The New Pause Pauses

The New Pause pauses

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The New Pause has paused. As in July, so in August, there has been a zero trend in global warming for 7 years 11 months according to the UAH satellite lower-troposphere dataset –

For completeness, here is the whole dataset since it went live in December 1978 –

Woe, woe and thrice woe! [Britain has had Mediterranean weather, and we like it, which is why we holiday there: I am about to give a piano recital in Malta]. Lake Mead is drying up!! [through over-extraction, not global warming]. The whole of Europe, including the customarily rain-sodden United Kingdom, is in the worst drought evaaah!!! [since the medieval warm period]. Rivers are running dry!!!! [nothing new there: it’s called summer]. Temperatures are higher than climate scientists ever done thunk!!!!! [warming is little more than a third of the originally-predicted rate]. To keep the lights on in London during a recent heatwave, the British grid authority had to pay more than $11,300 per MWh to Putin’s profit!!!!!! [compared with $30 per MWh at the coal-fired power stations wastefully and needlessly torn down to “Save The Planet”]. And it’s all because global heating!!!!!!! [actually weather]. And it’s a mast year for oaks!!!!!!!! [such heavy crops of acorns occur every few years]. Even the trees are alarmed!!!!!!!!! [Nope].

The Grand Master’s Oak at Harrietsham, Kent, is laden with acorns in this mast year

It’s not global warming. It’s regional weather, resulting chiefly from the prolonged la Niña that has contributed in no small part to the New Pause in global warming over the past eight years, and from a sudden southerly airflow from the Sahara.

The Marxstream media uncritically blamed global warming for the drought, just as a few years ago they blamed it for the floods. Come on, comrades – it’s one or the other but not both. In reality, floods are more likely than droughts when the weather warms, because more water is evaporated from the ocean by the warmer weather, whereupon, by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, the capacity of the atmospheric space to carry water vapor increases with temperature, moistening the air. As far back as 1981 it was already being reported (Nicholson et al.) that the Sahara had shrunk by 300,000 km2 as moister air allowed desert margins to bloom in areas where humans had not been able to settle in living memory.

Another reason for lingering floods and droughts is that the very tall offshore windmills now being installed at crippling expense to taxpayers in subsidies grossly interfere with the laminar flow of the wind at altitudes now exceeding that of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral, Britain’s tallest, slowing both high-pressure and low-pressure systems down and leading to more prolonged and intense weather of all kinds.

What, then, is the simplest possible demonstration that global warming was, is and will continue to be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial? Anything complicated will either baffle the 99% of the population uncomfortable with equations or allow the usual suspects to make it look more complicated still, just to make the bafflement certain.

As the repeated long Pauses suggest, despite the continuing perturbation by anthropogenic greenhouse gases the climate is in near-perfect thermostasis, or temperature equilibrium. The chief sensitivity-relevant direct forcings by noncondensing greenhouse gases and the chief indirect or feedback forcings, particularly by additional water vapor in the air, operate on timescales of hours, days or years at most. Even IPCC admits this.

Therefore, we may obtain a simple, first-order estimate of the likely rate of global warming by assuming that because all sensitivity-relevant forcings act on timescales of years at most there is little or no unrealized global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past sins of emission. On that assumption (which will be qualified later) such further warming as we can expect will chiefly arise not from the influence of our past sins of emission but from our future emissions.

Assuming solar irradiance of 1363.5 W m–2, mean surface albedo 0.29, mean surface emissivity 0.94 and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 5.6704 x 10–8 W m–2 K–4, the emission or sunshine temperature that would obtain near the surface if there were no greenhouse gases in the air at the outset would be 259.58 K by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. That is the naïve method favoured by climatologists, who exclude both the fact that albedo would be half of the current 0.29 if there were no greenhouse gases (for there would be no clouds) and the somewhat countervailing fact of Hölder’s inequalities between integrals, which climatologists too often neglect.

Based on the changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations in Meinshausen (2017) and the formulae for greenhouse-gas forcings in IPCC (2007, table 6.2), directly-forced warming by naturally-occurring noncondensing greenhouse gases to 1850 was 7.52 K.

In 1850, the 267.1 K reference temperature (before allowing for feedback response) was the sum of 259.58 and 7.52 K. However, the HadCRUT5 observed temperature at the equilibrium in 1850 (there would be no trend in global-warming trend thereafter for 80 years) was 287.5 K. Therefore, in 1850 the system-gain factor – the ratio of equilibrium temperature after feedback response to reference temperature before it – was 287.5 / 267.1, or 1.0764.

Compare the system-gain factors in 1850 and today. There has been 1.04 K HadCRUT5 warming since 1850. The anthropogenic forcing since 1850 was 3.23 W m–2 (NOAA AGGI). The period reference sensitivity was then the product of that period anthropogenic forcing and the Planck parameter 0.3 K W–1 m2: i.e., 0.97 K.

Therefore, today’s reference temperature (the temperature before accounting for feedback response) is 267.1 + 0.97 = 268.07 K, and the current equilibrium temperature is 287.5 + 1.04 = 288.54 K. The current system-gain factor is then 288.54 / 268.07, or 1.0764, just as it was in 1850. Nonlinearity bores, take note: on the basis of mainstream, midrange data, it is possible that nonlinearity in feedback response over time in the industrial era is zero.

Now, it may be argued that no allowance has been made for the delay in the realization of warming caused by the vast heat capacity and slow overturning of the oceans. However, the delay is to a large extent already allowed for in IPCC’s estimates that the principal forcings and feedbacks are short-acting – over periods of years at most. Indeed, the principal feedback – the water-vapor feedback – has a timescale of hours only.

Furthermore, the ocean, like any heat-sink, acts as a buffer. It delays the return of warming to the atmosphere from the mixed layer, so that any warming in the pipeline will be distributed harmlessly over centuries to millennia.

To first order, then, feedbacks in the industrial era are not growing stronger with temperature. The Le Chatellier principle applies: there are checks and balances – such as Eschenbach earlier tropical afternoon convection with warming, or the growth of Antarctic ice extent, ditto – that tend to keep the climate near-perfectly thermostatic.

Therefore, even if anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing were to continue to increase in a near-perfect straight line over the next 78 years at the rate of about 0.033 Watts per square meter per year that has prevailed over the past three decades (NOAA AGGI), the reference temperature in 2100 would be today’s 268.07 K plus (78 x 0.033 x 0.3) = 268.85 K. Applying the so-far constant system-gain factor 1.0764 gives equilibrium temperature of 289.4 K for 2100.

The bottom line is that we can perhaps expect as little as 289.4 – 288.5 = 0.9 K more warming in the rest of this century to 2100. Not exactly planet-threatening. And that is on the basis of midrange, mainstream data suggesting that – very much as one might expect a priori of a system bounded by the atmosphere and the ocean – in the presence of very small direct warming the system-gain factor, the measure of the potency of all the feedback processes acting on the climate system, has not changed and will not change in the industrial era.

Climatology gets its elementary control theory wrong in neglecting the fact – which, though it annoys certain trolls infesting the comments section, is nonetheless objectively true – that the feedback processes subsisting at any moment must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the reference temperature then obtaining. Feedbacks do not respond solely to that tiny fraction of reference temperature directly forced by greenhouse gases.

Climatology’s error has many serious consequences. Not the least of these is the notion that one may usefully express individual feedback strengths in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the change in reference temperature that is reference sensitivity rather than of the absolute reference temperature, which is the sum of emission temperature and all natural and anthropogenic reference sensitivities.

There are two problems with climatologists’ approach. The first is that, like it or not, feedback processes respond to the entire reference temperature. The second is that for calculus to succeed it is necessary to know the equation either of the absolute system-gain factor, whereupon differential calculus will yield its first derivative, or of the first derivative itself, whereupon integral calculus will yield the original equation.

However, the form of the potentially relevant equations is unknown and unknowable. Worse, the underlying data informing the potentially relevant equations are neither known nor knowable to anything like a sufficient precision to provide any legitimate scientific basis whatsoever for making the various profitably exaggerated global-warming predictions spewed out by the computer models of climate.

Pat Frank, in one of the most important papers ever published in global-warming climatology, demonstrated that fact definitively in 2019 after Professor Karl Wunsch had reviewed it and had not been able to find any error in it sufficient to prevent publication. The paper has stood unrefuted in the scientific literature since then, though online there have been some spectacularly half-baked attempts to overthrow it, chiefly on the part of climate Communists but even, in one or two unfortunate instances, on the part of skeptics unfamiliar with the fact that they are unfamiliar with the relevant math.

Dr Frank’s admirable paper, which was rejected 13 times by the climate-Communist gatekeepers of the once-learned journals before it met an honest and competent reviewer, proves that the published uncertainty in a single one of the thousands of input variables informing the general-circulation models – the low-cloud fraction – is so large that, when that uncertainty is propagated over this century, any predicted global warming or cooling of less than 15 K compared with the present is mere guesswork. Dr Frank’s paper formally proves that result using standard and well-established statistical methods.

By a different method, we may likewise demonstrate the incompetence of the general-circulation models to predict global warming. We begin with table 7.10 of IPCC (2021).

The table lists the principal sensitivity-relevant temperature feedbacks. IPCC, thanks to climatology’s asinine error of physics, denominates feedback strengths λ (here in purple) in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of reference sensitivity, rather than of reference temperature.

Such a choice might be pardonable if, as is often the case in electronics, the perturbation signal were a very large fraction of the entire input signal. Today, however, the perturbation signal is minuscule: it is just 7.5 + 0.97 = 8.47 K in 268.07 K, or 3% of the input signal.

Derivation of ECS via the differential system-gain factor is in red, while derivation of ECS based on IPCC’s data but via the absolute system-gain factor is in green. The two methods, of course, both show identical values of ECS. However, there are several problems with IPCC’s method, as the derivations therefrom show.

Problem 1: Though at midrange the +2.06 W m–2 sum of the individual feedback strengths and the Planck parameter p,expressed by IPCC as though it were a “feedback” in W m–2 K–1, is equal to the published –1.16 W m–2 K–1 net feedback strength, its lower and upper bounds do not sum to the published totals. No doubt there are good reasons, but the discrepancy adds to the already enormous uncertainty in the interval of feedback strengths.

Problem 2: The Planck parameter  stands part of the reference frame for derivation of equilibrium temperatures: it should, therefore, more properly be expressed in K W–1 m2 of reference temperature.  is the first derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with respect to absolute surface temperature (288 K today) and top-of-atmosphere radiative flux density (242 W m–2 today): P = 298 / (4 x 242) = 0.3 K W–1 m2, close enough to the reciprocal of IPCC’s current midrange p= 3.22 W m–2 K–1.

Problem 3: The Planck parameter is known to a far lesser uncertainty than the ±6.5% imagined by IPCC, for it is derived from a ratio of absolute quantities whose values are well constrained. Take today’s surface temperature as 288 ± 2 K, and the top-of-atmosphere net forcing as 242 ± 2 W m–2.  Then the Planck parameter , using IPCC’s reciprocal form,falls on 3.36 [3.31, 3.41] W m–2 K–1, an interval of less than ±1.5%, and not IPCC’s ±6.5%. Rectifying that error would correct one of the many daftnesses evident in the table, by which it appears that, on the absolute basis, smaller feedback strengths engender larger ECS values.

Problem 4: Until IPCC (2021), it had long been thought that the CO2 forcing was known to within ±10%. It was thus thought to be reasonably constrained. However, though Andrews (2012), based on 15 then models, concluded that the midrange CO2 forcing was 3.45 W m–2, IPCC now says it is 3.93 W m–2, an increase of 14%, well outside what had been thought to be the interval of doubled-CO2 forcing. If the uncertainty in the CO2 forcing is as large as IPCC’s increase compared with previous reports implies, a fortiori the uncertainty in the strength of the feedback forcing is greater.

Problem 5: IPCC shows the cloud feedback as positive. However, the primary effect of the increased cloud cover that is to be expected with warming – i.e., an increase in the Earth’s albedo – is of course a cooling effect, more than enough to overwhelm the warming effect of clouds inhibiting radiation to space at night.

Problem 6: The absolute total feedback strengths implicit in IPCC’s ECS interval actually decline as its estimate of ECS increases. The reason is that the absolute feedback strengths are a great deal smaller than the grossly uncertain and hence meaningless differential feedback strengths, and are accordingly smaller in relation to the Planck parameter than the differential feedback strengths.

Problem 7: The checksum lower-bound and midrange values of ECS derived from IPCC’s feedback strengths by the standard control-theoretic method confirm its stated lower-bound 2 K and midrange 3 K. The method shown is accordingly a fair representation of IPCC’s method. However, the upper-bound value 11.5 K thus calculated in the table is more than double IPCC’s stated 5 K value. The reason is that the shape of the response curve of ECS in the presence of feedback is rectangular-hyperbolic, so that, at imagined closed-loop gain factors (feedback responses as fractions of ECS) exceeding 0.5, runaway warming would be expected. But runaway warming does not arise, or we should certainly have noticed by now. Instead, there has been a succession of long Pauses with brief bursts of el Niño-driven warming in between. These Pauses, then, provide readily-comprehensible evidence that the runaway warming confidently predicted by the climate Communists is simply not occurring. Hence the shrieks of the Kremlin’s shills in comments.

Problem 8: The runaway global warming arising from the rectangular-hyperbolicity of the response curve combined with IPCC’s excessive estimate of feedback strength at the upper bound renders ECS unconstrainable by models. For instance, the upper-bound estimate, far too large to be credible, elevates the implicit closed-loop gain factor hC = 1 – 1 / AC to 0.83, implying that five-sixths of ECS is forced by feedbacks, and only one-sixth by reference sensitivity directly forced by the noncondensing greenhouse gases. In an essentially thermostatic system, any such conclusion is so inherently implausible as to be nonsense.

Problem 9: The interval of the system-gain factor as derived on the differential basis is 2.7762 [1.8783, 5.8824], but that interval is meaningless. When deriving the uncertainty in feedback strength and thus in the system-gain factor, it is necessary to do the sums on the basis that the Sun is shining and that, therefore, feedbacks respond to the entire input signal and not just to any perturbation therein. Climatology’s method does not take explicit account of the fact that feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature. The interval of the absolute system-gain factor implicit in IPCC’s table takes that fact into account. It is 1.0781 [1.0822, 1.0872].

