Refutation of the Forgotten-Sunshine Theory

By Joe Born

Introduction

A long line of this site’s posts dated March 19, 2018, March 27, 2018, March 30, 2018, April 6, 2018, April 24, 2018, July 30, 2018, August 15, 2018, June 3, 2019, June 5, 2019June 8, 2019, July 22, 2019, February 1, 2021, May 9, 2021, July 8, 2021, December 2, 2021, April 3, 2022, April 6, 2022, July 2, 2022,  and September 9, 2022, advanced the  theory that the reason for high estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (“ECS”) is that modelers failed to take sunshine into account.   (ECS is the equilibrium-temperature change that doubling the atmosphere’s carbon-dioxide content would eventually cause.) 

Slogging through that compilation of changing values, ambiguities, and non sequiturs was a dispiriting exercise, but a reasonably clear distillation of the theory eventually did turn up, in what was triumphantly called “the end of the global warming scam in a single slide.”  By focusing last year on that slide we demonstrated that this forgotten-sunshine theory amounts to no more than bad extrapolation and that the purported feedback law on which the theory rests actually doesn’t rule high ECS values out at all. 

Perhaps as a result of that demonstration a new slide was substituted and emphasis was shifted to a new definition of the feedback law that high ECS values were claimed to violate.  In this post we use that new slide as our focus. 

What we will find as a result is that the rule imposed by the new slide’s calculations is not a valid feedback law and that the new definition either (1) imposes linear proportionality that feedback theory doesn’t require or (2) fails, by allowing the nonlinearity that feedback theory permits, to rule out high ECS values.  In the process we will dispose of some of the ancillary claims that have been made in support of this theory.

Background

To the extent that there actually is such a thing as ECS, many observation-based papers such as those by Lindzen & Choi, Otto et al., and Lewis & Curry have found its value to be significantly lower than most prominent models’ estimates.  “However,” Christopher Monckton said of such papers’ authors, “they can’t absolutely prove that they are right.  We think that what we’ve done here is to absolutely prove that we are right.” 

The key, he says, is feedback theory.  The climate is a feedback system, so it must follow the laws that apply to feedback systems generally.  And since in absolute terms the global-average surface temperature isn’t much greater than it would be without feedback, he says, feedback law prohibits high ECS values.  But he’s never defined with clarity just what the feedback law is that would rule high ECS values out. 

That’s not to say that he’s never attempted such a definition.  The noun clause in the following passage’s first sentence, for example, is one he’s primarily used until recently:

 [T]he main point . . . is that such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof. Once that point – which is well established in control theory but has, as far as we can discover, hitherto entirely escaped the attention of climatology- is conceded, as it must be, then it follows that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be low.”

We’ll call that clause his “entire-signal law,” and perhaps it can be so interpreted as to be valid.  But, contrary to what the foregoing passage’s second sentence contends, the entire-signal law doesn’t necessarily imply low ECS values.  To see why he nonetheless imagines it does, let’s consider how he views feedback.

In the climate context temperature feedback refers to the effects of temperature determinants that in turn depend on temperature.  Water vapor and clouds, for example, affect temperature, which in turn affects evaporation and thereby water vapor and clouds.  Similarly, albedo—i.e., the fraction of solar radiation that the earth reflects rather than absorbs—affects temperature, which in turn affects ice and snow cover and thereby albedo.  Feedback is typically distinguished from “direct” effects of, say, the sun and the atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, whose minor temperature dependence is usually ignored in such discussions.

Fig. 1 illustrates how Lord Monckton looks upon the equilibrium global-average surface temperature E: as the sum of (1) the value R (“reference signal”) it would have without feedback and (2) a feedback response F equal to the product of E and a feedback coefficient f.  The without-feedback temperature R can be thought of as the sum of “direct input signals” S and C, where S is the value that R would have if there were no non-condensing greenhouse gases and C is the difference between that value and the value to which such greenhouse gases raise R.  (If thus adding temperatures makes you feel queasy, please hold your physics objections in abeyance and for present purposes just focus on the math.  Similar forbearance is requested of those who unlike Lord Monckton look upon feedback as only a small-signal quantity, i.e., as operating only on departures from some baseline condition.) 

It is widely accepted that if there were no feedback the equilibrium-temperature increase caused by doubling carbon-dioxide concentration would be modest; Lord Monckton’s new slide calls it 1.05 K, which he refers to as the “reference climate sensitivity,” or “RCS.”  So the change in F for a 1.05 K change in R has to be large if ECS estimates are greatly to exceed that modest RCS value.  According to the forgotten-sunshine theory, however, feedback theory tells us that large feedback-response changes are inconsistent with the fact that (at least according to him) the pre-industrial value of the total equilibrium feedback response F was only 24 K. 

That pre-industrial value of F is represented (but not to scale) by the ordinate of the red dot in Fig. 2.  The upper green dot’s ordinate represents (again, not to scale) what doubling carbon-dioxide content would change F to if ECS were high: the result of adding to F’s pre-industrial value the difference between the RCS value and a high ECS value.  By in effect projecting through those points to F = 0 as the green dashed line suggests, Lord Monckton concluded that instead of making the feedback “respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining” climate modelers had made the “grave error” of forgetting that signal’s sunshine constituent S

He claims the scientific literature supports this conclusion.  For example, he frequently cites a 2010 Science article by Lacis et al. entitled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature.”  That paper’s ECS estimate is high, and presumably from the thereby-implied high extrapolation slope Lord Monckton inferred that according to Lacis et al. the feedback response would reach zero at the 255 K value they gave as the “emission temperature.”

But that’s a bizarre interpretation of Lacis et al.’s following passage:

A direct consequence of this combination of feedback by the condensable and forcing by the noncondensable constituents of the atmospheric greenhouse is that the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse were it not for the presence of these noncondensing GHGs. If the global atmospheric temperatures were to fall to as low as [255 K], the Clausius-Clapeyron relation would imply that the sustainable amount of atmospheric water vapor would become less than 10% of the current atmospheric value. This would result in (radiative) forcing reduced by [about 30 watts per square meter], causing much of the remaining water vapor to precipitate, thus enhancing the snow/ice albedo to further diminish the absorbed solar radiation. Such a condition would inevitably lead to runaway glaciation, producing an ice ball Earth.

Lacis et al. say evaporation and albedo feedback would persist, that is, even if the complete loss of carbon dioxide and other “noncondensable constituents of the atmospheric greenhouse” were to reduce the surface temperature to a value as low as the 255 K emission temperature.  So the reason why Lacis et al.’s estimate was too high isn’t that they had “forgotten that the Sun is shining.”

As Fig. 2’s hypothetical feedback curve suggests, modelers more likely did indeed take sunshine into account but believed that the feedback coefficient f would be lower at lower E values than it is now, i.e., that F is a nonlinear function of E and thus of R.  (Actually, F and E probably are not single-valued functions of R, but for the sake of discussion we’ll assume they are.) 

Lord Monckton nonetheless thinks modelers neglected sunshine, so to take it into account he extrapolates from the origin.  He thereby arrives at the lower feedback quantity represented by Fig. 2’s blue dot. 

Extrapolation

After Lord Monckton had for years used the above-quoted entire-signal language to define the purported feedback law on which he based such calculations, “An Electronic Analog to Climate Feedback” illustrated how high ECS values can result even if the feedback does respond to “the entire reference signal.”  (The feedback element in that electronic analog responded to the entire voltage difference between a virtual ground and an output node whose voltage was proportional to the entire sum of the input and feedback currents.)  Lord Monckton thereafter introduced a “strict proportion” formulation we’ll see in due course.  He still says of climate modelers, though, that “[w]hat the poor saps had forgotten is that the Sun is shining,” and his new slide, to which we presently turn, purports to depict that error and his “correction.” 

We will see that in the new slide, too, his correction amounts to linear extrapolation from the origin and thereby imposes linear proportionality.   Since linear proportionality isn’t a valid feedback law, though, he denies that the slide’s “corrected” calculation amounts to extrapolation:

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

But that first sentence is a non sequitur; nothing about the existence of an 1850 temperature equilibrium is inconsistent with the proposition that the new slide depicts the simple linear extrapolation we learned in high-school analytic geometry. 

Remember how we were asked in high school to estimate a third point C on an unknown curve from two known points A and B?  We would be given C’s x coordinate, and to estimate the y-coordinate difference between Points B and  C we would multiply the x-coordinate difference between B and C by an extrapolation slope m calculated as the ratio that A and B’s y-coordinate difference bears to their -coordinate difference. 

Fig. 3 illustrates that operation, with R’s and E’s substituted for our high-school x’s and y’s.  The hypothetical unknown E(R) function starts at the origin because E and R are absolute temperatures and therefore positive-valued, and for illustration purposes we’ve made that function more convex than high-ECS proponents probably would.  The green dot represents the extrapolated estimate of the hypothetically true value that the top red dot depicts.

Such simple linear extrapolation is exactly what the first two rows of Lord Monckton’s above-copied new slide illustrate.  (We’ll eventually see that the slide’s third row is just a distraction.)  The slide’s first row represents calculating the extrapolation slope m = ΔE/ΔR, while its second row represents calculating ECS by taking the product of that extrapolation slope and the 1.05 K RCS value. 

The slide’s first, “FALSE” column represents the climatology error that Lord Monckton has allegedly discovered.  Its second, “CORRECTED” column represents the calculation that his feedback law dictates.  Both columns take as their Point B the (R, E) = (263 K, 287 K) state of pre-industrial equilibrium that Lord Monckton says prevailed in 1850.  But the two columns’ calculations arrive at different ECS values (4.2 K and 1.1 K) because they base their extrapolation-slope calculations on different Points A. 

