mean over 1.25°C warming in a century.

The problem I have on this site, is that many who don’t understand trends also don’t see your staircase metaphor as meaning there is a warming trend. Rather they think it means that you’ve proven there is no link between rising CO2 and rising temperatures. Or that it means global warming has stopped and we are about to enter a new ice age.

Reply to  Bellman
July 5, 2022 2:37 am

The furtively pseudonymous “Bellhop” now takes me to task for what it imagines are the limited intellectual capacities of readers of WattsUpWithThat. It should try looking in a mirror.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
July 5, 2022 6:03 am

I’m not blaming you for the limited intelligence of a few commentators here.

I’m just saying, intentionally or not, your constant harping on about metaphorical staircases, leads some of them to make erroneous assumptions about what that means. Specifically they claim the trend over the last 7 or so years proves that CO2 has no effect on temperature.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
July 5, 2022 6:22 am

And to be clear, I never suggested anyone had limited intellectual capacities, that’s Monckton’s gloss. Most of the people I argue with have their full capacity, they just don’t use it wisely, and are incapable of accepting they might not understand something properly.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 5, 2022 3:39 pm

Specifically they claim the trend over the last 7 or so years proves that CO2 has no effect on temperature.”

When CO2 has gone up significantly over the past seven years but the temperature has not the so-called “climate scientists” need to start looking for why their models are giving the wrong answer. Their physics are wrong somewhere. Coupled with the prior pause there is no way the models can be correct.

The RCP scenarios and their progeny are all based on the growth of GHG’s, with CO2 being the main culprit. Nothing else. No chance for a pause in the models with growing GHG’s.

The only ones doing the hand-waving and saying the pauses are meaningless are those that make erroneous assumptions about what causes temperature increases and pauses – and that seems to be *YOU*.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 5, 2022 4:47 pm

I’ll ask the question again. How do you know the temperature hasn’t gone up? You keep insisting there are massive uncertainties in both the monthly value and the trend in UAH data.

You say it’s impossible to determine what the trend has been over the the last 40 years, yet when you have a period so short it is genuinely impossible to tell what the trend is, you want to ignore all uncertainties and claim for certain that there has been no rise in temperature.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 5, 2022 4:56 pm

Here for example is the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator’s graph of the pause. The 2-sigma confidence interval is ±0.57°C / decade. Remember the true trend line could be anywhere inside that confidence interval, with a small chance it could be outside. This means the trend could be 5 times greater than it was prior to the pause. We just don’t know because it’s such a short period of time.

And remember this uncertainty is somewhat less than the uncertainty Carlo, Monte claims is the real uncertainty in the UAH data.

canvas.png
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 5, 2022 5:13 pm

You haven’t Clue One about uncertainty intervals nor propagating uncertainty.

What you plotted is not uncertainty.

Trendology at its acme.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 5, 2022 5:31 pm

Fine., You tell Tim what you think the confidence interval of the pause is, using your special plucked from the air uncertainty levels. Is it bigger or smaller than the confidence intervals given above?

If you don;t know be sure to cry about how I’m playing mind tricks on you, and come up with an even more bizarre bought of name calling.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 5, 2022 6:32 pm

Where are the uncertainties propagated from the satellite MSU brightness measurements, which vary for each and every grid point?

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 5, 2022 7:19 pm

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking you, the expert on all things uncertain. You claimed the confidence interval of ±0.57°C / decade was wrong. I just want to know if you think it should be bigger or smaller than that.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 5, 2022 9:02 pm

Its YOUR graph, YOU should know.

But the truth is, you don’t care.

And quit whining.

Last edited 1 month ago by Carlo, Monte
John Endicott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 6, 2022 3:55 am

He’s addicted to whining, it’s all he’s good for.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  John Endicott
July 6, 2022 6:23 am

Pretty much.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 6, 2022 8:49 am

It’s not my graph, but the confidence interval is calculated in the standard way but with a correction for auto correlation. This does not include hypothetical uncertainties as that is assumed to be given by the monthly variance.

Now stop deflecting and answer the question, do you think the interval should be bigger or smaller than ±0.57°C / decade?