Problem 10: Very small changes in the total feedback strength and hence in the system-gain factor would deliver the very large ECS interval imagined by IPCC. The bounds differ from the midrange estimates by little more than 0.5%: yet they would be enough to generate the absurdly elevated and absurdly broad 3.4 [2.2, 11.5] K interval of ECS implicit in IPCC’s overwrought data for feedback strengths. However, given the uncertainties in the data and the propagation of those uncertainties over time, climatologists cannot constrain the bounds either of the feedback strength or of the system-gain factor anything like as tightly as within 0.5%. This is one of the most serious problems with the GCMs’ global-warming predictions. It would have been spotted decades ago if it had not been for climatology’s error of physics.

Consider the minuscule interval of IPCC’s implicitly-predicted absolute system-gain factor (the entire interval is only about 1% of the midrange estimate) in the light of the very large (±15 K) ECS uncertainty envelope given in Dr Frank’s paper, and it becomes all too evident that, whatever other purposes the general-circulation models may have, they are of no value whatsoever in attempting to constrain ECS. In this respect, they are costly guesswork machines that could be inexpensively replaced with a set of dice without any significant loss of rigor.

These numerous problems cannot be brushed aside by maintaining that one can do feedback calculations by the differential just as well as by the absolute method. As we have seen, doing those calculations by the differential method has the effect of concealing many of the problems briefly described above. IPCC’s method, then, provides no satisfactory basis for the decision of scientifically-illiterate governments panicked by fear of Rufmord (reputational death) at the hands of climate Communists to commit the economic and political hara-kiri that is now occurring.

Eventually the Marxstream media will realize that they can no longer get away with concealing the fact that the root cause of the surge in Siberian gas and Chinese lithium-carbonate prices, and of the consequent dangerous spike in Western energy prices, was the careless abandonment of the free market in energy and the foolish and wasteful closure of the West’s coal-fired power stations, which generated power at just $30 per MWh. Europe is now fatally dependent upon Siberian gas, a costly strategic error.

It is clear both from dozens of papers on climate sensitivity and from discussions with climatologists on both sides of the debate, and with the Kremlin’s witting, unwitting or witless shills here, that they had not realized that any feedback processes extant at a given moment must respond to the entire input signal, and not just to any perturbation thereof.

Had they known that, they would not have dreamed of trying to make predictions based on the differential rather than absolute feedback strengths. They would have realized that, because their very small uncertainties in feedback strength would, if real, lead to very large and consequently unconstrainable changes in equilibrium sensitivity, attempting to diagnose feedbacks at all from the models is necessarily doomed to failure.

That begs the question what is the soundest method of deriving climate sensitivities? We favor the corrected energy-budget method, of which the very simple but quite robust version earlier in this column showed that, on business as usual, we can expect only 0.9 K further global warming all the way to 2100. A more sophisticated version generates much the same result. Midrange equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity is just 3.45 x 0.3 x 1.0764 = 1.1 K. Hardly life-threatening, now, is it?

5 25 votes
Article Rating
279 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chaswarnertoo
September 3, 2022 2:19 am

Nice to see you back, Chris. You are, of course, correct.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 3, 2022 2:20 am

And I really tried to pick another fight with you. 😇

HotScot
September 3, 2022 2:53 am

It’s a dogs life…….😊

Andy Espersen
September 3, 2022 3:06 am

Christopher Monckton at his best : both as a scientist where only few of us can follow him – and as an entertaining, highly amusing writer for us lay (but common sense) folks.

Phillip Bratby
September 3, 2022 3:11 am

It’s certainly a mast year for oaks where I live (and for apples and beech).

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 3, 2022 5:20 am

Spiders and wasps are out of control here on the canadian prairies.
We are DOOMED, DOOMED I says

Scissor
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 3, 2022 6:22 am

My lawn and garden has more grasshoppers than usual this year. Of the vegetables I’m growing, they only seem to bother potatoes and young bean plants, so I haven’t done anything to “take care of them.”

The valleys around here are currently full of green grass, which is unusual because normally they’re browning up by the end of July and remarkable given “the drought.”

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 3, 2022 8:12 am

There’s an old tradition that Conkers, Horse Chesnut, nuts will keep spiders at bay. Not sure how effective it is in reality.
Strong smelling herbs, mints and thyme, are supposed to keep wasps at bay.

Yirgach
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 3, 2022 11:09 am

We have 24 inch eaves overhanging the house. I found that an early application of WD-40 discourages both the spiders and the wasps which like to hang out there.Although we do allow the tiny mini-bee size wasps to build out, they’re great pollinators and stingless to boot.

oeman 50
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 3, 2022 8:18 am

Don’t the spiders eat the wasps?

Michael in Dublin
September 3, 2022 3:11 am

If you only take one thing away from the article it the Monckton’s branding the mainstream (positive connotation) to Marxstream media. Brilliant! 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 3, 2022 6:26 am

That is great branding but the situation is much worse. Governments are paying tech companies to censor content and they’re paying media to promote only approved narratives.

Reply to  Scissor
September 3, 2022 3:05 pm

Can’t people observe the climate where they live? Do they need the media to tell them? What’s wrong with people? 47 years of global warming since 1975, with no harm to anyone, and no one noticed?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 10:14 am

But the politicians, NGOs, Deep State and Marxstream Media keep screaming ongoing climate catastrophe.  Lies, damned lies and Leftist propaganda.

roaddog
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 7:56 pm

Objective reality has been substantially devalued.

September 3, 2022 3:28 am

This is the third “pause” since records began. The only warming comes in two jumps.
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/

There is no GHG warming in this pattern,

Reply to  David Wojick
September 3, 2022 3:59 am

Data mining to avoid mentioning the long term trend
That’s not good science
You have a Ph.D., so should know better.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:15 am

On the contrary, science is about specifics, in this case the specific pattern of warming. Many different patterns can produce the same long term trend, so the trend tells us very little about what is happening and that what is what must be explained. You cannot hide behind the trend.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  David Wojick
September 3, 2022 5:47 am

Bravo!

This is especially true when the trend is based on an average with no mention of the variance/standard deviation of the population used to calculate the average.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 3:06 pm

Wojick is data mining to create a step function out of a rising trend of the average temperature. Bad science.

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 11:41 pm

No net warming for over 40 years (at least, and probably more like 60 years now) completely destroys any shorter period ”trend”
There is no global ”warming”, just global temperature oscillations to be seen in the lower trop measured record. Sorry to burst any bubbles.

radiosonde.JPG
Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
September 4, 2022 12:50 pm

Mike, my comment here is going to be similar to the last several times you posted that graph. That is HadAT2 which can be downloaded here. Over the most recent 40 years in the dataset the warming rate is +0.19 C/decade.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 6:56 am

It’s very good science to try and understand the effects of known climate factors. Those who just want to look at the long term trend are in denial.

Reply to  Richard M
September 3, 2022 3:07 pm

Those who look at the short term trend are looking at weather.
30 years or more of weather is climate.

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 11:46 pm

30 years or more of weather is climate.”
And as long as you accept to the other side’s made up definition, your bucket is going to leak.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 4, 2022 5:12 am

No: one must look at 60 years’ weather to get some idea of climate. That period approximately covers the positive and negative phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 4, 2022 7:10 am

All trends are cherry picked simply because they have start and end points. Length is really somewhat irrelevant without knowing the influence of all factors that went into the data itself. Do you claim such knowledge?

Thinking you are eliminating weather effects by your personal definition of climate won’t help you understand our climate. Sorry.

Bill Taylor
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 4, 2022 9:02 am

clue = the climate is the PAST, the average weather stats from the previous 30 years for a given area….YOUR claims that the climate has some power is simply IDIOCY……the weather 100% drives the climate, the climate has ZERO impact on the weather…..people with 8th grade diplomas should know this science FACT.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 10:29 am

OK, Richard, explain the 1910 to 1940 30-year trend in warming (no significant CO2 growth) that is essentially equal to the late 20th Century warming (with significant CO2 growth) that CliSciFi CAGW speculation is based upon.  Live by 30-year trends, die by 30-year trends.  Oh, and you might as well throw in the 30-year mid-Century cooling to leaven the bread.

Doonman
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 9:57 am

Define “long term”. Is it my lifetime, the earths lifetime or just the holocene. Without a definition, your objection is meaningless.

Reply to  Doonman
September 3, 2022 3:09 pm

Since 1979 with the UAH data.
Since 1940, if you are interested in the effect of CO2, but unfortunately the 1940 to 1975 global cooling trends has been almost revised away, so after 1979 using UAH is the best we can do with reliable data.

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 11:47 pm

See my radiosonde graph above. It will give you a somewhat wider perspective.

September 3, 2022 3:29 am

More short term very likely to be meaningless data mining from Monckton of Baloney. Biased Monckton always talks about a short term trend, which is news, but without presenting the long term context of UAH data since 1979, which is bias: “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 4:53 am

I regret typing Monckton of Baloney
But it’s too late to delete it

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:33 am

Mr Greene, a noted shill for the Kremlin, has only to read the head posting that he is not fit to criticize, and he would see, immediately below the graph showing the zero trend for almost eight years in global mean lower-troposphere temperature, a second graph showing the trend of a not very exciting 1.34 K/century equivalent since the UAH database went live in December 1978. IPCC had predicted 3.4 K/century equivalent up to 2030. So far, that prediction appears to be excessive by a factor 2.5. Remove that absurd over-prediction and global warming will continue to be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 7:09 am

I apologized for missing the chart, which I have complained was missing from your prior articles.

I’m glad to hear I’m a noted shill for the Kremlin — I’ll add that to my resume. I have criticized both the corrupt Zelensky government and corrupt Putin government for a needless war.

The Donbas Civil War began in 2014 only because some Russian speaking Ukrainians wanted a vote for independence. They WOULD HAVE LOST THE VOTE by about 65% to 35%. Instead, the vote was not allowed and a civil war began with 11,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians and 3,000 Ukrainian deaths so far. The US and UK did nothing to stop that civil war.

The US and UK in the 1990s promised to help Ukraine self-defense, but failed to act in 2014 for Crimea. They only sent weapons in 2022 — just enough to extend the war that Russia has already won. Russia controls the Donbas regions which is all they want to do. They stopped the Donbas Civil War.
Now the people of Donbas apparently will live under Russian rule which they never wanted — they wanted independence.

The sanctions have hurt Russia and the EU and the UK
Gazprom wants to sell gas to the EU for rubles
EU wants to buy their pipeline gas – cheaper than LPG
But the EU and Putin are in a political war over gas and the result is a mess. Germany already reduced gas purchases from Russia by over 50%. Reaching 100% will require new LPG unloading facilities — that would take a few years.

If what I have said makes me “I’m glad to hear I’m a noted shill for the Kremlin”, then you are deluded.

Steven S
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 10:53 am

This is the most Russian centred view of the war in Ukraine I have yet encountered. Firstly, Russian policy aims and methods are those of Putin alone. His aim is the total subjugation of Ukraine within ‘Mother Russia’ as part of his legacy. Gas and oil are simply part of his attempt to stop NATO from supporting the Ukrainian government. And he has not won. The attempt at a quick strike to take Kyiv and install a puppet regime has totally failed.
The Donbass was already held by Russian backed separatists, loyal to Moscow, so your point is difficult to follow. They wanted independence from Ukraine so that they could become part of the Federation. That may well be the end game, if a free Ukrainian government cannot hold the East. But that will not be the outcome that Putin dreamt of.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 4, 2022 5:14 am

If Mr Greene will get his kindergarten mistress to look through the previous postings on the Pause, she will tell him that the graph showing the whole UAH time-series has appeared on several previous occasions.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 4, 2022 8:26 am

I fail to understand why anybody (including Christopher Monckton) can actually be bothered wasting their time answering your arguments.

Mike
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 11:50 pm


 a noted shill for the Kremlin,

AAAAHahahahaha

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 6:57 am

And I just realized Monckton DID present the full UAH record which was never done in his prior articles. I’m going back to sleep — this is what happens when you wake up at 4am and comment.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 8:05 am

“. . . and comment carelessly.”

There, corrected it for you.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Rich Davis
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 3, 2022 12:37 pm

And incessantly…

And pointlessly disputatiously

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 8:14 am

That sounds like someone poked you to comment

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 4, 2022 5:16 am

The Kremlin shill Greene should get his Komsomol instructor to read him the series of postings about the Pause, in several of which he will find the entire UAH dataset presented for context. It shows a rate of global warming compared with which the predicted rate is excessive by a factor 2.5.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:08 am

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Claiming the opposite is just the Argument to Tradition fallacy. If you really want to talk tradition then it has been warmer in the past and it has been cooler in the past. Both with higher CO2 and with lower CO2. So take your pick. As with any forecasting, recent performance carries more weight than past performance.

Think about this. You are quoting slopes. But you also have to consider where those slopes apply. If the pause is long enough then the new starting point for the old slope will be lower in temperature than predicted before the pause started. Therefore the total gain will be less than originally predicted before the pause started. Therefore the new long term slope will have to be lower than it was before the pause. The longer the pause lasts the lower it will drive the long term slope.

If you can’t definitively calculate future temperatures then all you are left with is data fitting. You can’t simply ignore current pauses with your curve fitting. They will have an impact of some kind or another.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 7:16 am

The pause is real
It’s worth mentioning
If the total trend is included, which it was this time
But what does it mean? A new long term trend has started, or a nothingburger? In the past, pauses were nothingburgers — the long term warming trend resumed.

This pause gets too much attention. The Climate Howlers could not care less — they have their predictions of climate doom completely unrelated to recent climate trends. They predict rapid, dangerous global warming. We say “but the pause”. We should be saying the actual warming since 1979 has been mild and harmless, not rapid and dangerous, and has slowed down in the past decade, moving even further away from the predictions.

If next year is warmer than 2021, the pause argument might fall flat. But the mild. harmless warming since 1979 argument will remain.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 8:19 am

“But what does it mean?”

Well, most immediately, it falsifies the claim that increasing man-made emissions of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere are the predominant driver of climate change™ (taken, as first-order, to be global warming).

To argue to the contrary would require an explanation for what else in Earth’s climate system has suddenly “reared up” to offset the effect of the increases of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that have occurred over the last 7 years 11 months. Got any ideas to offer up?

If one wants to argue that this pause/hiatus is just a statistical fluke, I await the detailed mathematical analysis that shows the probability of such occurring given the measured data set of global temperature vs. atmospheric CO2 concentration going back to, oh, about 1974, when the observatory on Mona Loa first started accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels.

IMHO, that’s what it means.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 3, 2022 8:14 pm

Another way of stating that is the correlation between CO2 and temperature is so low as to suggest it is a spurious correlation. Taking the first derivative of CO2 concentration and temperature does not support the claim of cause and effect.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 10:57 am

Richard, your “In the past, pauses were nothingburgers — the long term warming trend resumed.” ignores the fact that the long term warming trend was predicted by CliSciFi to be 2.5 times as large as that which eventuated, partially due to the given pauses.