The “FALSE” column’s Point A is the (R, E) = (255 K, 255 K) state that Lord Monckton says modelers believe would prevail in the absence of non-condensing greenhouse gases: the with- and without-feedback temperatures E and R are identical because according to Lord Monckton modelers think the feedback response F would be zero at the 255 K temperature that (we accept for the sake of argument) would result if the sun were the only source of “direct” warming.  Accordingly, the slide’s “FALSE” column calculates its ECS value 4.2 K by taking the product of the RCS value 1.05 K and the extrapolation slope m = 4 (= 32 K ÷ 8 K) calculated as the ratio ΔE/ΔR of the temperature differences ΔE = 32 K (= 287 K – 255 K) and ΔR = 8 K (= 263 K – 255 K) between Points A and B.   (Obviously, Fig. 3 exaggerates RCS’s magnitude with respect to ECS’s, and it greatly exaggerates ECS’s magnitude with respect to ΔE’s.)

As we observed above, Lacis et al.’s paper provides no support for Lord Monckton’s contention that they “forgot the sun is shining.”  Moreover, their reasoning appears to be the reverse of what Lord Monckton’s “FALSE” column depicts.  Instead of inferring ECS from, among other things, the conditions that would have prevailed without carbon dioxide, they apparently started with an ECS value already calculated by other means and used it to infer from the climate’s current state what the conditions would be like at 255 K and maybe below.  But for the sake of discussion we’ll accept Lord Monckton’s version of their ECS calculation.  And, as Lord Monckton said, that calculation does indeed amount to extrapolation. 

Contrary to his denial, though, so does his own calculation.  Specifically, his “CORRECTED” column’s calculation is exactly the same as the “FALSE” column’s except that to impose linear proportionality it replaces that column’s Point A, (R, E) = (255 K, 255 K), with the origin, (R, E) = (0 K, 0 K), which Fig. 5 accordingly labels A’.  Represented in that plot by the vertical distance from Point B to the blue dot, the “CORRECTED” column’s ECS value 1.1 K is therefore the product of the RCS value 1.05 K and the extrapolation slope m = 1.095 that according to Lord Monckton’s arithmetic is the ratio ΔE/ΔR of the temperature differences ΔE = 287 K (= 287 K – 0 K) and ΔR = 263 K (= 263 K – 0 K) between Points A’ and B.  

In short, his correction imposes a linear-proportionality requirement that true feedback theory does not. 

The Nose of Wax

His numeric examples always impose such linear proportionality, and linear proportionality seems to be required by the “strict proportion” language he has recently emphasized.  Here’s how he recently expressed the new formulation:

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

Given the pre-industrial equilibrium state that Lord Monckton assumes, this linear-proportionality interpretation would indeed (if it were a valid feedback law) rule out high ECS values. 

But note the language: the feedback response must be “attributed.”  Attribution can mean a merely mental act, an act that has no physical consequence.  I can attribute the current temperature to the price of tea in China, but that attribution tells me nothing about what will happen to temperature when the price changes.  So whether that language actually imposes linear proportionality—and thereby rules out high ECS values—is murky.

 Such murkiness seems to be a feature, not a bug; it enables him to treat his feedback-law description as a nose of wax, twistable to any form.  He benefits from the impression, given by the “strict proportion” language, that feedback theory rules out high ECS values.  But when he’s faced with the fact that linear proportionality is not a valid feedback-theory law he rejects the “rebarbatively-repeated but actually false representation that I assume linearity in feedback response.”

Here’s his rationale for divorcing “strict proportion” from linear proportionality of F as a function of R:

[W]e are not dealing with an evolutionary curve across time, where the feedback processes might not necessarily respond linearly to changes in temperature as the climate evolves. We are dealing with a particular moment, and a moment of equilibrium in the crucial variable at that.

What does that mean?  Can we so interpret it as to divorce his verbal formulation’s “in strict proportion” language from the linear proportionality that his numerical examples actually implement?  Well, in the next paragraph we’ll try. 

Under doubled-carbon-dioxide conditions, just as under the pre-industrial, year-1850 conditions, all portions ΔF of the feedback response F “must be attributed,” he seems to say, “in strict proportion” to corresponding portions ΔR of the without-feedback temperature R: the proportionality coefficient kf/(1 – f) in ΔF = kΔR must be the same for all ΔF and corresponding ΔR.  But there’s no physical experiment that could test that attribution.  This is because E’s value under pre-industrial conditions—at that “given moment”—can differ from its value at a different “moment,” such as when carbon-dioxide concentration has doubled.  Since f and therefore k can vary in response to changes in the with-feedback temperature E, the common k that prevails for all feedback-response portions ΔF under doubled-carbon-dioxide conditions needn’t be the same as the common k that prevailed for all portions under pre-industrial conditions.

Clear as mud, right?  Sorry about that; it’s challenging to make sense of his verbiage.  If you did follow that proposed interpretation, though, you’ll recognize that it does indeed avoid implying “linearity in the feedback response”; linear proportionality would require that k be independent of E, whereas the foregoing-paragraph interpretation does not.  But you’ll also see that by allowing k to depend on and therefore potentially increase with E it fails to prohibit the high-ECS “FALSE” calculation or dictate the low-ECS “CORRECTED” calculation.  In other words, such an interpretation wouldn’t imply what Lord Monckton set out to prove. 

So here’s the situation.  If his “strict proportion” language does require the linear proportionality that his numerical examples always impose, then it rules out high ECS values but the proof fails because the purported feedback law it defines isn’t valid.  If that language doesn’t require linear proportionality, on the other hand, then his proof still fails, because even if the resultant feedback law isn’t erroneous it doesn’t require ECS to be low.

The Third Row

Lord Monckton makes a further assertion: that “after correction of climatology’s error in forgetting that the Sun was shining, even a minuscule change in the feedback-driven system-gain factor would engender a very large change in final warming per unit of direct warming, compared with 1850.”  It’s not at all clear how he thinks low ECS values follow from this assertion, but apparently the new slide’s third row is intended as an illustration.

The third row purports to illustrate the ECS effects of a 1% “system-gain factor” increase.  In the first column it increases E(R)’s slope dE/dR by 1% on only the RCS = 1.05 K interval between Points B and C.  Not surprisingly, it thereby increases ECS by 1%, from 4.20 K to 4.24 K.  In the second column, too, the third row increases E(R)’s slope by 1%, but this time throughout the entire 264.05 K interval between Points A’ and C.  Here, too, the ECS increase would be 1%, in this case from 1.15 K to 1.16 K. 

However, Lord Monckton ignored the fact that thus extending the slope change over the entire domain would increase not only E’s doubled-carbon-dioxide, Point C value but also its pre-industrial, Point B value.  So instead of correctly calculating the new ECS value by taking the E-value difference between the new Points B and C he calculated it erroneously by taking the E-value difference between the old Point B and the new Point C.  That would have resulted in an apparent increase of about 260%, from 1.1 K to 4.0 K, but apparently because of an arithmetic error the slide says the increase is 340%. 

In short, he obtained an orders-of-magnitude difference by performing two completely different calculations.  How does that prove that feedback theory rules out high ECS values?  It doesn’t.  And such absences of logical connection between premise and conclusion afflict much of what he says about his theory.

Not Very Nonlinear

Now, some observers may have actually worked through the logic and/or noticed that in none of the dozen or more head posts in which Lord Monckton has argued for the alleged feedback law has he ever provided a mathematical proof of the purported feedback law, given details of the series of experiments claimed to have been performed at a national laboratory of physics, or identified a passage in any control-systems textbook that states such a law (although his theory seems to have been based initially on a misinterpretation of Hendrik Bode’s Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design).  However that may be, it’s clear that not everyone has been distracted from the central question. 

“What if the system gain factor is not invariant with temperature?” is how Lord Monckton described the way in which that question was raised by University of Alabama meteorologist Roy Spencer.  The gist of his answer seems to be that, yes, E(R) can be non-linear, but it can’t be so non-linear as to result in a high ECS value. 

Now, let’s be clear.  One might plausibly argue that other skeptics who believe ECS is low thereby also imply that E(R) can’t be very nonlinear.  But such skeptics would be reasoning from a low ECS value to a near-linearity conclusion.  Lord Monckton instead reasons in the other direction, i.e., to a low ECS value from the premise that E(R) can’t be very nonlinear.  And that raises the following question: Why can’t E(R) be that nonlinear if we don’t assume a priori that ECS is low? 

Lord Monckton’s reasoning isn’t exactly syllogistic on that question, either.  But it has sometimes involved the claim that according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) the “feedback parameter” and the “climate-sensitivity parameter” are “nearly invariant.”  And here Lord Monckton mixes apples with oranges.  

Specifically, discussions of such parameters tend to concern small-signal quantities and be restricted to the narrow range of global-average surface temperatures that man has experienced or is likely to.  And, as the “‘Near-Invariant’” section of “Remystifying Feedback” explained, nothing about whatever near-invariance the IPCC has claimed over such ranges rules out high ECS values; Lord Monckton seems to have confused small-signal quantities with large-signal quantities. 

His argument against such observations involved concocting a figure of merit, which he called the “X factor,” so designed as to exhibit large increases in response to small temperature changes and thereby give the impression that high ECS values would imply implausibly large system changes.  As can be seen at time stamp 21:45 et seq. in the video of his July 2019 speech to the Heartland Institute’s Thirteenth International Conference on Climate Change, the X factor was the basis of his response to Dr. Spencer’s above-mentioned question.  But the “Apples to Oranges” section of “The Power of Obscure Language” refutes that response, showing that it’s similar to the type of meaningless comparison that the new slide’s third row exemplifies.

Recap

The central claim of the forgotten-sunshine theory is a purported mathematical proof, based on feedback theory, that ECS is low.  But the actual calculations apply the erroneous law that a feedback system’s output must be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.  And, although he denies that this is the law he’s applying, his various verbal formulations don’t rule out high ECS values if they’re interpreted in any other way.  So the central theory fails. 

An ancillary argument is that climate modelers’ feedback calculations don’t take sunshine into account.  As we saw, though, the paper he most relies on for that proposition specifically discusses evaporation and albedo feedback at the emission temperature.  That hardly amounts to forgetting sunshine.

Another argument is that high ECS values are inconsistent with IPCC statements of near-invariance.  But we’ve seen elsewhere that he reaches such a conclusion only by interpreting those statements as dealing with changes in large-signal quantities, over a global-average-surface-temperature range much wider than humans have encountered or are likely to.  And no justification was provided for adopting such an extraordinary interpretation.