It should be easy for you to say you think it should be bigger because you want to take into account your 1.4K uncertainty values. But you don’t want to say that as it makes your claims about the pause even less meaningful. You want to have it both ways, claim that UAH data is useless for detecting any trend over the last 40 years, but good enough to detect zero warming over 8 years.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 6, 2022 11:45 am

Mind reading again?

I would never spew a word salad like this one.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 6, 2022 3:08 pm

No just making logical deductions from your inability to answer any question. Do you think the confidence interval of the pause trend is bigger or smaller than ±0.57°C / decade?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 6, 2022 3:55 pm

Get off my leg.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 6, 2022 4:18 pm

It doesn’t work. People can see you won;t answer the question. Anyone with any sense knows why you won’t answer. You know the pause is meaningless, but you can’t admit it.

Go on, tell me I’m whining and call me a bellhop.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 6, 2022 5:02 pm

Not going to feed your ego.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 6, 2022 5:29 pm

Oh, but you are. (Evil laugh)

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 6, 2022 8:29 pm

What a kook.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 7, 2022 12:16 pm

Confidence intervals don’t even apply here! Once again you are ignoring uncertainty! Confidence intervals only work when:

  1. there is no systematic error
  2. the distribution of measured values is Gaussian
  3. the measurements are of the same thing

Why you ALWAYS want to ignore uncertainty in temperature measurements is beyond me. Averaging does *NOT* eliminate uncertainty when you are measuring different things, especially where the distribution of measurements is not Gaussian.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 7, 2022 2:27 pm

Please address all your complaints to Lord Monckton and tell him to stop going on about the pause whilst ignoring the ±1.4°C monthly uncertainty.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 7, 2022 9:28 am

You cannot calculate uncertainty only from stated values! It is *truly* that simple!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 7, 2022 10:07 am

You can, but you prefer not to because you know it shows the pause is meaningless.

Again I’ll ask, do you think the uncertainty of the trend over the last 7.75 years should be more or less than the confidence interval given by the trend calculator?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 7, 2022 2:25 pm

You can *NOT* calculate uncertainty from the stated values.

Measurements are of the form “stated value +/- uncertainty”. The stated value does *NOT* determine the uncertainty interval therefore you cannot deduce the uncertainty interval from the stated value!

Temperatures are neither Gaussian or systematic error free. Therefore they do not meet the requirements to determine uncertainty by measuring the standard deviation of distribution.

OMG, get a clue!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 7, 2022 2:42 pm

You can *NOT* calculate uncertainty from the stated values

You might not be able to, but anyone who understands what they are doing can.

But you keep failing to understand the contradiction in your own position. You want to say there are enormous uncertainties in the UAH data, you want to claim this is at least ±1.4°C for a monthly value, you want to claim that the uncertainties in the trend have to go all the way through the uncertainty bounds. Yet you don;t want to admit this about the last 7.75 years becasue it makes the pause even more meaningless than it already is.

If it’s possible to ignore these measurement uncertainties and still have an uncertainty of ±0.56°C / decade, what do you think the effect of making up huge uncertainties and including them in the confidence interval is? Do you think it will be bigger or smaller and what do you think that means for the pause?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 7, 2022 3:10 pm

You might not be able to, but anyone who understands what they are doing can.

Idiocy, incompetency, and many other i words.

Last edited 1 month ago by Carlo, Monte
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 8, 2022 6:20 am

You might not be able to, but anyone who understands what they are doing can.”

Says the person who claims he never ignores measurement uncertainty. Somehow he can “divine” measurement uncertainty from the stated values. Do you use a divining rod to do so?

“Yet you don;t want to admit this about the last 7.75 years becasue it makes the pause even more meaningless than it already is.”

I have stated this over and over and over again! NONE OF THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE CONSTRUCTIONS CONSIDER DATA UNCERTAINTY!