I agree with your comment that we should be hammering on the UAH6’s miniscule 0.13 ℃/decade trend vs the CAGW predicted runaway global warming.  On top of that, we need to continuously point out that there has been no climate change over the past 120 years, other than some minor warming, wetting and greening of the planet.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 10:45 am

Richard, the end of the 1970s was the bottom of an acknowledged approximately 70-year cycle of generally minimally rising, increasing and decreasing temperatures.  Please explain to us how a completely unremarkable increase of 0.13 ℃/decade during the bulk of the rising portion of the cycle should cause anybody concern about the future climate.

September 3, 2022 3:39 am

As the repeated long Pauses suggest, despite the continuing perturbation by anthropogenic greenhouse gases the climate is in near-perfect thermostasis, or temperature equilibrium. 

Baloney
The pauses suggest almost nothing. At times the various causes of climate change cancel each other for no net change. So what? There are only two long term climate trends: Warmer and cooler.

There is no temperature equilibrium The climate system is never in thermodynamic equilibrium. That’s basic physics. Momentary pauses tell us almost nothing, yet you can never stop bloviating about them.

Short term trends have no ability to predict the future climate. Even the 35-year global cooling trend from 1940 to 1975 did not predict the global warming that followed, through 2022. The global warming since the Maunder Minimum low temperatures of the 1690s have had many pauses — they had no effect on the global warming trend, that has continued for 325+ years.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:18 am

The pauses suggest almost nothing”

Of course they do! If nothing else they will lower the long term slope of the regression line.

“Short term trends have no ability to predict the future climate.”

Of course they do. You suggest right at the start of the post that climate is variable. It is actually cyclic. With a cyclic system, the short term trend is far more indicative of where on the cycle you are than a longer term trend is. Think of a sine wave. If you start at zero radians the slope of the curve goes from 0 to 1. If you continue that trend line you will miss the change from a positive slope to a negative slope. How long would the negative slope have to exist before you admit it is more indicative of the future than the long term trend?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 5:33 am

Of course they do! If nothing else they will lower the long term slope of the regression line.

Except they haven’t so far.

Trend up to start of first pause was 0.09°C / decade.
Trend up to start of this pause was 0.11°C / decade
Trend after another 8 years of pause 0.13°C / decade.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 7:01 am

Before the first pause we had -AMO and +PDO. Then the AMO went positive. The PDO has varied a bit witch led to the pauses. Get back to me when the AMO goes negative again. It’s coming soon to a planet near you.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 8:29 am

Trend up to start of first pause was 0.09°C / decade.
Trend up to start of this pause was 0.11°C / decade
Trend after another 8 years of pause 0.13°C / decade.”

How does this work? After a pause, “y” will be less than it would have been had the temp continued to follow the old trend line. So Δy/Δx would be smaller than for the original trend line. How does the slope get bigger?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 8:47 am

I’ve tried to explain discontinuities to you enough times.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 4:42 pm

It’s an interesting artefact of using SLR to calculate different things from the same time series when there are large excursions.
bellman is using SLR from a fixed starting point to fixed end points to calculate trend lines.
CMofB is using the SLR trends calculated backwards from present to find a flat line.

The 2016 spike pushes the endpoint of CMofB’s flat line further left (earlier in time), so gives a lower end point for bellman’s calculation.

The whole Wagnerian exercise in playing with statistics demonstrates the value of sensitivity analysis and endpoint selection. and some of the limitations of Ordinary Least Squares Simple Linear Regression 🙂

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 10:54 am

“Bellman”, as usual, shows the desperation of the climate-change fanatic as he realizes that the rate of global warming is very significantly below the midrange rate that was and still is predicted by the likes of IPeCaC, which had confidently predicted in 1990 that global warming to 2030 would be equivalent to 0.34 K/decade. Well, it isn’t.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 4, 2022 12:40 pm

There it is again. Prove it. Show us where in the IPCC FAR they predicted 0.34 K/decade for the emissions pathway that actually occurred. Or if you want jump down below and show me where I’m wrong.

Last edited 29 days ago by bdgwx
Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 4, 2022 2:02 pm

I think it would be great if the IPCC were wrong, I’m just not going to base that on the word of someone who is so deperate for them to be wrong he has to continuously resort to childish name calling and made up claims.

The 1990 IPCC did not “confidently” (is that more sarcasm) predict 0.34K / decade warming to 2030, and even if they had, so what? Science moves on. Nobody is basing the current support or lack of it based on what scientists were predicting 30 years ago.

As to the 0.34K claim, we’ve been over why you are literally making that figure up, so often it’s not worth giving it any more attention, then to repeat bdgwx’s request to actually quote the page number.

For the record here’s what Lord Monckton previously claimed the 1990 IPCC report said:

IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 4, 2022 2:20 pm

Here’s what the report actually said:

Based on current model results, we predict:

under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A ) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0 . 5 ° C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3 ° C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors;

There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing , magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of:

• sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, which affect predictions of future concentrations;

• clouds, which strongly influence the magnitude of climate change;

• oceans, which influence the timing and patterns of climate change;

• polar ice sheets which affect predictions of sea-level rises.

These processes are already partially understood, and we are confident that the uncertainties can be reduced by further research. However, the complexity of the system means that we cannot rule out surprises.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Last edited 29 days ago by Bellman
bdgwx
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 3:41 pm

Yep. And at 2020 for Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) CO2 is 450 ppm, CH4 is 2500 ppb, and CFC11 is 450 ppt as can clearly be seen in the IPCC FAR. CMoB, I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt up to this point. If you cannot provide the exact page where the IPCC predicted +0.34 K/decade for the emission pathway that humans chose then I have no choice but to upgrade your claims from misinformation to disinformation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
September 5, 2022 11:13 am

The problem with the discussion here is that the CliSciFi propaganda in 1990 did not put any qualifiers on the worst-case scenario and the model outputs based upon that scenario.  It is that continuing propaganda that was and is used to destroy Western societies, economies and energy systems.  All along Leftists and China and Russia (especially) have massively added to that propaganda.  Venal Western politicians, NGOs and crony capitalists have grown fat on picking the bones of our free market system.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 5, 2022 12:10 pm

Dave Fair said: “The problem with the discussion here is that the CliSciFi propaganda in 1990 did not put any qualifiers on the worst-case scenario and the model outputs based upon that scenario.”

Patently False. It is right there in the IPCC FAR SPM on page xiv for the inputs and page xxiii for the outputs. All 4 scenarios including A (business-as-usual), B, C, and D are included.

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
September 7, 2022 10:57 pm

The politicians’, Deep State, NGO and media propaganda did not mention any of the qualifiers, bdgwx.  It was all gloom and doom.  I was there; don’t try to bullshit me.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:38 am

Mr Greene, the noted Kremlin shill, has perhaps no more knowledge of architecture than of climate science. In a staircase, if the runs are long and the rises few and small, the slope of the staircase is gentle. Therefore, long runs of zero trend punctuated by few and small rises in temperature are an indication that the trend is small – an indication confirmed by the graph showing that, since December 1978, global warming has been occurring at a rate of only 1.34 K/century equivalent.

And the fastest 40-year rate of warming since 1659 in the Central England Temperature Record, the world’s longest, was fro 1694-1733, when the rate of warming was equivalent to 4.33 K/century. That has not happened since.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 7:20 am

Central England is three weather stations, not a global average.
And if you keep calling me “the noted Kremlin shill” I’m going to call you Monckton of Baloney

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 8:17 am

Have you got a reference to another temperature series covering 1694-1733, somewhere else globally?

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 3, 2022 3:23 pm

No, there were only three weather stations in Central England and a lot of local climate reconstructions.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 3:35 pm

You already called him that if you remember – having already done what you now threaten to do renders it somewhat of an empty gesture, does it not?

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:15 pm

Rather fewer than three stations in that period.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 8:17 pm

You already did!

John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 6, 2022 4:46 am

Oh, what a threat: Stop that or I’ll start calling you a name I’ve already called you. I’m sure Chris is shaking in his boots at that one!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 8:32 am

Mr Greene, the noted Kremlin shill, has perhaps no more knowledge of architecture than of climate science. In a staircase, if the runs are long and the rises few and small, the slope of the staircase is gentle.”

Yep. And the staircase must be longer in order to reach a desired altitude.

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 11:48 am

Was that shill, or shrill?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2022 4:45 am

Both apply.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 7, 2022 6:02 am

And the fastest 40-year rate of warming since 1659 in the Central England Temperature Record, the world’s longest, was fro 1694-1733, when the rate of warming was equivalent to 4.33 K/century.

Aside from the cherry-picking and ignoring the huge uncertainties in the records up to 1720, I’ve explained before why this value is slightly wrong. Monckton is taking a linear trend over highly seasonal values. CET is measured in absolute temperate, not anomalies. A better value is derived from taking annual data. In that case the rate of warming is 4.04 K/century. Though I’ll be attacked for using a per century rate and writing it to 3 significant figures, so the more appropriate value would be

0.40 ± 0.13°C / decade

This is using a two sigma confidence interval, and does not include any adjustment for auto-correlation.

Incidentally, this fastest 40-year warming rate also contains a 21 year long pause. From 1701 through 1721 CET was cooling at the rate of 0.03°C / decade.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
September 7, 2022 4:11 pm

Aside from the cherry-picking and ignoring the huge uncertainties in the records

Oh the irony…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 7:29 am

yet you can never stop bloviating about them

Irony time.

And you’ve ignored Christopher’s main point, again.

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 11:52 pm

 despite the continuing perturbation by anthropogenic greenhouse gases

AAAAAAhahahahahahaha

pochas94
September 3, 2022 3:40 am

Chris, your arguments assume that CO2 controls climate. You’ve fallen for the ruse. What if it’s something else entirely?

CoRev
Reply to  pochas94
September 3, 2022 4:32 am

If true: “Chris, your arguments assume that CO2 controls climate.”, then his argument DISPROVES the “CO2 controls climate” hypothesis. That’s how science is supposed to work.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  CoRev
September 3, 2022 5:40 am

CoRev is right and Pochas94 wrong. I assume ad argumentum (i.e., for the sake of argument) that the official estimates of direct anthropogenic forcing and of the consequent change in reference temperature per unit of that forcing are correct. Even on that assumption, the massive feedback-moderated multiplication of that direct change in temperature is simply not occurring, and there is no particular reason to assume that it is going to occur.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 7:25 am

The massive feedback converts AGW to CAGW.
It exists for propaganda purposes. CAGW predictions disappear without it. So we are stuck with a huge water vapor positive feedback that exists only in leftist imaginations.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 5, 2022 11:22 am

Actually, since from about 10 years ago water vapor amplification in the CliSciFi climate models has been shown to be wildly overstated (e.g. no tropospheric hot spots by actual measurements).  As a result the CMIP6 CliSciFi models have jumped over to wild assumptions about clouds and their supposed warming amplification effects.  CliSciFi is a self-feeding gravy train.

bdgwx
Reply to  pochas94
September 3, 2022 6:29 am

Why does it have to be binary? Why can’t be CO2 plus a bunch of other things?

Richard M
Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 7:03 am

Because it would violate physics for CO2 to have a significant effect. But you are right about the “bunch of other things”.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard M
September 3, 2022 6:35 pm

There is a law of physics that says CO2 is the only factor not able to influence the climate?

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 11:55 pm

No, there is the law of observation that shows we can’t detect it.

Richard M
Reply to  bdgwx
September 4, 2022 7:13 am

Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation comes close to telling you that CO2 cannot have a large influence on the climate after absorption reaches saturation. You just need to know how to apply it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard M
September 4, 2022 10:07 am

Mike said it is the “law of observation”. You say it is Kirchhoff’s law. Maybe you can explain how to apply it and how it relates to the “law of observation”? And what is it about CO2 that makes it unique in that it cannot provide a modulating influence on the climate? Can you post a link to a CO2-less model that matches the evidence better than what we already have?

Last edited 29 days ago by bdgwx
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  bdgwx
September 4, 2022 10:51 am

CO2 may cause some direct warming, but at midrange the direct warming it causes is small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial. The indirect warming by way of feedback response is very small, and does not (as climatology currently imagines) approximately triple the reference sensitivity. It could in theory do so, but in the real world it is more and more obviously not doing so.

pochas94
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 5, 2022 10:04 am

So now we can forget about CO2 and go looking for real causes?

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 7:12 am

It almost certainly isn’t, however – that has nothing to do with the article in question. It isn’t trying to determine every detail of temperature fluctuation going back to the dawn of time, it is a very well written refutation of the overly simplistic (and wrong) maths as used by the IPCC and other climate activists masquerading as ‘scientists.’
When we clear the decks of this current popular delusion, then we may actually be able to explore the nature of climate properly and get to grips with the mechanism that seems to determine it. But groping after something like a blind man looking for a black cat in a dark cellar at midnight is helping nobody.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 10:10 am

It has to be one thing in order to solve it. Remember, we are fighting climate change by eliminating fossil fuel usage which means we are fighting CO2 emissions and nothing else.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 11:50 am

Since those “bunch of other things” were perfectly adequate to cause all of the climate fluctuations in the past, why should we assume that they play any role, much less a major one, in the current fluctuation?

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2022 6:37 pm

You think all climatic change events in Earth’s past happened with the exclusion of CO2 and only CO2?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
September 4, 2022 6:08 am

That’s not what he said.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
September 4, 2022 2:36 pm

Do you have any evidence that CO2 played a major role in any previous climate shifts?

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
September 4, 2022 3:34 pm

MarkW said: “Do you have any evidence that CO2 played a major role in any previous climate shifts?”

Let’s start with the PETM.

Do you have any evidence that CO2 and only CO2 can be excluded for all climatic change events in Earth’s past?

Last edited 29 days ago by bdgwx
September 3, 2022 3:45 am

That begs the question what is the soundest method of deriving climate sensitivities? We favor the corrected energy-budget method, of which the very simple but quite robust version earlier in this column showed that, on business as usual, we can expect only 0.9 K further global warming all the way to 2100. A more sophisticated version generates much the same result.

How about the correct answer: “No one knows ECS”?
We do know climate predictions have been almost 100% inaccurate unless they are for more of the same, as with the Russian INM model, which was just a lucky guess. ECS estimates appear to be too high simply because that is needed to make scary climate predictions. Climate computer games are used for that purpose — accurate predictions are not a goal — they would scare no one.

What climate science needs are NO MORE PREDICTIONS Including yours! We have far too many wrong predictions already, and even more predictions that will be proven wrong in a decade or three.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:44 am

The Russian model is best because, at the invitation of the deputy director of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I explained climatology’s error of physics to the chief programmer some years ago. The chief programmer got the point at once.