Finally, he attempted to bolster the latter argument by using calculations like those in the new slide’s third row to give the impression that high ECS values would necessitate implausibly abrupt changes in other climate parameters.  But working through such calculations reveals that they compare apples to oranges and have no logical connection to the proposition that high ECS values are inconsistent with feedback theory.

Conclusion

This all becomes apparent to critical thinkers who work through the math and logic.  But not all readers have the time and inclination for such an exercise.  Those who don’t may want to consider the following. 

If modelers really had made so fundamental an error as failing to take the sun into account, Lord Monckton’s theory would be a scientific kill shot.  Wouldn’t heavyweights like Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Christy, and Roy Spencer therefore have embraced it?  Wouldn’t the CO2 Coalition’s Web site have featured Lord Monckton’s theory?  Wouldn’t Dr. Spencer have championed it on his blog?

But they haven’t.  In fact, Dr. Spencer has instead written a rebuttal.  The theory that feedback law rules out high ECS values is like the theory that there’s no greenhouse effect: although its conclusion is attractive, the theory itself is clearly wrong.

2.9 20 votes
Article Rating
238 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alexy Scherbakoff
September 12, 2022 10:39 pm

It all comes down to a marriage between temperature and CO2 levels. The complexities of the climate system are reduced to that. God help us.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
September 13, 2022 4:24 am

No. Carbon dioxide as well as other gases reduce solar energy reaching the surface. Not reduce the rate of outgoing radiation.

Remember sun is 90C at the top of the atmosphere. This is why Lord Moncton said there is more from the sun.

The surface at 6% humidity reaches 67C and not 90C.

287K represents only one hemisphere not entire planet.

278.K represents the entire planet.

The solar heating reduces the solar input and increases motion of molecules above absolute zero. Above 0hpa compression heating increases temperature.

The average temperature is around -65C in the stratosphere.

5.4C (surface average) – (-65C) = 70.4C / 10.8km = 6.5K/km.

5.4C (surface average) 340 x 4 1360 (absorbed energy 888 (60°N to 40°S), outgoing radiation 671w (90° to 50° and 50° to 90°).
888-671=217w-m

1.4 x 1.28kg x 333^2m/s = 198,713 J KE / 915 joules per watt. 217w-m2.

1 bar pressure produces 217 watts / 4 = 54w/m2

340+54=394w-m2 15.7C.

54w-m2 is negative over the elevated Antarctic ice sheet.

Reason it doesn’t show in the average.

ECS isn’t to do with carbon dioxide.

Albedo, emissivity affect, ECS.

Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 6:05 am

Baloney alert

commieBob
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 6:16 am

Thing 1: The solar energy absorbed by the Earth is mostly near visible wavelengths. The energy it radiates is mostly long wave infrared. CO2 does not meaningfully absorb the incoming solar energy. link

Thing 2:

Albedo, emissivity affect, ECS.

Absolutely. What most people ignore is that anything that affects albedo also affects emissivity. They treat albedo as a magic mirror that reflects energy and has no other effects.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 6:55 am

CO2 absorbs at 4.3 micrometers. Earth does not emit at these wavelengths.
67C isn’t 4.3 micrometers. 67C is 8 micrometers (in your link the graphic shows in blue what wavelengths earth emits to space. That window starting at 8 micrometers to 14 micrometers. 0% absorption with CO2 after 5 or 6 micrometers until after 14 micrometers. As CO2 is 0.04% absorption is narrow.
14 micrometers is proportional to temperature, equivalent to -50C.

commieBob
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 7:43 am

… in your link the graphic shows in blue what wavelengths earth emits to space.

More correctly, it shows the wavelengths that get through the atmosphere without being absorbed.

The emission spectrum of the Earth’s LWIR is so broad that the 14 um absorption band of CO2 is well within it. Also, as absorption lines go, the 14 um line pretty broad.

On the other hand, the 14 um CO2 absorption overlaps that of water vapor. On the other other hand, water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere … it gets complicated. 🙂

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 9:02 am

Wavelengths are proportional to temperature. 8um 67C to 14um -50C. In the southern hemisphere winter 10hpa is -90C. Areas of earth where the sun shines, earth emits in the blue what wavelengths get through the atmosphere without being absorbed.

Phil.
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 9:58 am

Absolute nonsense CO2 absorbs strongly in the 15 micron band which is close to the maximum of the Earth’s emission spectrum.
comment image

Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 15, 2022 8:04 am

see heres the thing. if you worked on IR systems that
have to see a tank from 1000 ft. you would know the earth emitsfrom the surface AS OPPOSED TO what eventually makes its way to space
knowing this is how we designed stealth in the B2 .

when you get basic science used in engineering wrong. we call you the D word.

Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 15, 2022 7:58 am

“No. Carbon dioxide as well as other gases reduce solar energy reaching the surface. Not reduce the rate of outgoing radiation.”

no no no. is transparent to visible light and opaque to iR.

we learned this 100s of years ago.

DMacKenzie
September 12, 2022 10:41 pm

I don’t know if Monckton is right, never having needed the feedback equation for any calcs….

But take Happer and van Wijngaarden’s 3 W/m^2 TOA Forcing per doubling of CO2….multiply it by 390/240 to get surface upwelling IR instead of TOA by simple ratio at todays averages and you get 4.88 Watts….then plug that back into Stephan-Boltzmann and you get 288 C surface temp increasing to 288.9 C…so that’s an ECS of .9 C per doubling.

Or you can run Modtran at clear tropical sky, fixed RH, and you find an offset temp of 1.2 C increase is required to send that extra CO2 entrapped heat to outer space. But the real world has 65% cloud cover and using some cloud scenarios will put you around 0.75 C per CO2 doubling.

So the end of mankind is not nigh….in fact the CO2 warming will be barely noticeable amongst the noise of whatever naturally caused the Little Ice Age, or Minoan and Roman warm periods….

Fig 3 comments
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.16465.pdf

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 12, 2022 11:29 pm

“and you get 288 C surface temp increasing to 288.9 C…so that’s an ECS of .9 C per doubling.”

Well, you might. But H&W themselves get an ECS of 2.2 C per doubling:

comment image

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 12, 2022 11:35 pm

Model configurations. No actual measurement.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 12, 2022 11:42 pm

I don’t know where you got that from, but it certainly isn’t in the paper I referenced, March 31, 2022, Fig. 3…..SB is simple to put into Excel, go ahead….always happy to discuss alternate answers.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 12:03 am

So in a 10 minute review of that Jun 8 , 2020 paper, I don’t see how they can reconcile an ECS of 2.2 with their stated CO2 forcing of 3.0 W/m^2 under Fig 4. Your turn.

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 2:30 am

You can’t rely on their stated forcing and ignore their deduction of ECS.

Robert B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 14, 2022 2:54 am

That’s stupid. Why can’t you question why a blackbody will need to warm another half a degree to emit another 3 W per m2 at around 287 K but the surface of the Earth will need to warm four times this.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 2:28 am

I don’t know where you got that from”
I gave the link; it is the paper they put on Arxiv, where they explicitly calculated the ECS, and that is what they got.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 7:46 am

…in 2020, but dropped by 2022 in essentially the same paper. Interesting, IMO, discrepancy. Tx for pointing it out.

Bjarne Bisballe
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 12:01 am

Happer calculates 0.92 C in this paper (p 21) andymaypetrophysicist.com:https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/happer_major_statement.pdf

Reply to  Bjarne Bisballe
September 13, 2022 2:39 am

That is the no feedback version

we see that a temperature rise:

eq. 19

would compensate for the slight loss of radiation to space, Eq. (19), from doubling the CO2 concentration. Of course, the large variation of ΔB with latitude and the effects of H2O and O3 shown in Fig. 8 need to be taken into account. But the message of the discussion above is that simple, feedback-free estimates give a climate sensitivity S — the warming from a doubling of the CO2 fraction f — of about S = 1 K.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 8:10 am

IMO, they mean they didn’t include feedbacks like clouds and aerosols, since they did include water RH which is the largest “feedback” (I dislike the use of the term due to the high pitched squeal it causes in my brain). If they left out RH increase, essentially 7% water vapor increase per degree of warming, their numbers would be even lower.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 7:32 pm

Again, from the quote
But the message of the discussion above is that simple, feedback-free estimates give a climate sensitivity S — the warming from a doubling of the CO2 fraction f — of about S = 1 K.

That is about what most people get.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 9:56 am

It must include RH of about 7% per degree, which is the major water vapor feedback, or their answer would be even lower than 1K per doubling…

DonM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 8:40 am

what do you ‘get’ when you increase by 1.33, rather than doubling.

what do you measure?
and, how do you measure?

and how can you possibly stand confident.

PCman999
Reply to  DonM
September 13, 2022 12:31 pm

Yes, exactly! In the ~2 centuries that CO2 has increased roughly steadily temperatures have been all over the place – how can anyone seriously declare a relationship with any confidence.

The people who believe in the clearing skies-more sunshine idea have more credibility than the CO2/methane explains all group – and that latter group only has as much cred as the contrail people!

My apologies to the contrail people…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 8:25 am

Big deal. Can you go outside and tell the temperature to that degree of accuracy? Can you move from northern Kansas to anywhere in Oklahoma and experience that same average annual temperature difference?

Gerry Parker
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 6:01 am

Hi Nick,

I have not followed this particular issue, so have no dog in this fight, other than…

What remains so offensive is that after +30 years of bad models, the ‘experts’ still don’t see any problem with the difference between measured values and clearly erroneous model predictions. Let’s even keep aside the problems with measuring sites that abnormally warm the data.

For me, averaging (however many bad models there are now) to determine a consensus guess is particularly offensive. I never attended an engineering class where the professor averaged the students’ guesswork to determine a consensus answer on an exam. Maybe that’s something done in universities today.

People expect scientists to be rigorous and honest. Something is clearly wrong with the model predictions, and continuing to push results from models that deviate so consistently from measured data (arguably warmed data) is not winning the point.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Gerry Parker
September 13, 2022 8:44 am

Science went off the rails decades ago and not just climate science. Leftists destroy everything they touch, of course, but obtuse technicians fumbling about at the desks vacated by their betters have also wreaked damage and sent things sliding sideways.