I’ve specifically said this about UAH. Again, what I have said is that when the residuals start to grow it shows a trigger point in the trend line. Would that trigger point appear in other trend lines that lay within the uncertainty bounds – probably for some, probably not for others. If a possible trend line showed cooling and all of a sudden the residuals start growing because the temperature has stagnated (e.g a pause) then the same approximate trigger point would be found!

You can’t even fathom how this works and yet you won’t admit to that!

“what do you think the effect of making up huge uncertainties and including them in the confidence interval is? Do you think it will be bigger or smaller and what do you think that means for the pause?”

  1. there is no confidence interval in the temperature measurement record because the temperature data doesn’t meet the iid requirements.
  2. No one is making up huge uncertainties. MC used good engineering judgement in estimating a possible uncertainty interval. A Type B uncertainty interval – a process right out of the GUM. And you don’t even know enough about uncertainty to understand even that simple thing!
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 8, 2022 4:15 pm

Again, what I have said is that when the residuals start to grow it shows a trigger point in the trend line.

But you are using the stated values. Why do you assume there is no uncertainty in the residuals, or in the trend line. Etc. Etc.

You can’t even fathom how this works and yet you won’t admit to that!

I’ve looked at the pause every which way. I know exactly how Monckton determines the start date for each month’s pause (not least because he explains it every month) Yet still people want to believe there’s some mystical reason that you attach to the start date that makes it correct, here involving changing residuals.

I think, in fact I’m pretty sure, I know how this works. I’ve yet to see anyone who thinks it works differently show their workings.

there is no confidence interval in the temperature measurement record because the temperature data doesn’t meet the iid requirements.

iid is not a requirement for a confidence interval. The Trend Calculator I use corrects for auto correlation. Call it an uncertainty interval if you prefer. All I want to know is if you think it should be bigger than ±0.56°C / decade

“No one is making up huge uncertainties. MC used good engineering judgement in estimating a possible uncertainty interval. A Type B uncertainty interval – a process right out of the GUM. And you don’t even know enough about uncertainty to understand even that simple thing!”

Again avoiding answering the question. Do you think the uncertainty interval for the trend of the pause will be bigger or smaller than the confidence interval I’ve quoted, assuming for the sake of argument that the ±1.4K uncertainty is correct?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 9, 2022 3:48 am

But you are using the stated values. Why do you assume there is no uncertainty in the residuals, or in the trend line. Etc. Etc.”

Again, best fit is not uncertainty. No matter what trend line you choose to use because of the uncertainty interval, a change in slope (i.e. residuals begin to grow) will likely show up, especially if the slope changes to zero where the slope was not zero before!

Pretty simple to conceptualize.

“Yet still people want to believe there’s some mystical reason that you attach to the start date that makes it correct, here involving changing residuals.”

I still don’t understand what your problem is with this. All he is doing is identifying at what point on the timeline the slope has changed. In his case he is looking for the point where the slope has gone to zero. He is looking for the best fit linear regression to the most recent data. There is nothing esoteric, magic, or wrong with this.

“iid is not a requirement for a confidence interval. “

iid doesn’t really have to do with autocorrelation. It has to do with there being a negative for every positive around the mean. It’s how you get your cancellation of random error!

If you don’t have this cancellation then you can’t ignore the uncertainty and take the mean as the true value.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 9, 2022 4:46 am

At this point I have to question this guy’s grip on reality, nothing he puts out is rational—all guided by feelings.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 9, 2022 7:53 am

You’re trying yourself in knots trying to avoid the obvious contradiction in your argument. Every time I talk about using the stated values you scream that I want to ignore uncertainty. But here you want to establish the pause on the basis of residuals where the residues are taken from stated values, compared with a trend based on stated valures, whilst insisting there is no uncertainty in the trend.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
July 9, 2022 10:17 am

You’re so lost the search party sent out to help got lost.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 9, 2022 8:02 am

“I still don’t understand what your problem is with this. All he is doing is identifying at what point on the timeline the slope has changed. ”

You could choose pretty much any point in the last 40 years and find the slope has changed. It’s the nature of an uncertain trend on variable data. This is especially true if you don’t constrain the slopes to be continuous.

You need to have an objective criteria for choosing a change point, and show that the change is significant.