The virtue of the energy-budget method is that, rather than deriving estimates of ECS from models, which (as Pat Frank has irrefutably demonstrated) provide estimates that are no better than guesswork, one derives it instead from observed temperature and the official estimates of anthropogenic forcing, as demonstrated early in the head posting.

And if all estimates of future warming are unreliable, then there is no scientific justification whatsoever for the economic hara-kiri of the West and the passing of global economic and hence political hegemony from the gentle, merry democracies to the grim, jackbooted dictatorships of KGB-led Russia and Communist-led China.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 7:32 am

Add Canada, The Netherlands and the USA to this list.

Last edited 1 month ago by Carlo, Monte
RickWill
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 7:37 am

as with the Russian INM model, which was just a lucky guess.

The INM model produces garbage like all climate models. It shows the Southern Ocean warming throughout the satellite era when, in fact, the Southern Ocean has cooled at a steady rate of 0.7C/century over the past 4 decades.

Increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere has ZERO influence on the Earth’s energy balance. The fact that the Southern Ocean is cooling while CO2 is increasing is all the proof needed.

Hoping for the “global” temperature trend to show a sustained long-term decline is just that – hopeful. The precession cycle is increasing solar intensity over the Northern Hemisphere while reducing in the Southern Hemisphere. The facts that the proportion land to water in the northern hemisphere is much greater than the SH, combined with the faster response of land to insolation than the response of water to insolation guarantees the “global” temperature will increase for the next few thousand years until the ice mountains form around the perimeter of the North Atlantic..

Screen Shot 2022-09-04 at 12.20.20 am.png
Walter
Reply to  RickWill
September 3, 2022 10:06 am

Did you take into account that the AMO will more than likely go negative soon? On top of the PDO, this is supposed to bring strong cooling.

Last edited 1 month ago by Walter
James Clarke
Reply to  Walter
September 3, 2022 5:20 pm

I read a long way to find someone mentioning the AMO. Thank you, Walter. For all of recorded human history, the climate has changed. There have been warm periods and cold periods, all while CO2 has been practically constant. Natural climate variability is the most obvious thing in climate science and it is the most ignored! Ocean/atmospheric cycles are the the likely explanation for many of the observed climate changes that have occurred during the Holocene. The Climate Industrial Complex has ignored this, making all of their ‘science’ wrong from the start!

The AMO is about a 60 year cycle that is clearly visible in the observations over the last 120 years, and explains most of what has been observed, including the 0.13 degrees C of warming/decade in the last 30 years. There is also an 800 to 1,000 year cycle that brought us the Roman Warm Period, The Dark Ages Cold Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and now the modern Warm Period. Then there is the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods revealed in the ice cores.

The Holocene has been fading (cooling) for 6,000 to 8,000 years. That is why the LIA was the coldest period of the Holocene. It is interesting to note the the smaller cycles have a similar pattern to the larger cycle, namely they warm quickly and cool very gradually. As the AMO moves into its cool phase, all three of the natural cycles will be cooling, as will the satellite lower tropospheric temperatures for the next 20-30 years.

This will inevitably lead to the next glacial period, starting in about 2,000 years, give or take up tp 1,000 years. The ice cores clearly indicate that the CO2 concentration has no discernable impact on global temperatures, as cooling always started while the CO2 was still increasing, and warming always started while CO2 was still decreasing.

Today’s climate crisis narrative can only exist in a world that ignores all available information about the historical climate of the Earth!

Mike
Reply to  James Clarke
September 3, 2022 11:59 pm

Today’s climate crisis narrative can only exist in a world that ignores all available information about the historical climate of the Earth!”
100%

September 3, 2022 3:57 am

“They would have realized that, because their very small uncertainties in feedback strength would, if real, lead to very large and consequently unconstrainable changes in equilibrium sensitivity, attempting to diagnose feedbacks at all from the models is necessarily doomed to failure.”

Monckton is on target when he refutes the existing climate junk science used to promote CAGW. CAGW is NOT based on any past climate — so a pause for the past seven years will never change the CAGW scaremongering. CAGW is a prediction of climate never seen before, and wrong for over 50 years in a row, That’s a lot of wrong predicting. When Monckton attacks the wrong predictions based on obviously wrong science, he’s on the mark.

Large feedbacks exist in models to triple the already high estimate of CO2 effects on impeding global cooling, simply because they are needed to convert AGW beliefs into CAGW beliefs.

The average model represents the climate science consensus.
The consensus has obviously been wrong for 40+ years, excluding the Russian INM model that gets no attention — it should get 99% of the attention.

So why do CMIP6 models have a higher range of predictions than the already too high range of the CMIP5 models? Because climate scaremongering needs “it’s worse than we thought” news to keep scaring people. So CMIP6 is worse than CMIP5. And CMIP7 will be worse than CMIP6, I expect. The junk science of CAGW scaremongering has been “working” since the 1980s, so it will continue. CAGW is politics, not science.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 3, 2022 5:16 am

The question that has puzzled me for over two decades is why do people keep ignoring the Russian model. The only model that even comes close to actual observations. You can say it is just a fluke or a lucky guess, but when a ticket buyer wins the lottery consistently, you need to investigate it, do you not?

 
Reply to  Paul Stevens
September 3, 2022 7:11 am

Some of us have been paying attention to that model, including its most recent iteration INMCM5 (part of CMIP6)

https://rclutz.com/2020/01/26/climate-models-good-bad-and-ugly/

comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 5, 2022 11:48 am

Yep, it shows the politician-paid UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers jumped on positive cloud feedbacks big-time in CMIP6.  They kept most of the exaggerated WV positive feedbacks and got higher overall ECSs with their cloud games.

It got so bad in CMIP6 that even the politicians had to agree to ignore the hottest models in AR6.  Even the erstwhile Gavin Schmidt had to agree that the models were running hot.  Not a good look for CliSciFi and an obvious negative harbinger for future climate modeling.

Richard Page
Reply to  Paul Stevens
September 3, 2022 7:20 am

You have been aware of the modern anti-Russian hysteria which gained traction some 15 odd years ago and has been increasing ever since? As well as the senseless invasion of Ukraine? Given that, what makes you think that any climate activist in the West is going to reference a model that was created by the aforementioned objects of hate and revilement and also shows up all of the western models as complete garbage? It’d lose them their funding, their career, their reputation and probably invite a visit from the security services as well!

RickWill
Reply to  Paul Stevens
September 3, 2022 7:50 am

why do people keep ignoring the Russian model. 

Everyone should ignore ALL climate models. They are all junk and all produce nonsense. That includes the INM model.

It shows warming in the Southern Ocean while the ocean has a sustained cooling trend.

It shows an upward trend in the Nino34 temperature where there has been zero trend.

Junk science produces junk models. The only useful question is why do sane people place any value on model predictions? My only interest is deriding their nonsense – the only worthy attention is similar to the attention you give a turd. You need to appreciate the potential risk of handling the stuff.

NCEP_Three_Trends-3.png
Dave Fair
Reply to  RickWill
September 5, 2022 11:52 am

But there is some good shit in life, Rick.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
September 3, 2022 3:27 pm

Because accurate predictions are not a goal.
Scaring people is the goal. So the Russian INM model is binned with all other models in an average — all less accurate models. Would a weather forecaster ignore his best model? No way. Only in climate junk science is the best model ignored.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 4:24 am

Such abundant acorns on oak trees is a sign that the trees are preparing for a severe winter.
comment image

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 5:42 am

I’m no Michael Man (Supreme Commander of Dendrology), but I believe the abundance of any fruit/nut bearing tree is in reaction to recent past conditions not anticipation of coming attractions.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom in Florida
JeffC
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 3, 2022 5:58 am

You’re absolutely right of course. The bumper harvest we’re seeing at the moment from fruit and nut trees and bushes is the result of the very mild spring we had in the UK. Usually a late frost ruins the blossom and stops the fruit developing. Fruit and nuts have no predictive ability.

Earthling2
Reply to  JeffC
September 3, 2022 1:08 pm

Especially the fruit cakes and nut bars in the Marxstream media and lazy academia. Don’t want to report on the forest, for the trees.

Yirgach
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 3, 2022 12:45 pm

We have a mixture of hardwoods (mostly Oak and Maple) and softwoods (White Pine). The year before last there was an explosion of pine cones (which we use as fire starters) as well as an overabudnance of acorns. The squirrels went nuts!The wooly caterpillars did their ring dance as they crossed the road but in the end that winter was relatively mild.

starzmom
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 6:21 am

The horses agree with the trees. They have been shedding out their summer coats and beginning their new winter ones since the end of June, a time when they had only barely finished shedding out last winter’s long thick coats.

meiggs
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 7:07 am

I spend lots of time watching trees in South East region of the Appalachian Mtns and I’ve began to wonder if the trees are not, if fact, aware of the solar cycle and feed forward respond to anticipated weather changes that the monkeys seem oblivious too.  From an evolutionary standpoint it seems long lived creatures attuned to the sun’s behavior would have a leg up on the competition which is fierce in the plant world.

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 2:25 pm

How would the trees know a severe winter is coming? More likely is that very favorable conditions this year have caused the oaks to breed like crazy

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 8:25 pm

I’m reminded of the old joke about two guys arguing about the best invention ever made. The one guy argues that it was the thermos bottle because it knows whether it is supposed to keep the contents hot or cold. And the trees ‘know’ that it is going to be cold.

Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 4:30 am

There is no end in sight for La Niña.
comment image
comment image

Bellman
September 3, 2022 4:37 am

The bottom line is that we can perhaps expect as little as 289.4 – 288.5 = 0.9 K more warming in the rest of this century to 2100.

Good to see another firm prediction from Lord Monckton. That would mean a warming rate of around 0.11°C / decade, and would put us over the “1.5°C warming since pre-industrial” target. Closer to 2°C above.

[sarc]
But using Monckton’s speedometer metaphor UAH data suggests he’s wrong.

Since January 2004, a significant period of 18 years and 8 months, the UAH warming rate using OLS is 0.20°C / decade, almost twice the 0.11°C / decade, Lord Monckton imagines.

Whilst, since December 2010, a period of almost 12 years the UAH warming rate has been 0.33°C / decade, thrice that of warming rate “expected” for the next 78 years.

(Note, these figures are not cherry-picked. I calculated them by going back from the current date, until I found the numbers I wanted.)
[/sarc]

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 5:15 am

Speaking of the speedometer

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/

will it ever get updated?

As the time the idea was to look at the warming trend since January 2001 (using an average of UAH and RSS), and compare it with supposed predictions from the IPCC. At the time the trend was 0.47°C / century.

Today, ignoring RSS and only looking at UAH the trend, since January 2001, is 1.43°C / century, three times faster, despite the effects of the pause.

This would mean current warming is still a little below the 1990 IPCC prediction window of [1.9, 4.2] °C / century, but is now within the 2001 IPCC prediction window of [1.1, 3.1] °C / century.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 5:52 am

Bellhop has perhaps not noticed the word “perhaps” in the head posting at the point where he suggests that I had made a “firm” prediction. What is abundantly clear by now is that, even if all of the warming since 1850 is attributed to anthropogenic influence, the rate of warming over the entire satellite era (i.e., beginning just a few years after the great Pacific shift have caused global warming anyway), that rate is a very long way below what IPCC predicted in 1990, and a very long way below what it still predicts.

Anyone but a shill for the Kremlin would accept that I had drawn my conclusion as to the future rate of global warming by taking account of the entire temperature change since 1850 and the entire anthropogenic forcing ditto. In comparison with that, Bellman is indeed cherry-picking in his characteristically childish fashion.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 6:51 am

Oh dear, it seems the intended irony in the word “firm” didn’t land.

So to be clear, whilst we might perhaps expect to see as little as 0.9K warming by 2100, wecould perhaps expect to see more than 0.9K?

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 7:25 am

That’s the thing about temperatures, they can stay roughly the same, go up or go down. It’s equally possible that we might see some degree of cooling instead, who knows?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 10:48 am

In response to “Bellman”, according to the world’s most eminent climatologist the natural internal variability of the climate would allow trends of +/- 1.5 K over a century. However, the anthropogenic contribution, over and above the natural variability, will be about 0.9 K at midrange from now to 2100.

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2022 11:56 am

But, but, it’s going to speed up any day now. The sacred models have so decreed.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 11:55 am

I love it when alarmists try to claim that natural cycles are actually CO2 in disguise.

Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 4:44 am

Not everyone understands that a strong La Niña is followed by an El Niño because the subsurface Walker wave is so strong that it transfers heat from the western to the eastern Pacific. If La Niña was strong then of course the temperature in the troposphere would drop sharply. However, the current La Niña is not strong and will not be until a clear peak in solar activity, which is not seen in the 25th cycle. Therefore, this La Niña will not be followed by a large increase in temperature in the troposphere.
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 5:25 am

As you can see, September saw a big drop in heat in the Pacific at a depth of 150 meters.
Meanwhile, winter in the southern hemisphere may be long. The temperature inside the stratospheric polar vortex is low.
comment image
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 5:32 am

UV radiation has dropped, after a clear first peak in solar activity. 
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Bellman
September 3, 2022 5:00 am

The first is that, like it or not, feedback processes respond to the entire reference temperature.

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum before, but I still don’t understand how a “feedback process” knows that’s what it’s supposed to do?

I’m sure this makes sense for electrical circuits, but climate feedback responses are going to depend on the current environment, not some proportional response going back to absolute zero. How does a molecule of water know it’s supposed to treat a 1K warming as only a 0.5% rise in absolute temperature, rather than by responding to the actual temperature rise?

IanE
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 5:20 am

Because things such as clouds take time to gather and change their behaviour. It is not Instant feedback, but is time-delayed and hence has memory effects.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 5:42 am

Feedback is feedback, be it electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, chemical, or whatever. It could be as simple as a spinning weight controlling the speed of the engine on your lawnmower.

All of these have time constants associated with them but they still act on the conditions at the time. Have you ever heard a speed oscillation on a lawnmower engine? The engine speeds up, the governor closes the throttle, the engine slows but the governor isn’t fast enough to keep it from dropping too far so it speeds it back up again, overshoots and then causes the speed to drop again. The governor is still reacting to what is going on, it just has a delayed response (dirt and grime perhaps?).