“I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity.” (Ecc 2:18-19)

Wise, old King Solomon wrote that nearly 3,000 years ago. It could’ve been written by Isaac Newton, or by one of the Founding Fathers, or by Jonas Salk.

PCman999
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
September 13, 2022 12:39 pm

That’s happening before our eyes – generations past built up a great civilization but current governments are letting it crumble while spending sums coerced from crushing taxes on useless unreliables and subsidies for rich people’s electric toys.

PCman999
Reply to  Gerry Parker
September 13, 2022 12:35 pm

Governments and Universities should judge the accuracy of all the climate models every year and hand out grants only to the ones that actually model the climate well.

Why is failure rewarded?

In the engineering world, failure is rewarded with lawsuits and unemployment – why should it be different for academia?

Arthur
Reply to  PCman999
September 14, 2022 2:00 am

Because they have not failed. Yes, they fail to construct accurate models, but they have succeeded in sensational grant-mongering.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 7:12 am

Surface temp 15C 288K 390w-m2 is a local temperature/thermal energy not a global temperature/emitted radiation. This is the average summer temperatures in the southern hemisphere. Does that make the whole globe 15C when one half is -4C. 15C matches September for only the northern hemisphere.

NHWinterAverage.png
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 7:38 am

I’m using 288 C as a yearly surface average. Northern an Southern hemispheres are within .2 Watts despite huge difference in land area…attesting to the power of the partial pressure of water vapor in the Clausius Clapeyron equation to produce clouds.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 9:34 am

Do we receive 340w-m2 over a year or every second. I think every second. The huge difference in land makes a huge difference in the average temperature of the hemisphere. If in winter the hemisphere is -4C for that set time 9am. You have snapshot of the average temperature for that set time. Averaging 239 * 4*pi()*(6371)^2 * 1000*1001*60*60*24*365 = 3.85^24 is the yearly surface total.

Solar heating of 100w-m2 in the stratosphere (absorption outside left of the blue).

Summer maximum for NH is found at a set time and date July 5th 9am.
-4C is the average for the southern hemisphere winter June to August average.

9am July 5th 2022 NH 400.50w-m, SH 305.9w-m2 (400-305=95) not 0.2 Watt

earthsradiation.png
Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 9:45 am

Correction: solar not surface total.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 4:59 pm

A Watt is a rate that force is exerted over a distance….1 watt is one Newton – meter per second….
Electrically a watt is also a current of one amp flowing across one volt Electromotive force….because the electrical engineering department selected the number of electrons per second in an amp and the force on two wires such that:
The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per metre of length.”
…..so still one Newton meter per second…
This is High school physics stuff, you need to be up on it before you’ll get the picture on SW and LW IR intensities….

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 9:43 am

The southern hemisphere is less due to Antarctic which has high elevations and winter arctic temperatures in summer. For both to be within 0.2 watts means not including north of 50 degrees latitude. Clouds are not at the surface. We are talking about the surface temperature (average all areas of earth) for the whole planet at a time of choosing.

Richard M
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 7:25 am

Using only a radiation model ignores most of what I call boundary layer feedback (BLF). BLF exists due to thermal equilibrium process between the surface and the lower atmosphere. It is due to increased evaporation and conduction from the surface to the atmosphere whenever an increase in radiation occurs.

If the radiation comes from the boundary layer itself, then the net result of the events is zero change. We know most of the CO2 generated radiation does come from the boundary layer. Probably over 99%. As a result that 3 W/m2 of forcing only leads to a small increase in water vapor.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  Richard M
September 13, 2022 10:00 am

You call boundary lay feedback is you made up (or someone else idea) not that it exists. Radiation only is 167.8w-m2 (671.2) OLR. Compression heating increases towards the equator 222w-m2 (888w-m2) (1559-1360=199+23 absorbed heat).
CO2 generated radiation is 286/kg per 2320 meters in the boundary layer.
Only forcing is sunlight intensity increasing water vapor from winter to summer.
Less water vapor in winter months, more in summer months. CO2 absorbs solar energy from -101C to -70C. This does not add 3w-m2 of forcing. It does not increase water vapor either.

PCman999
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 12:50 pm

CO2 absorbs and re-emits at any temperature as long as there’s photons around of the right wavelength. You can’t just look at the SB peak for a given wavelength and work out the temp and assume absorption only happens at that temp. A wavelength distribution is going to have a long tail into the IR bands at any temp, so the requisite CO2 loving bands will be there with some energy in that range.

Not enough to end the world, of course, but we still have to strive to model the climate properly.

Phil.
Reply to  PCman999
September 14, 2022 11:28 am

The link between the SB peak and temperature that’s often quoted such as by Lindsey-Yule above is a mythology. The warmer the surface the more IR is emitted in the CO2 absorption band around 15 microns.

PCman999
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 13, 2022 12:22 pm

Thank you! That was clear and concise and left out any kind of personal attacks/grumbling that the article writer inflicted on us readers.

Please write a full length article for WUWT!

Gregory Wrightstone
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 14, 2022 5:21 am

Thank you for sound reasoning.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 15, 2022 1:43 pm

And all those calculations still incorporate the inherent assumption “all other things held equal,” which they have never er been, are ot, and will never be. These “ECS” numbers are all PURELY HYPOTHETICAL.

When you review the climate record, CO2 has never been empirically shown to drive anything; the actual, as opposed to hypothetical, effect of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature cannot be distinguished from ZERO, which is what observations support.

gbaikie
September 12, 2022 10:43 pm

“A direct consequence of this combination of feedback by the condensable and forcing by the noncondensable constituents of the atmospheric greenhouse is that the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse were it not for the presence of these noncondensing GHGs. If the global atmospheric temperatures were to fall to as low as [255 K], the Clausius-Clapeyron relation would imply that the sustainable amount of atmospheric water vapor would become less than 10% of the current atmospheric value.”

Well global average surface have never been as cold as 255 K and if they did CO2 would freeze out of atmosphere.
Mars is dry and cold, much lower average temperature than 255 K and has about 210 ppm of water vapor. And if Mars wasn’t such cold and dry desert {drier than anywhere on Earth] say Mars surface water ice over entire surface and was as cold as it is, it would have higher level than 210 ppm of global water vapor. Or locations of mars it’s got much higher amount water vapor, and Mars is around 215 K.
Earth is water planet. Earth gets more sunlight. And Earth tropics gets 1/2 of sunlight reaching Earth surface and the tropics has the most water vapor, and seems questionable if tropical ocean has ever had less than 20,000 ppm of water vapor.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  gbaikie
September 12, 2022 10:50 pm

I’ve never come across non-condensing gasses.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
September 13, 2022 1:13 am

I’ve never come across non-condensing gasses

Agreed.

@gbaikie.
In winter it snows dry ice crystal at the Martian South Pole.
Hayne, P.O., Paige, D.A., Schofield, J.T., Kass, D.M., Kleinböhl, A., Heavens, N.G. and McCleese, D.J., 2012. Carbon dioxide snow clouds on Mars: South polar winter observations by the Mars Climate Sounder

gbaikie
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 13, 2022 3:01 pm

Meters of it. It also snows in non polar regions but not much of it. One of Viking Mars lander took pictures of it. Looks snow but also has thin transparent sheen to rocks.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
September 13, 2022 6:26 am

Non-condensing under terrestrial conditions. CO2 cannot condense at the partial pressure and even the lowest temperature on the surface of the Earth. (Technically, the other “major” gas, methane, does do so – but only at the bottom of the deepest ocean.)

The problem with the false AGW hypothesis, of course, is the condensing greenhouse gas. H2O condenses quite readily – mostly at high altitude, releasing the energy of condensation above where the non-condensing gases have any significant effect. Wherever there is abundant water (> 80% of the surface), an increase in temperature only enhances the energy loss through vaporization, convection, and condensation.

Phil.
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
September 15, 2022 10:07 am

Check out superfluid Helium.

Bob Smith
Reply to  gbaikie
September 13, 2022 8:13 am

CO2 freezes at about 195K at sea level pressure. Note also, Mars’ atmosphere is mostly CO2 and only has CO2 freezing near the poles in local winter.

Phil.
Reply to  Bob Smith
September 13, 2022 10:20 am

CO2 would freeze at well below 195K under the surface atmospheric conditions of Earth, however the surface temperature never gets low enough for that to happen.

Stephen Lindsay-Yule
Reply to  Phil.
September 13, 2022 11:12 am

CO2 does freeze at room temperature as CO2 pressure is 0.04hpa. Ever used a fire extinguisher. In the fire extinguisher CO2 is under 68 bars of pressure with a gas temperature of 20C. When released in the air at 1 bar pressure, CO2 expands and cools to -80C 0.04hpa. You can collect the dry ice using a pillow case. Use thick gloves when handling dry ice. Air temperature isn’t the same as CO2 gas temperature. You ignore compression heating as part of the atmosphere, like you ignore how a CO2 fire extinguisher works. Acting dumb so your CO2 warms the earth nonsense stays in focus.

PCman999
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 13, 2022 1:03 pm

That’s uncalled for and your example is not really applicable to climate studies – there’s no source of highly compressed co2 at room temperature ready to burst into the atmosphere and drop in temperature.

The pressure heating you keep talking about would be better described as a localized heating due to a distribution of gas at an average temperature.

Take the Earth, SB equation gives a certain temp for the world but the surface of the world is warmer. Hmmmmm. Take the whole world, including the whole atmosphere into account as it is part of the black body too.

But where to measure the temperature?? At the center of mass altitude of the atmosphere, where the pressure is half of the surface.

Measure the temperature there and it agrees with SB – and in fact it even works on Venus, the greenhouse gas poster child, and it doesn’t matter that the atmospheres are so different.

Phil.
Reply to  Stephen Lindsay-Yule
September 15, 2022 10:31 am

Your example is not at “the surface atmospheric conditions of Earth”, in your case the CO2 partial pressure is 1bar. A similar case I observed outside my research lab was the liquid nitrogen tank sprung a leak and a cloud of liquid nitrogen formed.

gbaikie
Reply to  Bob Smith
September 13, 2022 3:04 pm

Yes, but it’s colder at poles and higher elevation- so, would freeze out.

gbaikie
Reply to  gbaikie
September 13, 2022 3:17 pm

What we would talking about is snowball or slush ball Earth. Most think snowball is impossible due to warm tropics and intense sunlight, and that
in situation tropical water vapor could lower to about 20,000 ppm. And winters
poles would far colder than we have. And tropical ocean heat engine would longer warm the entire world.

Bjarne Bisballe
September 12, 2022 10:44 pm

In David Coe et al. 2021, there is a clear calculation in chapters 3,5 and 3,6: 12,4 percent shoud be added to the ‘raw’ ECS. https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12

gbaikie
Reply to  Bjarne Bisballe
September 12, 2022 11:30 pm

What causes higher average air temperatures is a warmer ocean.
A greenhouse global climate has a much warmer ocean and much higher global average
temperature than an ice house global climate. Our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C
and greenhouse global climate has ocean temperature of 10 C or warmer.

So, if CO2 were to increase global temperature by a significant amount it would have warm our 3.5 C cold ocean.
And NASA claims it has.
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

And any time when interglacial period have been much warmer than we are now, the ocean
has been 4 C or warmer.

PCman999
Reply to  gbaikie
September 13, 2022 1:14 pm

NASA and other ocean heat fanatics are playing with their keyboards too much. They have a few sparse temperature measurements, convert them into heat to get very scary numbers and claim anything they want about what the oceans are doing.

But in the end: garbage data in, garbage science out.

There is no way their accuracy and precision claims are true when measuring the whole world ocean with only a few thousand automated bouys.

And the garbage is multiplied when converting the figures to heat.

Yooper
Reply to  PCman999
September 13, 2022 3:04 pm

GDI-GSO, sounds like a three letter government agency…..

gbaikie
Reply to  PCman999
September 13, 2022 3:08 pm

Well they are measuring deep ocean and say the ocean has warmed by about
.01 C.
.5 C warming to ocean would increase global air temperature by more than we have seen, say about 3 C or more.

lee
September 12, 2022 10:56 pm

“for there was a temperature equilibrium in 1850.” There was? Did this apply to previous Ice Ages?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  lee
September 12, 2022 11:07 pm

There was temperature equilibrium in 1850 for about 72 hours. It all went to sh!t after that.

Derg
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
September 13, 2022 4:10 am

Hahahaha

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
September 13, 2022 6:08 am

June 6, 1750 at 3:05 pm was the perfect temperature
Any change in either direction is a climate emergency
People in 1750 though their climate was too cold
But they were not climate scientists, so what did they know?

PCman999
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 13, 2022 1:18 pm

Exactly!!!! -hey climate change emergency fanatics: what’s wrong with the temperature of the Cretaceous period, when all scientists agree that was a much more biologically diverse and intense period, much more biologically healthy than our cold, dry time?

Luke B
Reply to  PCman999
September 15, 2022 8:14 pm

Maybe there would be a little adjustment required, but I think that my niece and nephew would love such a period.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 16, 2022 7:12 am

As I’ve said many times, that’s one of the biggest lies they’re selling – the notion that a ‘warmer climate’ is worse/means “more extreme weather.”

Absolute nonsense, and 180 degrees wrong.

One the things their hero, Arrhenius, the so-called “grandfather of global warming” said about the notion that humans might be able to warm the climate by adding CO2 to the atmosphere was that, IF we could do it, WE WOULD IMPROVE THE CLIMATE.

And THAT was the thing he was most correct about!

Of course, that part of his hypothesis is willfully ignored, conveniently forgotten, and never to be spoken by those pushing the Climate Cult.

The real tell is that the same claims of “more extreme weather” were made about global COOLING, and by some of the SAME scientists who later jumped to the global WARMING bandwagon.

Art Slartibartfast
September 12, 2022 11:09 pm

Figure 1 is missing the forward transfer function showing how E depends on F+R. I very much doubt it is a unit gain function. If it includes a delay, the whole system is likely to be oscillatory, so the whole idea of an equilibrium goes out of the window.

Now the author purposely assumed that there is an ECS to clarify his argument that high ECS values are not ruled out. Weather and climate are highly dynamic, so even if there is such a thing as an ECS, for all practical purposes I think it would drown out in the noise.

Joe Born
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
September 13, 2022 12:26 am

This is the way Lord Monckton sees it. Since R is by definition the E would be without feedback, that forward path’s “open-loop gain” is indeed unity.

PCman999
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
September 13, 2022 1:27 pm

Kudos to you for reading that long drawn out gripe against Monckton – really it could have been cut to a tenth of the size by just stating that he disagreed that the feedback response had to be linear, and then supply some proof.

Was there any proof? Let me know, I got turned off with all the gripes against Monckton and well, you know, TLDR;).

And I would be happy to agree with non-linearity and threshold processes – water vapour is essentially zero in freezing temperatures and in higher temps the skies are blocked by clouds and thunderstorms – +100 to W.E. for his articles on emergent phenomena.

Really the article writer could have just stated he disagreed with Monckton and gave a link to W.E. well written articles to give one example of nonlinear feedbacks in the climate.

b.nice
September 12, 2022 11:25 pm

Just use one of these..

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/sabine-fbx1200-fbx-feedback-exterminator

…. and a compressor and you have control via gravity-thermal mechanism

Lit
September 12, 2022 11:34 pm

Eart receives solar heat on the hemisphere, 2πr^2, with an albedo of 0.56. If Earth received sunlight as a disc, πr^2, Earth´s shadow wouldn´t be a cone. My albedo is much bigger than in the GHE, but I still get the correct temperature. There´s not a lack of solar energy if you use the hemisphere instead of the disc for received solar radiation. Stop being flat earthers, the Earth is round.

0.56*2πr^2*TSI=4πr^2*σ287^4

Bright Red
September 12, 2022 11:36 pm

There seems to be lots of talk about feedback but very little on limiters or clamps (as in electrical) in the system. An example of a limiter would be a Zener diode. Clouds and tropical thunderstorm could also be examples of limiters. Or as Willis has said previously emergent phenomena. The earths relative temperature stability indicates to me one or more limiters are in play.

Joe Born
Reply to  Bright Red
September 13, 2022 4:49 am

I find much of what Mr. Eschenbach has written about his “governor” theory compelling, at least at a qualitative level. (To me that’s feedback, to him it’s not, but I think this disagreement is merely semantic.)

If you want to see a zener diode in this connection, look at “The Power of Obscure Language.”

Roy W Spencer
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 5:38 am

Willis’s warm pool “thermostat hypothesis” was first advanced by Ramanathan in 1991, but was quickly countered by those who pointed out that you can’t cause more cloud over warm areas (atmospheric ascent regions) without causing less cloud in descent regions. So, cloud feedback in response to warming is neither obviously negative or positive. I discussed this debate almost 10 years ago: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/on-the-cloud-thermostat-hypothesis/

Joe Born
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 5:47 am

Thank you very much for that reply; I had not encountered that argument before.

Incidentally, the link to your blog piece works, but the link in that piece to the cartoon doesn’t.

Last edited 2 months ago by Joe Born
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 6:53 am

Gotta love the modelers – they’ll point out that negative (cloud) feedback over the warm pools is offset elsewhere, but then ascribe a net positive feedback over the entire Earth.

RickWill
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 3:46 pm

you can’t cause more cloud over warm areas (atmospheric ascent regions) without causing less cloud in descent regions. 

This indicates you do not understand the nature of convective instability and the persistence of clouds associated with that.

The whole of the northern Indian Ocean sustains 30C or more until the atmospheric water reaches the level consistent with the 30C limit. Then the monsoon sets in and that is all it has – 30C.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/04/28/0000Z/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-293.53,4.19,420

Ramanathan was right but failed to understand convective instability and the persistence of cloud.

It is now 30 years on since Ramanathan’s observation and all that is happening is a bit more surface is reaching the 30C limit because the NH is getting higher spring solar intensity. There is no temperature trend in the Nino 34 region or tropics.

NCEP_Three_Trends-3.png
Last edited 2 months ago by RickWill
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 16, 2022 8:57 am

Yes, but if the areas where cloud formation is suppressed get less sunlight than where cloud formation is enhanced, e.g. tropical cloud enhancement vs. sub -tropical/higher latitude suppression, the ‘feedback’ would appear to still be negative.

Seems like the simplistic assumption is (once again) that everywhere on Earth gets the same amount of incoming solar to begin with, i.e., the sin of losing the details in “averages.”

Peta of Newark
September 12, 2022 11:44 pm

Your car…..

You put energy (fuel) into it, it does work (moves along) and all the energy that went into it reappears elsewhere. Some in the motion itself, some out of the tailpipe and some out of the badly misnamed ‘radiator’

Just like Earth.

Is your car ‘A Feedback System’ and if so where is that feedback?

It get worse because that feedback is tantamount to a violation Entropy, the 2nd Law, Carnot and myriad others, not least Stefan himself

Because what ‘feedback’ says is that if either the tailpipe of your car, or its radiator get warmer/hotter, then your car will perform even better that it did before.
It says that Spent Energy can heat (i.e. be capable of more work) the very thing that spent it

It gets even worse when the proposed Feedback system involving amplifiers and mixers is feeding back and operating upon temperature.
Temperature is a fantastical thing – it has no dimensions.
You can amplify metres, kilograms, seconds, velocity, Joules, Watts, Volts and Amps because they are actual things and you can palpably have more or less of them, you can add and subtract them from themselves and from other things.

Only in your dreams do you do that with temperature.

It gets even worse when we’re told about non-linearity.
Where exactly inside climate or anywhere on this Earth is there a Singularity – where is the Division By Zero?
Because unless you do have one of those, you have A Linear System
i.e. a system where its output is always calculable from its input

Just That One Misunderstanding Alone Discredits All The Words In This Essay
and there are plenty of them, even more reason to discount it from the very get go – it is massively over-complicating what is a very simple system – Just Like Your Car
IOW: It is trying to sell you a ‘pony’

Stick with the 4 wheels…

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 13, 2022 12:07 am

Thank you Global Warmers, thank you soooo very much.