The atmosphere isn’t any different. What it does next hour/day/etc is dependent on what happens now. It just doesn’t happen instantaneously.

meiggs
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 7:19 am

In my yard mower speed bogs down in the tall grass due to the excess rain resulting from excess rain and global warming…or perhaps the mower operator is just lazy and does not mow often enough…or perhaps is cheap and needs a newer, more powerful mower, more expensive mower, or perhaps because…

Doonman
Reply to  meiggs
September 3, 2022 10:23 am

But Governor Newsom has outlawed fossil fuel powered lawnmowers to save the planet. Better get some sheep because the electric mowers don’t work when the power is shut off.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
September 3, 2022 8:33 pm

Everyone can convert their grass lawns to ‘natural’ vegetation that doesn’t need mowing. Then, even the people living in suburbia can learn what UHI is like.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  meiggs
September 4, 2022 6:12 am

A mower with a bad governor will oscillate even on concrete, it’s not load dependent. In fact, putting a load on the engine will sometimes smooth it out since the butterfly in the carb will remain open all the time in order to handle the load.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 7:30 am

Maybe these questions should be better aimed at the climate activists masquerading as ‘scientists’ who began this silliness. Monckton of Brenchley is just using their system, their rules and their calculations, just highlighting the flaws and correcting the many mistakes they’ve made.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 11:58 am

I’m trying to figure out if you’re just trying to confuse everyone else, or if you actually are this confused.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2022 3:44 pm

He’s not, it’s a rather transparent ruse to divert attention into insignificant details and away from the core message that the climatistas got their most basic sums wrong. How many posts has Monckton of Brenchley posted on WUWT concerning the pauses, and how many times have we seen Bellman claim to not understand what a feedback is, or what the scientific principle behind it is? Far too many times to be simple confusion.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Page
September 3, 2022 4:51 pm

First I’m attacked for only talking about the pause as a distraction from all the important parts of Monckton’s screeds. This time I ignore the pause and return to one of the main parts of Monckton’s arguments, his nonsense about feedbacks, and I’m attacked for focusing on that to distract from the importance of the pause.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 10:36 am

The toadying Kremlin shill “Bellman” waffles about the alleged “nonsense about feedbacks”, but fails to provide a coherent – or any – argument against the analysis in the head posting, which shows that, using midrange mainstream data and methods, but corrected for climatology’s elementary error of control theory, the system-gain factor has remained constant in the industrial era. Therefore, it can be used as the basis for a respectable estimate of the global warming to be expected in the rest of this century – a far from terrifying 0.9 K.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 2:41 pm

Just because you have multiple points of trivia with which to distract from the main issues, is not evidence that either of your trivialities matters.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 3:19 pm

bellman: “I still don’t understand how a “feedback process” knows that’s what it’s supposed to do?”

bellman: “his nonsense about feedbacks”

You don’t understand how feedback processes work but you know enough to say his feedback analysis is “nonsense”?

ROFL!! That’s typical for you I guess!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 5, 2022 3:40 pm

You need to practice your reading comprehension.

“I still don’t understand how a “feedback process” knows that’s what it’s supposed to do?” is not the same as “I don’t understand how feedback processes work”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 6, 2022 1:11 pm

If you don’t know how a feedback process knows what it is supposed to do then you don’t know how feedback processes work.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2022 3:15 pm

I know what a feedback system is meant to do. I don’t know why you think it always has to work linearly with regard to a reference input.

E.g. why would a thermostat work with the entire temperature range, rather than just turning on or off at a single specific temperature?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 6, 2022 3:48 pm

Tell me what you think would happen if the feedback sensor squared the output and then feeds that back into the input summing node.

How many natural feedback processes do you know of where the feedback is not linear? Ones where the feedback signal has a higher amplitude than the reference signal.

 I don’t know why you think it always has to work linearly with regard to a reference input.”

The feedback sensor works with the OUTPUT signal, not the input signal. How many times does that have to be laid out before it sinks in?

“E.g. why would a thermostat work with the entire temperature range, rather than just turning on or off at a single specific temperature?”

The temperature in the house/buidling/etc is an OUTPUT from the HVAC system. The thermostat measures that OUTPUT and feeds a signal back to the HVAC system to turn off or turn on. You think a thermostat measures the temperature inside the burn chamber or the ductwork? Does *YOUR* thermostat work that way?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2022 5:47 pm

Tell me what you think would happen if the feedback sensor squared the output and then feeds that back into the input summing node.

Who cares. I said nothing about squaring anything, I just think it’s unlikely climate feedbacks must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the reference temperature.

How many natural feedback processes do you know of where the feedback is not linear?

My assumption is that none of the climatic feedbacks are linear to the absolute temperature, which is why I’m asking for evidence that they must respond to each K. Climatic feedbacks are complex, and only really make sense in the limited range of global temperatures. Water vapour is the main example, the hotter the atmosphere the more vapour it can hold. But does that result in a response that is linear to K?

The thermostat measures that OUTPUT and feeds a signal back to the HVAC system to turn off or turn on.

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said it turns on or off at a specific temperature. What it doesn’t do is output an amount of heat proportional to every K in the room.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 7, 2022 1:34 pm

Who cares.”

That’s all you need to say. Here you are, arguing about linear feedback and when you are challenged you just say “Who cares”.

The response of a troll!

“My assumption is that none of the climatic feedbacks are linear to the absolute temperature,”

Why is that your assumption? What is it based on? Just so you can argue black is white?

“which is why I’m asking for evidence that they must respond to each K.”

And you’ve already admitted, AND ACTUALLY SHOWN, that you simply don’t understand feedback at all. Even in your diagram the feedback is taken from THE OUTPUT! The output consists of all inputs, not just some of them! If the output depends on ALL INPUTS, including the feedback input, then the feedback is based on *ALL INPUTS*.

How do *YOU* separate out some of the K’s in the output? Do you somehow think they are labelled somewhere?

” Climatic feedbacks are complex, and only really make sense in the limited range of global temperatures.”

More BS! The complexity comes from the NUMBER of different feedbacks, not from the complexity of the individual feedbacks.

And why do they only make sense in the limited range of global temperatures? The temperatures on Earth have a HUGE variance.

Water vapour is the main example, the hotter the atmosphere the more vapour it can hold. But does that result in a response that is linear to K?”

You’ve been given the formula for enthalpy MULTIPLE times. Many times over. Have you EVER a factor in the equation that is of a higher order?

h_f = c_w (t_f – t_0) where
h_f is the enthalpy of water
c_w is the specific enthalpy of water

Do you see *any* higher order terms in that equation?

If you are talking of moist air then h = h_a + H*h_g
where h_a is the enthalpy of dry air, H is the humidity ratio, and hg is the specific enthalpy of water vapor.

Do you see *ANY* higher order terms in that equation?

Do you *ever* stop to think through anything you say? You are still just showing you are a troll!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 7, 2022 4:56 pm

That’s all you need to say. Here you are, arguing about linear feedback and when you are challenged you just say “Who cares”

Quoting me out of context and then calling me a troll.

You can easily see what I said I didn’t care about. It was you asking about what would happen if a feedback sensor squared the output. It’s not a relevant question.

Why is that your assumption? What is it based on?

Thinking on what climatic feedbacks are, how they depend on the specific local conditions. Thinking it’s absurd to just assume they behave like an electrical circuit.

Even in your diagram the feedback is taken from THE OUTPUT!

Nitpicking. The outputs are inputs, that’s why it’s a loop. And it’s Monckton who keeps insisting that feedbacks respond to the reference temperature.

How do *YOU* separate out some of the K’s in the output? Do you somehow think they are labelled somewhere?

In control theory you subtract the reference value from the system value and calculate the feedback from that error. In the real world, you have systems which only start responding when the temperature reaches a certain value, or responds more strongly, or weaker, the hotter it gets.

You’ve been given the formula for enthalpy MULTIPLE times.

Stop changing the subject. We are talking about feedback, not enthalpy. Do you think the feedback from water vapour is proportional to the temperature in K?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2022 5:54 pm

Quoting me out of context and then calling me a troll.”

I did *NOT* quote you out of context!

“You can easily see what I said I didn’t care about. It was you asking about what would happen if a feedback sensor squared the output. It’s not a relevant question.”

Of course it’s a relevant question! You keep complaining that processes in the atmosphere don’t have to be linear but when asked about what happens with a non-linear process you punt!

“Thinking on what climatic feedbacks are, how they depend on the specific local conditions. Thinking it’s absurd to just assume they behave like an electrical circuit.”

ALL FEEDBACK processes work the same. I’ve given you the example of the governor on a small lawnmower multiple times. That is *NOT* electrical. It is MECHANICAL!

And you whine about me pointing out that I have to keep going over the same thing trying to teach you basic concepts. You can’t even remember how a lawnmower engine works for a week!

Nitpicking. The outputs are inputs, that’s why it’s a loop. And it’s Monckton who keeps insisting that feedbacks respond to the reference temperature.”

But you said in another message that feedback is not determined from the system output!

Pick one and stick with it!

In control theory you subtract the reference value from the system value and calculate the feedback from that error.”

So what’s your point? Are you now finally starting to realize that what I am saying is correct?

How does the atmosphere know what the set point is supposed to be? How does it know what the reference value is? Is there some pagan god floating around in the stratosphere telling the atmosphere what the reference value is? What the set point value is?

Atmospheric feedback is a process itself. It takes an input, acts on it, and outputs a value. That value is either added to or subtracted from other processes. It truly is that simple. The feedback process has NO way to separate out pieces of its inputs and react only to some of the pieces!

“Stop changing the subject. We are talking about feedback, not enthalpy. Do you think the feedback from water vapour is proportional to the temperature in K?”

*YOU* are the one that said: ““Water vapour is the main example, the hotter the atmosphere the more vapour it can hold. But does that result in a response that is linear to K?””

You can’t seem to remember from day to day what you’ve said. Have you ever thought about going back to see what you’ve said? It’s easy to scroll up!

What feedback from water vapor are you talking about? Back radiation? I have some real problems with back radiation. The only heat the atmosphere can send back to earth is heat that the earth has already lost. It’s why just looking at a snapshot in time of radiation averages doesn’t tell the whole picture.

The SUN is the only heat source of any magnitude that affects the biosphere. The atmosphere can’t create heat. It can only act upon the heat it receives and absorbs.

So, again, what “water vapor feedback” are you speaking of? Be exact!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 7:04 pm

ALL FEEDBACK processes work the same. I’ve given you the example of the governor on a small lawnmower multiple times. That is *NOT* electrical. It is MECHANICAL!

You insist that all feedback processes have to work the same, yet you keep talking about just one process, that of a lawn mower. You need to show that the function that determines how a governor in lawn mower must be the same as the function that determines all the processes that determine temperature feedback in the climate.

Then show me that a lawnmower works the same way Monckton claims the climate must do. I.e. always respond proportionally to the entire system input, which would be the speed in this case.

You are of course write that I have no understanding of how a lawn mower works, and even less interest in understanding it. But I’m willing to bet that it doesn’t work the way Monckton says all of control theory dictates. As I keep saying, control theory makes sense if the feedback responds to the error not the total system or reference input.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 11, 2022 5:09 am

You insist that all feedback processes have to work the same, yet you keep talking about just one process, that of a lawn mower. You need to show that the function that determines how a governor in lawn mower must be the same as the function that determines all the processes that determine temperature feedback in the climate.”

You need to walk before you run! As I said, you can’t do even basic math. The function for temperature feedback is just a multi-factor polynomial. Something like the computerized control of a modern fuel-injected automobile where the feedback signals are things like throttle position, oxygen sensor, temperature, humidity, and a whole lot of things – all which control the amount of fuel being fed into the engine. It all ADDS together in a summing node – the computer!

If you can’t understand how a simple lawnmower works you’ll never understand more complex control systems.

“Then show me that a lawnmower works the same way Monckton claims the climate must do. I.e. always respond proportionally to the entire system input, which would be the speed in this case.”

Unfreaking believable! One of the ways a governor in a simple engine works is a spinning set of weights. As the engine turns faster the weights move out which operates an actuator that will change something to increase/decrease the engine speed. It could be butterfly opening or the spark timing or on a steam engine it would even be a pressure valve.

But the governor works on the ENTIRE system output. It can’t tell which part of that system output is based on the throttle setting and which part is based on the error signal from the governor itself!

You are of course write that I have no understanding of how a lawn mower works, and even less interest in understanding it.”

You aren’t really interested in understanding anything. You are just on here playing “gotcha” games and arguing that black is white. A true troll of the internet.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 11, 2022 4:16 pm

Ignoring most of your self-defeating patronizing nonsense, but I would like you to explain this:

But the governor works on the ENTIRE system output. It can’t tell which part of that system output is based on the throttle setting and which part is based on the error signal from the governor itself!

If the governor can’t distinguish between the throttle setting and the error, then what is the point of the throttle?

Last edited 22 days ago by Bellman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 12, 2022 11:58 am

If the governor can’t distinguish between the throttle setting and the error, then what is the point of the throttle?”

Apparently you can’t read any better than you can do math!

The spinning weights (part of the governor) determines the error signal based on the ENTIRE SYSTEM OUTPUT – i.e. the speed of the engine!



Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 12, 2022 3:58 pm

The spinning weights (part of the governor) determines the error signal based on the ENTIRE SYSTEM OUTPUT – i.e. the speed of the engine!

Very probably, But all you are doing is rearranging the components. The spinning weights have to have a reference in order to determine the error signal. That’s what the reference input is in your diagram. The response, moving faster or slower is based on the error, not the entire system output.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 7:16 pm

How does the atmosphere know what the set point is supposed to be?

It doesn’t. It just responds to the change in temperature.

It takes an input, acts on it, and outputs a value. That value is either added to or subtracted from other processes. It truly is that simple.

Correct. But you have to determine what the function is. How much feedback will be caused by any specific temperature. And that’s where Monckton and the rest of climate science disagree.

The feedback process has NO way to separate out pieces of its inputs and react only to some of the pieces!

But it does. Water vapour knows it cannot go into the atmosphere if it’s to cold for there to be an atmosphere. Ice cannot start melting if the entire planet is well below the freezing point.

You can’t seem to remember from day to day what you’ve said. Have you ever thought about going back to see what you’ve said? It’s easy to scroll up!

Once again you are arguing with a contradiction that only exists in your own mind.

I have some real problems with back radiation.

I can’t help you with your problems. This is about Monckton’s nonsense not yours. Monckton not only accepts that water vapour is the main feedback, he relies on it for his argument that there is no time lag.

The chief sensitivity-relevant direct forcings by noncondensing greenhouse gases and the chief indirect or feedback forcings, particularly by additional water vapor in the air, operate on timescales of hours, days or years at most.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 12, 2022 12:02 pm

Correct. But you have to determine what the function is. How much feedback will be caused by any specific temperature. And that’s where Monckton and the rest of climate science disagree.”

But the temperature is the temperature of the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE in question! Once again, the atmosphere can’t tell which K is feedback and which is not. It acts based on the *entirety* of all K.