Quote:Claiming “augmented reality” technology “has the ability to transform society and individual lives,” the World Economic Forum recently suggested there are “solid,” “rational” and “ethical” reasons to consider implanting children with microchips.

here

There is not a fate too awful for these people, there really is not.

Bright Red
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 13, 2022 1:46 am

Your car most certainly has many feedback systems. Your engine thermostat for one controls the engines coolant temperature for optimum engine operation despite vastly varying heat generation by the combustion process as it is driven around. The car via a feedback simply moves any excess heat to its surrounding to maintain itself at the optimum temperature.
You should pick a better analogy.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bright Red
September 13, 2022 5:40 am

The analogy if fine. The key is “moves any excess heat to its surroundings”. That excess heat isn’t used to increase the output of the system. But that is what thinking CO2 creates heat is, using excess heat to increase the output of the system while not recognizing that the excess heat being returned is just replacing heat already lost.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 13, 2022 4:01 am

badly misnamed

Tautology or double negative or both?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 13, 2022 5:46 am

It gets even worse when the proposed Feedback system involving amplifiers and mixers is feeding back and operating upon temperature.”

There is no “battery” in the sky to power any amplifiers or mixers. The sky is not on fire creating its own heat it can transfer.

“Because what ‘feedback’ says is that if either the tailpipe of your car, or its radiator get warmer/hotter, then your car will perform even better that it did before.”

The radiator can be used to heat the car but it can’t create the heat. The sky can return heat but it can’t create it. It can only return part of what was already lost.

dodgy geezer
September 12, 2022 11:53 pm

Interesting – but only academically.

The problem is no longer that data and theory do not support Climate Change theory. The problem is that activists have now moved well beyond scientific discussion into the realms of authoritarian statements and censorship.

So proving that dangerous climate change does not exist is no longer of value. Any reaction to this damaging theory nowadays needs to be political…

michel
Reply to  dodgy geezer
September 13, 2022 12:46 am

To be useful, and to win the political argument, opposition needs to focus on policy. As it is now increasingly doing.

That is, stop arguing about the science. Focus instead on whether wind and solar can power a modern industrial economy. Focus on whether a given proposed reduction in CO2 emissions in a given country will reduce global emissions enough to be noticeable.

You can (as a for instance) win the argument that the UK cannot at the same time move everyone to EVs and heat pumps AND convert the grid to wind and solar. Because this is engineering, the numbers can be simply explained, and everyone can understand them.

Whether there is a climate crisis,emergency or whatever has become a matter of religion. You won’t change Lloydo or Griff’s mind on that. But you can make them, if they want to see more wind turbines, and tax dollars appropriated for them in various ways, lay out how many, to what effect, and requiring how much storage and backup.

This is where the movement is increasingly falling apart. Its that regardless of whether there is global warming, and how extreme it is or isn’t, turning off reliable power generation and trying to replace it with intermittent and unreliable is not working, and is not going to work. This is the significance of the recent WSJ opinion pieces, its starting to be an argument that is socially acceptable in the mainstream.

The believers are in the position of people arguing that a giant lizard is coming towards us and will eat the earth. Therefore, they say, everyone stand on their heads for an hour every morning to stop it.

Don’t argue about whether the lizard is coming. Instead point out that even if there is one coming, standing on our heads is not going to stop it.

Joe Born
Reply to  dodgy geezer
September 13, 2022 4:56 am

I have some sympathy for your view. But there’s something else going on here. Lord Monckton has stated his intention to file another climate-lawsuit amicus brief based on his theory.  Since that could distract from more-creditable efforts like the Happer et al. and Happer & Lindzen briefs that have graced other litigation, it would be preferable if Lord Monckton could be convinced to refrain from so irresponsible an action.

Doonman
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 10:33 am

All climate lawsuits are already irresponsible actions because no one has standing.

A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct must be apparent which means that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court. You cannot show that certain molecules that caused damage was from a human or a cow fart. So filing amicus briefs on behalf of one side or another have no actual effect on climate lawsuits at all.

Vuk
September 13, 2022 12:26 am

Far too long to read this time in the morning. “The sun did it” is good enough for me for time being.
Meanwhile down at the ground level:
Fire at e-scooter showroom in India kills eight in deadliest such incidentA fire that started at an electric scooter showroom in India killed at least eight people and injured 11, police said on Tuesday, in what is the deadliest such incident involving electric vehicles in the country
A spate of electric scooter fires this year has alarmed the government, which is keen to promote use of such two-wheelers in its fight against pollution. Early investigations have identified faulty battery cells and battery modules among the main causes.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/fire-electric-scooter-showroom-southern-india-kills-eight-2022-09-13/

If you have an electric scooter, charge it outside the house, hopefully someone might nick it.

Joe Born
September 13, 2022 12:38 am

Although control-systems theory is the discipline with which I most associate feedback, it struck me as I re-read it that the head post doesn’t explicitly invoke the theory of control systems. This was unintentional, but upon reflection it actually makes sense; evaluating the forgotten-sunshine theory really requires little or no knowledge of that discipline.  What it does require is critical thinking. 
Recall in that connection something Lord Monckton wrote at this site a few months ago:

Our professor of control theory tells us that at the end of each year, when he announces that nearly all his students will never have to wrestle with control theory ever again, he is met with thunderous applause. Control theory is hard work. We have done our best to carry out that work.

We have also done our best to try to make matters simple enough for any genuinely interested person to understand what we have found.

However, the efforts of the sullen climate Communists to confuse the issue, combined with some striking instances of flat-out ignorance on the part of people who have little or no qualifications, experience, publication record or knowledge of control theory and have not even bothered to consult those who have, has made our task somewhat harder.

Since I had not long before refuted his forgotten-sunshine theory elsewhere, it’s not inconceivable that Lord Monckton meant to include my views among those “striking instances of flat-out ignorance.” If so, let me admit that I do indeed lack any publication record to speak of, that I made my living as just a workaday lawyer rather than as a control-systems engineer, that it’s been over half a century since I made a serious study of control-systems theory, and that for at least a decade and a half I’ve had no occasion to consult any control-systems experts. I’ll also admit that the study of control-systems theory can indeed be “hard work.”

But let me paraphrase an observation that prominent physicist Steven Koonin made when he was being interviewed about his latest book, Unsettled, by Purdue University president Mitch Daniels: you’re entitled to question a carpet installer who says your 8 x 10 room will require 200 square feet of carpet—even if the installer has twenty years’ experience whereas you wouldn’t know a carpet stretcher from a bottle capper. Similarly, you’re entitled to base your evaluation of the forgotten-sunshine theory on your high-school analytic geometry even though Lord Monckton claims “a tenured Professor of Control Theory of more than usual competence” whereas you couldn’t so much as plot a phase trajectory and have never even heard of, say, Liapunov’s direct method.

This would be true even if the issue involved more control-systems theory than it does. As it happens, though, the only control-systems-theory question that could be considered at all relevant is whether a feedback system’s open-loop gain g and feedback coefficient f in the equilibrium relationship y = g · (x + fy) must be independent of that system’s stimulus and response x and y. And you don’t need any control-systems background to recognize that they don’t—although I dug an old controls text out of my basement to confirm that its “Nonlinear Control Systems” chapter does indeed support this mind-numbingly obvious fact. The truth is that evaluating Lord Monckton’s theory requires no particular control-systems-theory expertise at all.

But it does require critical thinking. It requires being able to determine whether stated conclusions follow logically from premises that purportedly support them. It requires recognizing, for instance, that the conclusion of no extrapolation doesn’t necessarily follow from the assumption of an 1850 equilibrium state.   It also requires recognizing whether premises and/or conclusions are stated with enough clarity to permit such determinations to be made. 

In short, Lord Monckton’s forgotten-sunshine theory presents us with a test of critical thinking.  

Elgerd.jpg
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 7:20 am

The crucial question—why did CMoB begin looking at circuit analogs of climate?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
September 15, 2022 12:29 pm

The whole feedback question is mind-numbing to begin with.

1) Remember, Lord Monckton never professed belief in the theory of feedback. He only used it to disprove how the current hypothesis can’t work.

2) The sun is the only source of energy in the system. As such it must be source of both the reference AND all of the feedback. Since the source (the sun) is limited, like a current limited power supply, any feedback (including “C” must come also come from the sun’s energy. This requires the “E” in this diagram be a function of the feedback. In other words, Eout = E – F.

3) If you dealing in power, then you must also use power math. Since there is no amplifier and nothing creating extra power in the climate system of earth, I have drawn the attached image using passive power splitters and combiners. It should explain what I’m trying to say. I know this is crude because of impedance mismatches etc. but hopefully it will explain what is going on in broad terms.

4) A more appropriate but no more accurate representation would be an old plate modulated AM transmitter where the carrier (sun) and modulating signal was combined. However, this also requires additional power from another source.

My training and gut tells me that this is a thermodynamic question and is not amenable at all to electronic feedback theory. It is a heat and energy question and that is why I used a power divider/splitter diagram rather than a “VI” explanation.

power splitter.jpg
Christoph Meyer (cerm)
September 13, 2022 1:22 am

J. Hansen clearly refers to Bode’s feedback definition, see image below. But Bode calculates with absolute values, Hansen with delta. Basically, Lord Monckton only points out that temperature is an intensive (!) quantity. When looking at the effects of temperature, you have to think very carefully about whether you can calculate with a Delta T. The possible content of water vapor in the air, for example, cannot be calculated using a temperature delta, you have to know the actual air temperature. Otherwise you don’t practice physics but read in a crystal ball. Basically, Monckton just shows that you have to apply feedback physics correctly, without delta T.
And, yes, he does show that Hansen and others have forgotten sunshine as a cause of an effect.
Best regards, cerm

Bode Hansen.jpg
Reply to  Christoph Meyer (cerm)
September 13, 2022 2:12 am

But Bode calculates with absolute values, Hansen with delta.”
Emphatically not. Bode says E_0 is a signal voltage, and E_R is the amplified output. They are perturbations. They would be implemented at an operating point of the circuit, carefully arranged with bias that is generally not reported in the AC voltages.