“But it does. Water vapour knows it cannot go into the atmosphere if it’s to cold for there to be an atmosphere. Ice cannot start melting if the entire planet is well below the freezing point.”

Give me a break! What does this have to do with the atmosphere being able to tell which K is from feedback and which is not?

The chief sensitivity-relevant “

Once again, you can’t read any better than you can do math.

What do the words “chief sensitivity” mean to you? Does the word “chief” mean “ALL” or “TOTAL” in your language?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 12, 2022 4:06 pm

Once again, the atmosphere can’t tell which K is feedback and which is not. It acts based on the *entirety* of all K.

And you are still missing the point. Monckton’s claim is not about how the system distinguishes between warming caused by CO2 and warming caused by feedbacks. It doesn’t matter what caused the temperature change.

Monckton’s point is about how feedbacks respond to any change in temperature.

Give me a break! What does this have to do with the atmosphere being able to tell which K is from feedback and which is not?

It doesn’t. Seem my point above. The question throughout is whether feedbacks respond in a linear fashion to the entire temperature range.

What do the words “chief sensitivity” mean to you? Does the word “chief” mean “ALL” or “TOTAL” in your language?

I’ve no idea what you’re screaming about now. All Monckton is claiming at that point is that most of the changes to temperature from CO2 and feedbacks happen very quickly, so there is little lag.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Page
September 3, 2022 5:56 pm

He has admitted to being a Stokes disciple in the past.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 10:46 am

The hapless Kremlin shill “Bellman” should get his Komsomol instructor to read him an elementary textbook of control theory. In the climate, temperature feedbacks are denominated in Watts per square meter of the reference (i.e., pre-feedback) temperature. At any given moment, therefore, such feedback processes as subsist at that moment must, at that moment, perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the the entire reference temperature. At that moment, they cannot pick and choose between one Kelvin and another.

In short, feedback processes respond to what “Bellman” calls “the current environment”. Waffling about what might have happened at 0 K is nonsensical: for one thing, the cosmic microwave background (the nearest the universe can get to absolute zero) is 2.73 K or thereby. The head posting, which perhaps “Bellman” can get his Komsomol instructor to read to him, shows the absolute system-gain factors for 1850 and for a forcing equivalent to doubled CO2 compared with 1850 to be identical. To derive the unit system response per Kelvin of reference temperature, simply deduct 1 from the system-gain factor.

Since the system-gain factors on both bases are 1.0764, the equilibrium (i.e., post-feedback) warming in response to the 1.05 K reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 will be of order 1.1 K, and not the 3 [2, 5] K imagined by IPeCaC. End of global warming problem: after correcting for the fact that feedback has far less influence on global temperature than had been confidently but – on the measured evidence – erroneously predicted, there will not be enough warming to matter. And the frequent, long Pauses interspersed with occasional el-Nino-driven spikes in temperature tend to provide visible evidence that our influence on the climate is nothing like as great as the profiteers of doom would wish us to imagine.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 4, 2022 3:05 pm

The hapless Kremlin shill “Bellman” should get his Komsomol instructor to read him an elementary textbook of control theory.

My handler would like to know if that’s a book on linear or nonlinear control theory.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 5, 2022 9:00 am

You should start off with a book that explains non-linear systems first. Something like a physics book that goes into detail on how to handle a non-linear system consisting of a spring attached to a mass resting on a surface.

Then move into non-linear control systems.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 5, 2022 3:48 pm

Rather than expect me to do your research, why don’t you just provide a link to the part of control theory that shows that all feedback processes must respond equally to the entire input.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 6, 2022 1:36 pm

Both the reference input and the feedback sensor output are summed together and fed to the controller and actuator which control the plant output. The feedback sensor cannot differentiate which part of the output is from the reference signal and which part is from the feedback. All it knows is the output from the plant which depends on both the reference signal and the feedback signal.

*YOU* are the one that needs to do the research if you don’t understand the subject. The teacher doesn’t do the homework, the student does.

basic_feedback.png
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2022 3:08 pm

Nobody has said that the feedback needs to distinguish between the reference input and the feedback. The question is does it need to respond proportionally to the entire input.

As your diagram makes clear responding to the error, not the reference input.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 6, 2022 3:39 pm

Get some sleep!

The reference input and the error input ARE SUMMED. Once the summation happens nothing later can distinguish between them. The feedback sensor reacts to the OUTPUT, not to the inputs! The output is the result of the summed reference input and the error input!

The question is does it need to respond proportionally to the entire input.”

Does it have to be linear? Is that what you mean? If it is simple feedback it is usually linear. It’s hard to find higher order responses in physical processes like the atmosphere. Do *you* know of any? You might get a logarithmic response but probably not squared or cubed or etc. Think about it, if the feedback sensor squares the output and feeds it back into the summing node then what happens?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2022 5:15 pm

The reference input and the error input ARE SUMMED.

Why on earth would you do that. The whole point is to control the system by acting on the error. The error is the difference between the input and the desired value.

Here’s an illustration:

(source)

http://physics.wm.edu/~evmik/classes/Physics_252_Analog_Electronics/lab_manuals/LabManual_Chpt11.pdf

Note that u(e) depends only on the error signal.

Screenshot 2022-09-07 011026.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 7, 2022 1:03 pm

Why on earth would you do that. The whole point is to control the system by acting on the error. The error is the difference between the input and the desired value.”

In other words you didn’t even bother to understand the block diagram!

You don’t even understand your *own* diagram! The summing node in your diagram is labeled “System”. The “System” is also the Plant in my diagram!

You are getting confused by the labels on the boxes and totally missing what is actually going on!

Think about a simple, little gasoline lawnmower engine! The sensor is the governor weights that rotate and which move out based on the speed of rotation. It is also part of the actuator block that acts on the plant (i.e. the engine). The input is the throttle lever on the mower, i.e. the reference input. The throttle is also part of the actuator block.

On your diagram, the governor is part of the measuring block and the control module, it both determines the “error” signal and works to control the speed of the “System”. The “unknown” is the position of the throttle which works to control the system. The two inputs get summed in the “System” block. If they weren’t summed in some manner then what good is the feedback?

You *have* to learn to think this through in physical terms. You’ve shown over time that you have basically no knowledge of the real world and how things actually work. You are showing that fact here once again. You are letting block diagram labels hide the fact of what is actually going on and then trying to nit pick things based based on those labels.

How would *YOU* control a process if you don’t sum the input signal and the error signal? How would you slow things down if they are going to fast? How would you speed things up if they are too slow? The input signal can’t determine that on its own! If you say you would just hook a error actuator to the input actuator you have really done nothing except create a summing node!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 7, 2022 4:09 pm

In other words you didn’t even bother to understand the block diagram!

Then you are going to have to provide a reference for your block diagram.

My understanding is that the circle with the + and – signs is taking the reference input and the output from the sensor and outputting the difference as the error signal. If you think it means you are adding the error signal to the reference input, provide some evidence rather than resorting to your usual insults.

For reference:

https://electricalacademia.com/control-systems/block-diagrams-in-control-systems/

Screenshot 2022-09-08 000753.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2022 5:04 pm

My understanding is that the circle with the + and – signs is taking the reference input and the output from the sensor and outputting the difference as the error signal. If you think it means you are adding the error signal to the reference input, provide some evidence rather than resorting to your usual insults.”

The output of the summing node is the input to the controlling mechanism for the process!

Why is that so hard to understand? I keep asking you to try and relate this to a physical concept and you refuse. Why is that?

Do you have *any* idea how a governor works on an engine? Any idea?

What do you think the minus (-) sign means as opposed to a plus (+) sign on the summing node?

Go here: https://circuitglobe.com/difference-between-positive-and-negative-feedback.html

I don’t think it will help you because you aren’t willing to learn anything new. But hope springs eternal I guess.

I’ve attached a picture from the web page showing positive feedback (top circuit) and negative feedback (bottom circuit).

The sign on the summing node only tells you part of the picture. You also need to know the phase of the feedback signal itself. If the output is 180deg out of phase with the input then feeding it into the positive node of the summing node will actually be negative feedback and vice versa.

These are simple electrical circuits. But the same concept applies to any feedback loop. The actual feedback loop may be a PID feedback (go look it up) rather than a simple sensor but the concept is the same.

As I’ve pointed out at least twice this applies even to the governor on a simple lawnmower. It applies to a governor on a diesel engine in an over-the-road tractor. It even applies to your thermostat in your house.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 5:01 pm

This is typical Time Gorman. He makes a statement “The reference input and the error input ARE SUMMED.”, and rather than admit he might have made a simple mistake, will drag the conversation all round the houses, without ever justifying his original claim.

So we end up with “The output of the summing node is the input to the controlling mechanism for the process!“. Which has nothing to do with summing the error input.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 11, 2022 4:41 am

 “The reference input and the error input ARE SUMMED.”, and rather than admit he might have made a simple mistake, will drag the conversation all round the houses, without ever justifying his original claim.”

Malarky! What mistake did I make? Be specific!

“So we end up with “The output of the summing node is the input to the controlling mechanism for the process!“. Which has nothing to do with summing the error input.”

You are *still* trying to claim the error input is not an *input*! Why?

As I keep pointing out, even in simple things like your home thermostat or a lawnmower engine the reference signal and the error signal are summed to provide an input to the controller of the device, either to turn it on/off or to increase/decrease the butterfly opening in the carburetor.

You can dance around this all yo want but you are still just trying to argue black is actually white – a true troll!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 11, 2022 3:25 pm

Malarky!

There’s that tell again.

What mistake did I make? Be specific!

The mistake I think you made was claiming you sum the reference input and the error input. Sure, you could calculate the system value by adding the reference to the error. But that’s not what your graph was showing. It does the sensible thing and subtracts the system value from the reference to get the error. And it’s the error that is passed to the controller.

…a lawnmower engine the reference signal and the error signal are summed to provide an input to the controller of the device…

You’re the expert on lawnmowers, but the logic of what you are saying makes no sense to me. Maybe it’s just the terminology being used. So let me go through what I think you are saying, in fairly abstract terms, and you can explain where I’m wrong.

  1. You have a set speed you want for the lawnmower engine, this is called the reference input. Let’s say this is set at 10 units.
  2. The actual speed of the engine (the system value) is different, say 12.
  3. The error is therefore 2.
  4. You say you now add this error to the reference speed to get 12, i.e. the actual speed.
  5. You then say this value (12) is passed to the controller.

Is that what you are saying?

The reason this doesn’t make sense to me is that I don’t see what the controller is supposed to do with this value. If the point of the controller is to move the system speed towards the reference speed, how does it know if it needs to slow down or speed up?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 12, 2022 4:27 am

 But that’s not what your graph was showing.”

It’s not the graph. It’s that you don’t understand how things work in the real world. You already admitted that.

“It does the sensible thing and subtracts the system value from the reference to get the error”

ROFL!! And here we are with you changing the goalposts again! The issue isn’t how the error signal is obtained, it’s how the error signal gets fed back as an input! And it is the total input that gets acted upon by the system. The atmosphere can’t tell one K from another!

“You’re the expert on lawnmowers, but the logic of what you are saying makes no sense to me”

Logic? If the error signal doesn’t become part of the input then what is the use of the error signal?

You say you now add this error to the reference speed to get 12, i.e. the actual speed.”

You don’t understand at all! Who says the the input becomes 12? Are you hung up on the term “summing node”? Do you not understand the difference between negative and positive feedback?

If the point of the controller is to move the system speed towards the reference speed, how does it know if it needs to slow down or speed up?”

In the lawnmower it is controlled by the governor weights. If they spin faster they move out which closes the butterfly and slows the engine down. If they spin slower they move in which opens the butterfly in order to speed the engine up.

What is so hard to understand about this? Actually the governor on a lawnmower is more sophisticated than your typical house thermostat. If you have it set to heat the house with a reference setting of T1 and the temp falls below that it will kick on the furnace. If the temp goes above that it does nothing to cool it down. The old lawnmower governor (which has been around forever almost) will work in both directions. Speed it up or slow it down.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 12, 2022 3:42 pm

It’s not the graph.

It’s the diagram you produced and we were discussing. If you now are admitting that that graph does not show the reference input and the error signal being summed, maybe we can leave it and get on with our lives. None of this has anything to do with Monckton’s point in any case.

It’s that you don’t understand how things work in the real world.

This isn’t about “how things work in the real world”, it’s about how you model them and how good that model is in representing the real world.

The issue isn’t how the error signal is obtained, it’s how the error signal gets fed back as an input! And it is the total input that gets acted upon by the system.

Again, not what the block diagram shows.

comment image

The error signal is fed into the Control Algorithm, the output of that is fed into the Actuator, which is fed into the plant, which is fed into the sensor. The final result is then subtracted from the reference value to get the new error signal. The error signal does not get “fed back”, it’s the result of all these operations that is fed back.

And again, if the system only acts on the “total input” how does it know which direction to go in?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 12, 2022 4:49 pm

It’s the diagram you produced and we were discussing.”

WHOOSSSHHHH! It went right over your head! The problem is not the graph – THE PROBLEM IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING!

” If you now are admitting that that graph does not show the reference input and the error signal being summed, maybe we can leave it and get on with our lives.”

Are you REALLY this blind? What do you think the little circle with plus and minus inputs is other than a summing node? See the attached picture!

Again, not what the block diagram shows.”

It is EXACTLY what it shows. The reference signal is the throttle position, the thermostat set point, or the pressure setting on the steam engine! The feedback and the signal goes into the summing node and the output is a signal to the control node – and the control node acts upon the output of the summing node, it does *NOT* somehow differentiate between the reference and the feedback.

“The error signal does not get “fed back”, it’s the result of all these operations that is fed back.”

You are lost in the forest and totally confused by the names. Consider the FUNCTIONS of each block, not what they are called!

What is called the “error signal” in the diagram is the butterfly positioning on the lawnmower engine, the on/off signal to the furnace in the house, or the pressure valve on the steam engine! It is the sum of the reference signal and the feedback signal that determines what the control algorithm and actuator does!

As usual, you refuse to learn anything! I’m done with this topic. Get someone else to explain it to you!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 13, 2022 3:30 pm

I’m done with this topic.

For the best, given this is getting further and further away from the point Monckton thinks he’s making, and there’s a now a better post on the topic.

But for future reference:

What do you think the little circle with plus and minus inputs is other than a summing node?

It’s a summing node. More precisely a comparator, a special case of a summer; as I said way back in this discussion.

The problem is not what it’s called, it’s what are it’s inputs and output. Tim seems to think that it sums the “the reference input and the error input”. Whereas it seems clear to me that it is comparing the reference input and the value from the sensor, to produce the “error signal”. Not least because it says “error signal” in the diagram just above the arrow going out of the node.

The feedback and the signal goes into the summing node and the output is a signal to the control node – and the control node acts upon the output of the summing node…

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. But for some reason Tim won;t accept his initial statement was wrong, or at least ambiguous.

…it does *NOT* somehow differentiate between the reference and the feedback.

And again, my point is all it knows is what the error is, the difference between the reference and the system values.And again, I don’t know why Tim thinks I’m suggesting it does distinguish between the two. My problem is that what he said was “But the governor works on the ENTIRE system output. It can’t tell which part of that system output is based on the throttle setting and which part is based on the error signal from the governor itself!”. Implying the controlling algorithm in the diagram is working on the system value, and not on the error.

It is the sum of the reference signal and the feedback signal that determines what the control algorithm and actuator does!

Which is what I’ve been saying.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 12, 2022 3:53 pm

If the error signal doesn’t become part of the input then what is the use of the error signal?

You keep saying “input” without specifying what you mean. Then wonder why we are getting confused.

The error signal, as I understand it, is what the controller acts upon. Increasing or decreasing the signal to compensate for the size and direction of the error.

You don’t understand at all! Who says the the input becomes 12?

I tried to go through what I think you are trying to say, in the hope that you could explain yourself. But inevitably you just through out more insults.

12 is in my example the current system value. You seem to be saying that it’s this total system value that is sent to the controller, and that it cannot distinguish between the reference value and the error signal. If that isn’t what you meant, please say what value you think is being sent to the controller.

I’m sure you know what you are saying, I just think you are not very good at explaining it.

In the lawnmower it is controlled by the governor weights. If they spin faster they move out which closes the butterfly and slows the engine down. If they spin slower they move in which opens the butterfly in order to speed the engine up.

It’s irrelevant “how” it works, it’s the principle of the control theory that matters here. But again, how does the governor know whether to spin faster or slower, if it doesn’t know what the error is?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 12, 2022 4:59 pm

It’s irrelevant “how” it works, it’s the principle of the control theory that matters here. But again, how does the governor know whether to spin faster or slower, if it doesn’t know what the error is?”

Last message on this topic.

The governor is ATTACHED TO THE ENGINE! It is the sensor *and* control algorithm *and* actuator!

What in Pete’s name do you *think* turns it? Do you know how a distributor on a pre-computerized car works?

Stop playing gotcha games. Go away troll!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 7, 2022 4:31 pm

You don’t even understand your *own* diagram! The summing node in your diagram is labeled “System”. The “System” is also the Plant in my diagram!

From that reference

The expression for u(e) depends only on the error signal e=S-Sd

It explains it pretty clearly, the error is calculated by subtracting the desired value from the system value. A control value, u, is calculated based on the error and feedback into the system. At no point do you add the error term to the reference input, and at no point is the feedback calculated from the total system value.

The two inputs get summed in the “System” block. If they weren’t summed in some manner then what good is the feedback?

The feedback gets summed with the system state. Not the error signal.

How would *YOU* control a process if you don’t sum the input signal and the error signal?

I’d generate a negative feedback based on the error.

The input signal can’t determine that on its own!

But it’s Monckton’s claim that in Control Theory the feedback can only respond to the entirety of the input.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2022 5:11 pm

At no point do you add the error term to the reference input, and at no point is the feedback calculated from the total system value.”

It explains it pretty clearly, the error is calculated by subtracting the desired value from the system value.”

You can’t even keep from contradicting yourself within a couple of sentences! In the first sentence you say that at no point is the feedback calculated from the total system value. And then you say it is calculated *from* the total system value!

u(e) by itself is useless! u(e) can’t be the only input and it can’t be isolated by itself. If it is not integrated into the control mechanism of the process then why even bother?

It is integrated by summing it with the reference signal, either as negative or positive feedback.

Once again, how does the governor on a small lawnmower work if

  1. It doesn’t measure the total system output, i.e. the speed of the engine, and
  2. if it isn’t summed with the throttle input in order to control the speed of the engine?
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 5:15 pm

In the first sentence you say that at no point is the feedback calculated from the total system value.

Read for context. We are discussing Monckton’s claim that all feedbacks are must be calculated from the entire system value. If you agree that you use the system value to calculate the error, and then calculate the feedback from the error, that’s what I was trying to say, somewhat inelegantly. But if you do agree then you are demonstrating why Monckton is mistaken.

u(e) can’t be the only input and it can’t be isolated by itself.

Of course not. It’s a feedback. It’s role is to be fed back.

Once again, how does the governor on a small lawnmower work

I’m not the least interested in your lawnmower fetish. It doesn’t matter if it’s based on the entire reference input. The question is where in control theory is it dictated “that the feedback processes subsisting at any moment must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the reference temperature then obtaining.”?

It doesn’t measure the total system output, i.e. the speed of the engine

Of course it measures the engine speed.

if it isn’t summed with the throttle input in order to control the speed of the engine?

If by summing, you mean subtracted from in order to find the error, then yes, that’s what I’m saying. The control feedback is based on the difference between the throttle and the actual speed, not as Monckton insists it must be, on the entire speed.

Do you agree with, or understand, what Monckton is saying?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2022 5:14 pm

But it’s Monckton’s claim that in Control Theory the feedback can only respond to the entirety of the input.”

The system, i.e. the atmosphere, can’t isolate the feedback signal and act only on it. That’s why there is a summing node. No summing node, no response to the feedback signal.

Is that what you *truly* want to say here? That CO2 has *NO* feedback into the system?



Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 5:18 pm

Again, you don;t seem to understand what Monckton is saying. It’s not about the system isolating the feedback, it’s about the feedback acting proportionately to the entire system temperature.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 11, 2022 4:44 am

Again, you don;t seem to understand what Monckton is saying. It’s not about the system isolating the feedback, it’s about the feedback acting proportionately to the entire system temperature.”

Once again, you are trying to claim the atmosphere can tell one K from another K so it can only act upon one of them.

A physical impossibility.

But then, when did the physical world mean anything to you?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2022 5:20 pm

If it is simple feedback it is usually linear.

Do you think climate feedbacks are going to be simple?

You might get a logarithmic response but probably not squared or cubed or etc.

The claim is they are all linear (or very nearly linear) to the entire global average temperature. The response could well be linear in response to the local change in temperature, but not linear over the entire temperature range from 0K.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 7, 2022 1:12 pm

Linear feedbacks ARE usually simple. They might be a polynomial but they are *still* simple.

The claim is they are all linear (or very nearly linear) to the entire global average temperature.”

You’ve yet to come up with any biosphere feedback that is *NOT* linear. Why is that?

“The response could well be linear in response to the local change in temperature, but not linear over the entire temperature range from 0K.”

The use of piecewise linear analysis has been pointed out to you OVER AND OVER AGAIN. And you *never* learn!

Again – give us a biosphere response that is 2nd order (quadratic) or 3rd order (cubic). My guess is that you can’t.

Remember, a logarithmic response is *still* linear, it’s really just a scaling issue. If it takes a long time to realize the change a logarithmic scale can show it easier on a letter-size piece of paper!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 7, 2022 4:41 pm

You’ve yet to come up with any biosphere feedback that is *NOT* linear. Why is that?

I’ve said atmospheric water vapour. You could add ice coverage and clouds.

It makes no sense to suggest that any of these have to be linear to the entire absolute temperature.

The use of piecewise linear analysis has been pointed out to you OVER AND OVER AGAIN. And you *never* learn!

This arrogant pretense of having to teach me is getting quite pathetic. I know what piecewise linear analysis is, and if you think that describes climatic feedbacks – congratulations, you are now agreeing with me and saying Monckton’s claims are nonsense.

Again – give us a biosphere response that is 2nd order (quadratic) or 3rd order (cubic). My guess is that you can’t.”

And again, you are engaging in a false dichotomy, or just illustrating your lack of imagination. Something can be nonlinear and not a higher order polynomial.

Remember, a logarithmic response is *still* linear, it’s really just a scaling issue.

I’m not talking about linear regression here, I’m talking about the feedback function. Logarithmic is not linear, exponential is not linear. Monckton’s nonsense depends on the assumption that all feedbacks behave proportionally to the entirety of the temperature from absolute zero.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2022 5:38 pm

I’ve said atmospheric water vapour. You could add ice coverage and clouds.”

You REALLY need to take some remedial math classes. Water vapor and clouds are *NOT* non-linear. They are *linear*. You are confusing having multiple first-order terms with being non-linear. y = x + y + z IS A LINEAR SYSTEM.

“It makes no sense to suggest that any of these have to be linear to the entire absolute temperature.”

Explain how they are not! You make this claim but offer no backup.

“This arrogant pretense of having to teach me is getting quite pathetic.”

What is pathetic is YOU NEVER LEARN!

 I know what piecewise linear analysis is, and if you think that describes climatic feedbacks – congratulations, you are now agreeing with me and saying Monckton’s claims are nonsense.”

You have *NO* concept of reality! What do you think a volcanic eruption causes? It causes a change in the simple equation of v = x+y+z to v=x+y+z+w. You can easily analyze this on a piecewise basis.

It’s obvious that you do *NOT* know what piecewise linear analysis is!

And that is why you think I am disagreeing with CoM!

“And again, you are engaging in a false dichotomy, or just illustrating your lack of imagination. Something can be nonlinear and not a higher order polynomial.”

Really? But you can’t give us an example? Not even one?

Just one example of something that is not linear but doesn’t have a higher order factor.

I’m not talking about linear regression here, I’m talking about the feedback function. Logarithmic is not linear, exponential is not linear. Monckton’s nonsense depends on the assumption that all feedbacks behave proportionally to the entirety of the temperature from absolute zero.”

I’m not talking about linear regression either! Answer me this:

ln(x⋅y)=ln(x)+ln(y) and ln(x^λ) = λ * ln(x)

Does this not mean that a logarithmic function is linear? If it wasn’t how do ln(x*y) become ln(x) + ln(y)?

And I never said that exponential is linear. Where did you get this from. Show us an exponential function in the atmosphere.

And, again, how does the atmosphere separate out the feedback signal from the rest of the signal? You keep claiming that it can be never provide any backup for how it can do it!

You whine about me always whining about having to teach you basic concepts over and over and then you come up with this nonsense that has been explained to you multiple times over!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 6:08 pm

You REALLY need to take some remedial math classes.

You really need to stop this trolling. It’s obvious that the worse your argument becomes for more you have to resort to these pointless personal attacks.

Water vapor and clouds are *NOT* non-linear. They are *linear*. You are confusing having multiple first-order terms with being non-linear. y = x + y + z IS A LINEAR SYSTEM.

I am not confused. I am not talking about a linear system, but a linear function. Specifically the one Monckton claims, i.e. cT, where c is a constant and T is the absolute global temperature in Kelvin.

Explain how they are not! You make this claim but offer no backup.

Well here for an example is a random graph of absolute humidity against temperature. Does this look linear, and in particular does it look linear with regard to absolute temperature?

Illustration-of-absolute-humidity-of-ambient-air-at-temperatures-between-30-and-40.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 11, 2022 4:48 am

You really need to stop this trolling. It’s obvious that the worse your argument becomes for more you have to resort to these pointless personal attacks.”

You simply do not understand even the basics of anything having to do with math. That may be an inconvenient truth for you to admit but it is the truth nonetheless. It’s not a personal attack, it is a constructive criticism.

“I am not confused. I am not talking about a linear system, but a linear function.”

Now you are moving the goalposts! The whole discussion is how the atmosphere acts, not how equations are handled. Stay on target!

“Well here for an example is a random graph of absolute humidity against temperature. Does this look linear, and in particular does it look linear with regard to absolute temperature?”

What does this have to do with feedback from CO2?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 6:51 pm

To me saying “Something can be nonlinear and not a higher order polynomial.”

Really? But you can’t give us an example? Not even one?

You claim to understand these things. You pretend that you are trying to teach me basic maths, yet you need me to give you examples of non-linear non-polynomial functions?

Well if you insist, here are some examples. Exponential, logarithmic, sigmoid,any trigonometric function, and any piecewise linear function.

And I should have said, the function could be linear and still disagree with Monckton’s claim, as he requires it to go through the origin.

It’s obvious that you do *NOT* know what piecewise linear analysis is!

By a piecewise linear function, I mean a function that has different linear components for different ranges of input. E.g, x -> 0, if x <= 200, x – 200, if x > 200.

Answer me this:

ln(x⋅y)=ln(x)+ln(y) and ln(x^λ) = λ * ln(x)

Does this not mean that a logarithmic function is linear?”

It does not.

Not in the usual sense, that I and Monckton are using, of a function that is a straight line.

If you mean it’s a linear map, then that’s not true for the normal R vector space.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1398150/the-logarithm-is-non-linear-or-isnt-it

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 9, 2022 6:54 pm

And, again, how does the atmosphere separate out the feedback signal from the rest of the signal? You keep claiming that it can be never provide any backup for how it can do it!

And a final strawman.

Nobody is talking about separating the feedback signal from the rest of the signal. The feedback signal just goes back into warming the planet, that’s the point.

What Monckton is claiming is that the feedback process cannot distinguish one range of temperatures from another, that it must respond to each K of temperature in the same way.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 11, 2022 4:54 am

Nobody is talking about separating the feedback signal from the rest of the signal. The feedback signal just goes back into warming the planet, that’s the point.”

If you can’t separate them out then CoM is correct. The feedback acts on the *ENTIRE* input, both the reference signal and the feedback signal, not just a piece of it.

Do you understand why it is so frustrating to try and get you to actually *think* about what you initially claim?

What Monckton is claiming is that the feedback process cannot distinguish one range of temperatures from another, that it must respond to each K of temperature in the same way.”

And then you just turn around and contradict yourself.

Again, if you can’t separate out the feedback signal in the system output then how can it be acted upon separately? Each K of temperature is *NOT* tagged with a tattoo saying “not-feedback” or “feedback”.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 7, 2022 5:22 am

The head posting, which perhaps “Bellman” can get his Komsomol instructor to read to him, shows the absolute system-gain factors for 1850 and for a forcing equivalent to doubled CO2 compared with 1850 to be identical.

If you assume everything has to be based on the absolute temperature, it’s not at all surprising if you get similar results. You are dividing one big number by another big number, then making small changes to both numbers and getting a similar result. It’s inevitable the results will be similar whatever the change.

Let’s take your value for the “present”

Therefore, today’s reference temperature (the temperature before accounting for feedback response) is 267.1 + 0.97 = 268.07 K, and the current equilibrium temperature is 287.5 + 1.04 = 288.54 K. The current system-gain factor is then 288.54 / 268.07, or 1.0764, just as it was in 1850.