That is actually the basic fault of Lord M. He throws a DC component in among the perturbations and gets wrong results.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 4:12 am

lol

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Derg
September 13, 2022 1:15 pm

+100

Joe Born
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 4:22 am

Mr. Stokes is correct about Dr. Bode’s text, although in retrospect I can’t fault Lord Monckton too much for thinking otherwise. Dr. Bode’s text doesn’t often make that explicit, presumably because it would have been obvious to the audience for the lectures upon which that text was based. Those lectures occurred only about twenty years after Harold Black’s invention.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 7:21 am

Hey look, Stokes is also an expert on analog electronics!

Amazing!

Christoph Meyer (cerm)
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 13, 2022 4:16 pm

Oh! My! God! I am not aware that anyone else in the world would question Hendrik W. Bode’s “Feedback Amplifier Design”. Respect! Brave! But I can only interpret your argument as a bad tactic right from the start.

Reply to  Christoph Meyer (cerm)
September 13, 2022 7:22 pm

I’m not questioning it. I’m just telling you what it says.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 14, 2022 7:50 am

Why do you think Bode only assumes small signal? That implies that the input has a blocking “capacitor” to eliminate DC voltages from being amplified. Biasing a component like a transistor also results in a DC component in the output. Consequently it also implies a blocking capacitor in the feedback path so the quiescent output voltage is blocked. Sorry to tell you but amplifiers can work on DC just as well as AC. You need to define what the DC component is and what atmospheric component “blocks” it from being amplified.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 14, 2022 6:33 pm

Sorry to tell you but amplifiers can work on DC just as well as AC. “
Not if there is a blocking capacitor, as there usually is. But it really comes back to the definition of signal. If there is a permanent change in voltage, that is really a change in the operating point, rather than a signal that needs amplifying.

In Lord M’s case, there isn’t even a change. His “reference temperature” has always been the same.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 14, 2022 8:17 pm

Not if there is a blocking capacitor, as there usually is.

Cite?

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 14, 2022 11:02 pm

OK, going back to the source here (Bode). All the feedback circuits that he associates with in his chapter on feedback theory (Chap 3) have a transformer at the input. That is partly for impedance matching (valves had high input impedance) but also for DC isolation. You can’t put DC through a transformer. You can’t have an amplifier where the bias settings (operating point) are modified by whatever the input is connected to.

Here is the first complete circuit following the feedback diagram shown above

comment image

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 4:41 am

You’ve got to be joking. This is similar to circuits in my first receiver and transmitter I used back in 1963 when I got my amateur radio license.

Dude, I’ve designed and built these for nigh onto 50+ years now. Don’t tell me about feedback in amplifiers, I know about it, how it works, how it is tailored for frequency and amplitude bandwidth response, etc.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

Read this site. Note, climate signals are very low frequency. Kind of like a DC signal, right?

DC Amplifier – Working, Characteristics, Advantages, & Applications (elprocus.com)

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 15, 2022 11:09 am

Read this site.”

OK, I did. And what jumps straight out of the page? An input capacitor!

comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 11:32 am

OMG, are you really this clueless?

DC =/= DC!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 11:47 am

How about the connection between Q1 and Q2? Is that a DC – DC connection? You didn’t read the article did you?

Here is the highlighted section on the web page.

A DC amplifier (direct coupled amplifier) can be defined as is a kind of amplifier where the one stage output of the amplifier can be connected to the next stage input for allowing the signals without frequency. So this is named as the direct current which passes from input to output.

I can’t bold on this tablet, but LOOK at “THIS IS NAMED AS THE DIRECT CURRENT WHICH PASSES FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT.”

I assure you the coupling capacitor at the input can also be removed and with appropriate biasing it can also be driven with a DC signal!

If you had any EE training you would know this.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 5:28 am

No coupling capacitors? What gives? You claimed there “usually” is?

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 14, 2022 11:08 pm

But OK, if you want the story on the more modern use of coupling capacitors, here it is.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 4:44 am

As before read this.

DC Amplifier – Working, Characteristics, Advantages, & Applications (elprocus.com)

Now tell us what the coupling capacitor is for the sun’s insolation that blocks that DC bias in an AC coupled feedback.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 15, 2022 5:24 am

I wonder how much googling it took him to find the “why is there always a capacitor…” link.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 5:22 am

Nitpick Nick Stokes, despite all his vast analog electronics experience, has never encountered an active low-pass filter.

Strange…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 15, 2022 5:36 am

I thought about pointing that out, but I wanted to see what the response was to a low frequency of hours to the sun’s insolation.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 15, 2022 6:22 am

Doesn’t matter, he won’t care, cli-sci only looks at averages over years+, regardless if the averages have any meaning or not. They are stuck at the 340W/m2 one-year global average number.

Luke B
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 15, 2022 8:34 pm

This is one of the things that regularly bugs me about the “feedback theory” of “climate science”. There appears to be no consideration of the response to different frequencies. Correct me if I am missing something, but I don’t think that you can compute an average of the output signal just from the average of the input signal. And, practically, we have an annual periodic signal from the planet’s varying distance during its orbit (not sure a signal-processing model has a good way to handle the other obvious annual periodic signal), the diurnal cycle (on most of the planet at least).

Joe Born
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2022 6:06 am

Look, I don’t intend to get into this dispute; in my view these three guys deserve one another. As is their wont they’re going off on tangents.

But for the benefit of any lurkers I’ll point out that Lord Monckton’s “reference temperature” hasn’t “always been the same,” although this fact wasn’t always clear (apparently even to Lord Monckton) in his early presentations. At least nowadays he’s using “reference temperature” R to mean what the temperature would be without feedback, and that quantity changes as, say, carbon-dioxide concentration does.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
September 15, 2022 6:33 am

As is their wont they’re going off on tangents.

How is discussing the validity of your circuit a “tangent”?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
September 15, 2022 6:35 am

You haven’t answered where the power added to the input comes from. The sun is the only power being entered into the system.

Think about it, how can gain be “> 1” if there is no energy being added to the system? If the gain is “<=1”, you must then subtract any feedback power directly from the output, and when added to the input, you get just “E” again.

If you try to use Temp as an analog to Volts, and say there is a temperature gain, then you must deal T by using a gain factor that operates on T. Somewhere you must convert Watts/m^2 into temperature and show how that is handled in the system and by how much. You are going to have a hard time showing how T from the sun doesn’t go through the system along with a T increase from GHG’s. Which gets us back to the beginning as to whether the feedback only works on deltaT or the whole signal.

Joe Born
Reply to  Christoph Meyer (cerm)
September 13, 2022 4:13 am

Lord Monckton says more than that. As I pointed out above, here was his main point:

[T]he main point . . . is that such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof. Once that point – which is well established in control theory but has, as far as we can discover, hitherto entirely escaped the attention of climatology- is conceded, as it must be, then it follows that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be low.

And in “An Electronic Analog to Climate Feedback” I refuted the notion that low ECS necessarily follows from that main point.

jprw
Reply to  Christoph Meyer (cerm)
September 14, 2022 6:28 pm

In general, I would no more try to argue this from a minimal lumped feedback model than from a global climate model.

michel
September 13, 2022 1:58 am

Joe,

Thank you for this, very clear – on the logic, which is the important thing. I have previously struggled to get to grips with Christopher’s posts and theory, without ever being at all confident I had disentangled them into a clear argument with all the premises laid out. Like you I found the prose style made it quite difficult to follow.

I need to re-read it all and think it through some more, but the central point is very clear, and if correct puts a finger on the problem with the theory:

<blockquote>So here’s the situation. If his “strict proportion” language does require the linear proportionality that his numerical examples always impose, then it rules out high ECS values but the proof fails because the purported feedback law it defines isn’t valid. If that language doesn’t require linear proportionality, on the other hand, then his proof still fails, because even if the resultant feedback law isn’t erroneous it doesn’t require ECS to be low.</blockquote>

I do share Christopher’s view that the use of feedback to arrive at alarming projections when starting with a very modest forcing cannot be tenable. But my skepticism is not based on control theory, but on skepticism about whether that is the way the climate of the planet works.

michel
Reply to  michel
September 13, 2022 1:59 am

Apologies, don’t know why the html isn’t working. I am often not getting the wordpress editing formatting tools either…

Joe Born
Reply to  michel
September 13, 2022 4:30 am

Look for the quotes icon below your comment window.

Joe Born
Reply to  michel
September 13, 2022 4:30 am

It’s gratifying that you took my point. Although I put a fair amount of effort into making it, I have little hope that many will get it.

Like you (and, for that matter, like Lord Monckton), I think that to the extent it exists ECS is low. I can’t prove it, though. I similarly can’t prove that carbon-dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is a net benefit to humanity, but that’s what I believe.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joe Born
September 16, 2022 9:16 am

It’s simple enough to verify (if not “prove”) it.

Merely look at the Earth’s climate history, and see that it nowhere shows any evidence of ANY effect of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.

And at the same time, the considerable evidence that it has NONE.

Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 2:15 am

Dodgy geezer wrote “Any reaction to this damaging theory nowadays needs to be political… “

There is the reality. Climate science has got our entire civilisation on a hook and we need to wriggle off. We can only do so by providing an alternative theory of AGW which explains the anomalies in the simple CO2 control knob theory.

Here’s a first stab at problems that climate science needs to address and explain in simple terms that can be understood by civil servants with first class Oxford degrees in Classics and their masters who generally graduate in PPE*.

From 1910 to 1940 the global temperature rise was very similar to the earlier warming 1910 to 1940. From 1940 t0 the late ‘40s there was a blip of warming (see Tom Wigley, ‘Why the Blip’) The climate scientists then told us that the CO2 warming signal would be seen around 1975 and Lo! it was so. Then various tipping points were forecast, then delayed, then explained away. The tropospheric hot spot was touted as proof of CO2 warming, then the fact that it explained nothing was fudged and then it was swept under the carpet. The fact that only one climate model, one that uses a sensitivity half that of the assumed average, is ignored.