What would your result have been if there had been 2°C warming since 1850? Or 3°C or 5°C. Let’s see.

289.50 / 268.07 = 1.0800
290.50 / 268.07 = 1.0837
292.50 / 268.07 = 1.0911

Even if there had been 5°C warming for the same forgings, you would still be seeing almost no difference to the system game factor. Your forecast for 2100 would be 268.85 * 1.0913 = 293.34K. Still less than 1°C for the next 78 years.

If your methods give the same predictions regardless of an observed 1°C or 5°C rise, then they are not very useful.

Last edited 26 days ago by Bellman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2022 7:12 am

You can’t see the forest for the trees!

If your methods give the same predictions regardless of an observed 1°C or 5°C rise, then they are not very useful.”

The WHOLE POINT is that the differences will be small! Can *YOU* tell the difference between 90F and 95F when you are outside? Can your tomato plants?

When doing thermodynamics you should use Kelvins. I know this has been pointed out to you at least twice. And, like everything else, you just refuse to internalize it!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 8, 2022 7:27 am

So completely missing the point it’s not even funny any more.

Do you think if there was no difference between 1°C and 5°C Monckton would be so desperate to claim it will only be 1°C and yelling that 3°C is communist propaganda?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 8, 2022 7:31 am

“When doing thermodynamics you should use Kelvins.”

Then stop using Farenhet, and accept the Essex paper was wrong to use power means with Celsius.

Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 5:03 am

All global warming has shifted to the northern hemisphere. That will change in the northern hemisphere winter, when La Niña brings less water vapor over the continents.
comment image

RickWill
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
September 3, 2022 8:19 am

The precession cycle is shifting the solar intensity with the NH increasing on average and the SH reducing. The difference in distribution between land and water in the hemispheres, combined with the faster and greater response of land to increasing insolation means the average surface temperature is increasing. But the Southern Ocean and Antarctica are cooling.

The monthly changes in solar intensity are much more significant than the annual change. Spring in the NH are getting more sunlight while autumn is getting less but overall going up. So warmer, drier summers and cooler, wetter winters due to the thermal lags.

These are long term trends that good measurements over decades should be exhibiting.

Tom Halla
September 3, 2022 5:10 am

As Monckton, using a different approach, comes ip with nearly the same maximum ECS as Lindzen and Choi, it is entirely plausible.

David Dibbell
September 3, 2022 5:27 am

Good to see Pat Frank’s work highlighted here, along with the updates about the Pause and about the exaggerated feedback.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 4, 2022 10:33 am

Mr Dibbell is most kind. Pat Frank’s paper is of enormous importance, because it removes 97% of the purportedly “scientific” basis for alarm about warmer weather worldwide – the outputs of costly but useless general-circulation models.

Tim Gorman
September 3, 2022 5:44 am

Feedbacks do not respond solely to that tiny fraction of reference temperature directly forced by greenhouse gases.”

You truly can’t say this often enough!

sofa king what
September 3, 2022 5:49 am

You’re not allowed to say that because somewhere it rained a lot and somewhere it didn’t rain and somewhere some people had some summertime hot weather. So even though less than 1% of the landmass and 1% of the population experienced those weather extremes that have been experienced by humans since the dawn of man the planet is melting and signtists say it’s man’s fault. Heck just the other day I went outside with a glass of ice water and my ice melted, so ‘splain that. Please don’t answer that ’cause I won’t be here, I’m going to go search for the Global Warming God ’cause apparently it can go back in time and change history and I need to hitch a ride to a few decades back and throw some money into Apple and Microsoft and Walmart stock. Change 90% of my sports bets. Become rich and famous and create a religion to tell you that your tiny carbon footprint is destroying mankind while mine is necessary because I have to warn you that carbon is bad, m’kay.

fretslider
September 3, 2022 5:57 am

While we’re in a very pregnant pause, I came across something by one ‘Gaia Vince’. Crazee name, crazee girl.

Remember those 50 million climate refugees that never materialised?

“‘Nomad Century’ delivers a message that’s sharp and jolting about mankind’s future

Gaia Vince’s new book delivers a message that is clear, sharp and jolting. Large regions of the world are becoming unlivable, she says – lethal for 3 to 5 billion of us. We can survive, but to do so will require a planned and deliberate migration of the kind humanity has never before undertaken.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/27/1119795700/nomad-century-delivers-a-message-thats-sharp-and-jolting-about-mankinds-future

I recall one establishment scientist claiming we’d all be going to Antarctica, but not according to Gaia…

SIMON: This is just mind-bending. But how does somebody living, let’s say, in Cairo – I mean, they might say, you know, if my family’s going to survive, we better move to the Arctic. But that’s difficult to do.

VINCE: Yeah. I mean, it’s nothing short of an absolute tragedy that people are going to have to move. But let’s be clear. Migration this century is inevitable. 

IT’s an absolute tragedy that Gaia Vince hasn’t received the help she clearly needs.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Scissor
Reply to  fretslider
September 3, 2022 6:40 am

One wonders why people keep moving to warmer climates.

fretslider
Reply to  Scissor
September 3, 2022 6:51 am

They haven’t…. awoken yet. 

Richard Page
Reply to  fretslider
September 3, 2022 7:32 am

The Arctic? Wouldn’t their feet get wet? At least the Polar Bears will be well fed!

Richard M
September 3, 2022 7:35 am

The new pause continues but has been slowed a bit by low Antarctic sea ice.

comment image

This has raised the SH temperature a few tenths of a degree. The effect should fade away over the next few months since most of the sea ice melts every summer.

The SH has been cooling during the latest pause creating an even bigger difference with the NH which has continued to warm.

https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3nh/from:1990/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1990/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2001/to/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2001/to/trend

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard M
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard M
September 3, 2022 9:19 am

“The new pause continues but has been slowed a bit by low Antarctic sea ice.”

Strange that you only mentioned what happening with respect to “sea ice extent” in Antarctica.

There is a totally different scenario taking place in the Arctic, where summer-autumn sea ice extent has increased relative to 2012, 2019, 2020, and the average over the 2010’s (ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ and the attached graph taken from there).

You assert that “the NH has continued to warm”.  I’ll leave it to you to explain to all WUWT readers how Arctic sea ice extent is growing if indeed NH atmospheric temperatures are increasing.

Arctic_Sea_Ice_Extent.jpg
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 3, 2022 9:32 am
Richard M
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 3, 2022 11:08 am

The sea ice extent in the NH has a big effect in the NH winter. It has a much smaller impact in the NH summer. You can see it in the WFT link I provided. Big changes every 6 months.

The NH sea ice loss is probably the biggest factor in the +AMO driven warming seen in the global data since 1997. I’m not trying to diminish the effect, just pointing out the biggest reason for higher recent anomalies than many expected with an ongoing La Nina.

Carlo, Monte
September 3, 2022 7:40 am

As usual, the professional trendologists ignored the main point of the article and instead whined about “the pause” (which is of course their raison d’etre, Keeping the Rise Alive).

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 3, 2022 8:50 am

If you don’t want people to focus on the pause, rather than all the other nonsense, maybe suggest to Monckton he doesn’t title each essay with the words “The New Pause”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2022 3:46 pm

What, and miss all of the silly comments and other nonsense people come up with in response?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 10:30 am

More mere yah-boo from the useless and furtively pseudonymous but overpaid Putin shill “Bellman”. Follow the Eschenbach rule: if you consider something to be nonsense, quote it verbatim and produce some sort of an argument against it.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 4, 2022 1:49 pm

The person who continuously libels me by falsely claiming I’m a paid Putin shill, accuses me of yah-boo tactics.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2022 2:44 pm

More yah-boo from the witting, unwitting or witless shill for the Kremlin.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
September 5, 2022 12:06 am

You mean to say that you’re NOT getting paid to be an obnoxious troll? Then at least your handlers are getting their money’s worth.

Gordon A. Dressler
September 3, 2022 8:01 am

From the above article:
“It’s not global warming. It’s regional weather, resulting chiefly from the prolonged la Niña that has contributed in no small part to the New Pause in global warming over the past eight years . . .”

I don’t understand.  According to the graph of SST temperature anomaly for 5N-5S, 120-179W generated by NCEI/NESDIS/NOAA (linked at https://wattsupwiththat.com/enso/ , and copy of same attached below), we have been in an El Niño since about 2018 and until very recently, and it is only with the last several months that the WUWT “ENSO METER” (available via menu selection on the far right side of this webpage) has moved out of the neutral range and into the La Niña range.

A clarification would be appreciated.

NOAA_ENSO_SST.jpg
John Hultquist
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 3, 2022 9:06 am

Click on the “Meter” graphic, then click to open the Niño 3.4 Region Sea Surface Temperature Index – 5 Years.
The “quick link” is broken, so click on the small colored block to get the chart.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 4, 2022 10:29 am

Mr Dressler shows a Nino/Nina graph stopping in mid-2019. I have news for him. It is now mid-2022. He may like to look at the current Nino/Nina index, where he will see that we have been for some years in a deepening la Nina, which explains the strange weather in various parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 5, 2022 10:19 am

Lord Monckton,
With all due respect, I invite you to click on the graph I presented—and to which you make reference as to “stopping mid-2019”—so that you can clearly see that its plotted data extends beyond year 2020.

The graph originated with NOAA, not me. It is their data and plot, not mine.

I respectfully asked for a clarification. Why did you find the need for a snarky reply giving a strawman argument, as is clear for all to see?

Last edited 28 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 5, 2022 10:34 am

No snark intended. The graph as it appeared on my screen stopped in 2019, but the full graph does continue to mid-2022.

Go to https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/ to see the current graph. It will confirm that there has indeed been a la Nina for some years, with a brief interlude in 2019-20. It is their data and plot, not mine. The clarification is in the full graph.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 5, 2022 11:12 am

Thank you for your prompt reply.

What your link points to is the “Multivariate ENSO Index Version 2 (MEI.v2)”, which appears to be significantly different than the “SST Anomaly in Nino 3.4 Region (5N-5S. 120-170W)” NOAA graph that I originally asked be clarified in the context of your post.

Thus, there appears to be disagreement within NOAA itself as how to best classify a period of El Niño as opposed to La Niña.  Go figure.

This “clarification” leaves more questions than it answers.

John Hultquist
September 3, 2022 8:57 am

Nice photo of the Oak. None grow where I live (central Washington State) but the local university has dozens and during a “mast year” the trees and then the ground and sidewalks are covered. I need to get a photo, ’cause I failed to the last time I noticed.

Bruce Cobb
September 3, 2022 9:00 am

You can tell how “unimportant” the idea of a Pause is by how viciously it gets attacked by Pause Deniers.

NeedleFactory
September 3, 2022 10:00 am

Viscount Moncton:

Could you provide a link to “the whole dataset”?
I’d like to use it in some simulations.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  NeedleFactory
September 4, 2022 10:27 am

Just about every graph I publish here has the data source clearly shown on the graph itself.

September 3, 2022 10:23 am

” Problem 5: IPCC shows the cloud feedback as positive. However, the primary effect of the increased cloud cover that is to be expected with warming – i.e., an increase in the Earth’s albedo ”

— The author probably does not know the difference between
cooling cloud radiative effect (CRE) = 19W/m²
and warming cloud feedback = 0.42W/m² * °K.
Our cloud cover is shrinking ~2-2,5% in the last.

If you wonder why – here is an explaination

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to,climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/

a3.png
Last edited 1 month ago by macias
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  macias
September 4, 2022 10:26 am

The furtively pseudonymous “macias” should not assume ignorance on the part of its betters. One of my earliest published peer-reviewed papers on the climate question concerned the naturally-occurring reduction in global cloud cover between 1984 and 2001, which on its own explained most of the warming over that period. However, the fluctuations in global cloud cover bear scant relation to the near-perfectly monotonic increase in anthropogenic forcing. And the primary effect of more water vapor in the atmosphere should be more clouds. Like it or not, the primary effect of increased cloud cover is to reflect more sunlight back into space.

September 3, 2022 11:06 am

Looking at the graph of the entire UAH record, around 2012 the anomaly was -0.4 and by 2016 or so it was at +0.7, and then back down around zero by 2018. Within four years the anomaly swung 1.1 C. There are several 0.7 degree swings in that record.

How can anyone look at that record and think that CO2 has the power to raise the entire planet’s temperature, but can’t prevent 0.7-1.0 deg swings in a five year period?

Did anyone even try to come up with an alternate hypothesis for the warming since the late 1800s that didn’t involve GHGs?

bdgwx
Reply to  James Schrumpf
September 3, 2022 1:03 pm

JS said: “How can anyone look at that record and think that CO2 has the power to raise the entire planet’s temperature, but can’t prevent 0.7-1.0 deg swings in a five year period?”

The reason is because CO2 (and other polyatomic gas species) only impedes the escape of upwelling infrared radiation. It does not impede other agents from also providing a contribution to the energy flux into and out of the atmosphere. Even the most trivial model as show below is consistent with both CO2 providing a small but persistent systematic upward effect and with other random/cyclic phenomenon providing a large but transient chaotic effect.

comment image

JS said: “Did anyone even try to come up with an alternate hypothesis for the warming since the late 1800s that didn’t involve GHGs?”

There have been attempts. They just don’t match the evidence as well. My challenge to anyone reading this is to provide a monthly timeseries from 1880 to present from a no-GHG model that has a lower root mean square error than CMIP5 and which is also consistent with the cooling stratosphere, the magnitude of the Quaternary Period glacial cycles, the brightening of the Sun, the PETM and other ETMx events, and countless other lines of evidence in the contemporary and paleoclimate record.

Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 2:41 pm

CO2 can’t account for the warming from the late 1800s until human-produced CO2 became a noticeable component of the atmosphere sometime after the 1940s. There’s nearly a century of warming since the Ice Fairs on the Thames to 1940, but man-made CO2 wasn’t nearly abundant enough to have any effect.

bdgwx
Reply to  James Schrumpf
September 3, 2022 6:18 pm

CO2 and only CO2 can’t account for many climatic change events including the contemporary warming period. That does not mean that CO2 can’t participate in some of the events including the contemporary warming period with a spectrum of contribution.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
September 4, 2022 2:52 pm

There is no evidence that CO2 has played a measurable role in any warming period.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
September 3, 2022 5:20 pm

Why limit your time period? No one can account for the warming of the Roman period or Renaissance either. Or the cooling that followed both. We already know it wasn’t human generated CO2 or the lack of it, even the IPCC says that. So it must be something else entirely natural. There is also no reason to suspect that whatever the “something else” was has ceased to be operative.

It really isn’t helpful to claim that modern warming is all from human released CO2 because “we can’t think of anything else” when there is lots of evidence that there is something else.