The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the globe. The Sea of Marmora, the Red Sea, the Baltic, Lake Superior, Lake Tanganyika etc etc etc are all warming faster than can be explained by the CO2 warming theory. This too is ignored.

Explain the above, point and pile on to a few bits of dodgy science (there’s enough to choose from) and the wrigglers will have wriggled off the hook.

We need a plausible overarching theory which can be measured, tested and explained to people for whom the electric lightbulb is a technological mystery. This will give our rulers an excuse to sack the Nudge Unit, sack the CCC and indict Gummer*. The instead of chanting ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ they can turn through 180 degrees overnight and start chanting ‘four legs good, two legs better.’ It need not be perfect, it just needs to be plausible enough to throw the AGW scientists to the wolves.

The first few AGW believers to recant will probably get away with it. Late converts will be torn to shreds by the mob, those who have been impoverished, lost jobs, homes, have endured abuse for casting doubt on the holy AGW writ.

*For Usians, think Media Studies for posh people.
*A UK politician.

JF
I can explain the blip. Plausibly.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 7:23 am

Climate science has got our entire civilisation on a hook and we need to wriggle off.

People like Nick Stokes are a part of this massive fraud.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 8:02 am

I don’t think we need a plausible physical theory at all. Taking the other sides’ claims at face value and adding in the costs imposed — ruinous at best, and largely ignored to this point — should eventually do the trick. That is what appears to be happening all around at present.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 8:56 am

‘We need a plausible overarching theory which can be measured, tested and explained to people for whom the electric lightbulb is a technological mystery.’

No we don’t, as we have neither the time nor the resources to develop, propose and win acceptance for some sort of grand, unified field theory of climate change. What we need is for the next administration that isn’t in the tank for CAGW to ‘red-team’ the current findings of the so-called science, There is way more than enough good paleo and current data to falsify the CO2 narrative and to make clear that the GCMs are junk. It just needs to be organized, packaged and very publicly distributed to the IPCC and the relevant national labs and sponsoring government agencies as a series of questions for comment and rebuttal. Since they’ve had decades and billions of dollars to make their ‘case’, I can’t see giving them more that a few months to respond. And when they can’t, or more likely won’t, reply in a reasonable and responsive manner, then it’s time to pull down the so-called ‘endangerment finding’, either legislatively or by executive order.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 13, 2022 11:37 am

The politicians will need a comfort blanket to cling to as the wheels come off the narrative, That’s politics. Without that support it will take years longer.

JF

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 1:48 pm

‘The politicians will need a comfort blanket to cling to as the wheels come off the narrative.’

No one expects the pols to be ‘rocket scientists’, so a successful red-team will provide them with the excuse that they were misled by the media, NGOs, rent-seeking scientists and a handful of climate change dead-enders in the Federal bureaucracy, all of which is true.

son of mulder
September 13, 2022 3:18 am

Surely control theory only works when a system is in a stable state. By example using Absolute zero as the starting point would wrong because it would really need to start no lower than the melting point of CO2, but even then there would be no water vapour. The stable system would need to be when seas are liquid and all the constituents of the system can operate variably.

Philo
Reply to  son of mulder
September 13, 2022 7:07 am

A control system is used to control a system that can have variable outputs. The use of steam power is a fairly good example. The use of steam started in spinning wheel-powering round things that needed control of the rate of turning. The rotation rate of a jet engine is a little more modern. If it goes out of control the jet engine system can start to “runaway”. If not stopped it simply explodes. The ultimate control response is for one of the pilots to simply shut off the fuel to the engine.

Ultimate control.

The main problem with trying to control the earth’s climate is that there are always more interlinked control problems that could start to runaway and can’t be controlled as yet. Think volcanoes, or asteroid strikes. No one, at present, knows how to control problems like that. The only one that has been put forward for volvanoes, for example, is one or more large nuclear bombs in just the right place. No one has come up with any reliable way to determine when, where, how big, and how many bombs would be needed.

I’d be very interested in seeing what functions can be mathematicaly determined for controlling earthquakes of meteor strikes, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, or thunderstorms.

son of mulder
Reply to  Philo
September 13, 2022 1:36 pm

All your examples require a catastrophe in the Rene Thom sense. ie there is a sudden dislocation. The use of control theory applies where there is no dislocation ie catastrophe.Out of control climate catastrophe is prevented by Boltzmann radiation. ieT^4 is a pretty powerful counter balance, not to mention increased clouds and latent heat of evaporation.

Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 5:55 am

As I have pointed out before (e.g. the link below), control theory and feedback concepts are not necessary to the understanding or implementation of 3D climate models. Those models (similar to weather forecast models in construction) use the relevant physics underpinning the dynamics, thermodynamics, radiation, and moist processes in the atmosphere. “Feedback” is a useful simple explanation of the OUTPUT produced by those models in response to a “forcing” (imposed energy imbalance on the system), but is not necessary to the operation of those models. Being an expert in control theory (as Lord M advocates) is no more necessary than being a car mechanic is to the critiquing of brain surgery. I’m not claiming that climate models are correct… I think their positive feedbacks are overstated, suggesting inadequacies in our knowledge of how (for example) cloud processes change with warming.

Roy W Spencer
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 5:55 am
Joe Born
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 6:50 am

I heartily agree with Dr. Spencer that knowledge of control-systems theory is isn’t necessary for climate modeling, and I have no quarrel with him on substance. Moreover, I urge this site’s readers to consult his “Climate F-Words” piece for a broader range of criticism of Lord Monckton’s theory; for the sake of discussion the head post makes some questionable assumptions with which others would be justified in taking issue.

But I do think that it plays into Lord Monckton’s obfuscation to put much emphasis on whether climate models use feedback. In my view this is merely semantics. I assume Dr. Spencer would agree that, say, snow and ice cover affect albedo and therefore temperature, which in turn affects snow and ice cover. That’s the substance, and at least at a high qualitative level I doubt that there’s much disagreement about whether climate models incorporate it.

The disagreement seems to arise from what to call such phenomena. Since snow and ice cover are determinants of temperature that in turn depend on temperature, Lord Monckton would call that feedback, and so would I, whereas I gather that Dr. Spencer and some others might accord feedback a narrower definition. By citing this merely semantic disagreement Lord Monckton has drawn many readers into the erroneous belief that “climatology” has neglected sunshine–even though the nomenclature issue doesn’t necessarily translate into any real disagreement on substance.

In this connection readers may want to listen to the description at 1:46:22 et seq. into a recent podcast that Lord Monckton gave of a debate he had with “the world’s most eminent climatologist—he was a skeptic, I won’t name him. . . .” 

JamesD
Reply to  Roy W Spencer
September 13, 2022 8:39 am

I like your work providing a great temperature record, but the models use fudge factors and averages. They absolutely have to include feedback to get the temperature increases they predict. The feedback is determined off-model and plugged in as a parameter. It’s a valid approach since we don’t have the computer horsepower to run dynamic models for say a 100 year period. We can’t even do it reliably past a week for weather.

Lord Monckton is questioning what the feedback should be. A valid question.

commieBob
September 13, 2022 5:59 am

A basic requirement for applying feedback theory is that the system being studied is LTI (Linear Time Invariant). Given that basic things that influence the climate, like ice caps or land use or ocean currents or global greening etc. etc., change over time, we can certainly say that the climate system is not time invariant.

Lorenz amply demonstrated that the climate is chaotic. As far as I can tell, nobody has proven him wrong. So the climate system is also not linear.

The climate system does not meet the requirements for using feedback analysis.

The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis is based on positive feedback. Absent that, any warming would be beneficial. Hansen et al. 1984 got the CAGW ball rolling by applying positive feedback.

Monckton’s contribution is to show that, even if feedback analysis were valid for the climate system, Hansen did it wrong.

Joe Born
Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 7:04 am

A basic requirement for applying feedback theory is that the system being studied is LTI (Linear Time Invariant).

Fans of the forgotten-sunshine theory tend to base their beliefs on such assertions. Readers would be well-advised to take assertions like that with a grain of salt.

The truth is that neither linearity nor time invariance is a basic feedback-theory requirement. I have a control-systems textbook sitting on my desk right now that deals with time variance and nonlinearity both.

commieBob
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 8:02 am

re. your textbook

The usual way to deal with a non-LTI system is to operate in a regime where it’s a close approximation to LTI. That means you have to know what the answer should be before you do the calculation. Otherwise you’re just guessing.

I’d be gobsmacked if your textbook says anything different. If you think it does, I would welcome a reference and a quote.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
September 14, 2022 9:28 am

You’ll see no such reference or quote. There likely is no such textbook sitting on his desk either “right now” or at the time he wrote the post, as it was only referenced as an appeal to authority.

J Patrick
Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 7:28 am

For the advocates in the climate change research industry, the objective of the debate over Monckton’s thesis (and other disputes) is not to arrive at scientific truth. Rather, it is to continue manufacturing an endless stream of controversy over theoretical musings that, at the end of the day, sustains large university departments with large budgets that employ large numbers of people to study what is largely inconsequential to the average man.

commieBob
Reply to  J Patrick
September 13, 2022 12:05 pm

Indeed. Defund the universities.

September 13, 2022 6:04 am

Will someone please provide a short summary of this exceptionally long article?

Joe Born
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 13, 2022 6:54 am

If Lord Monckton’s “strict proportion” language does require the linear proportionality that his numerical examples always impose, then it rules out high ECS values but the proof fails because the purported feedback law it defines isn’t valid. If that language doesn’t require linear proportionality, on the other hand, then his proof still fails, because even if the resultant feedback law isn’t erroneous it doesn’t require ECS to be low.

mkelly
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 13, 2022 9:16 am

Summary: CO2 can’t do what what they claim.

Carlo, Monte
September 13, 2022 7:07 am

How is this not just a massive load of hand waving?

Wouldn’t heavyweights like Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Christy, and Roy Spencer therefore have embraced it? Wouldn’t the CO2 Coalition’s Web site have featured Lord Monckton’s theory? Wouldn’t Dr. Spencer have championed it on his blog?

This is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Tim Platnich
September 13, 2022 7:16 am

Now, this sounds a lot more like scientific debate. No name calling. Refreshing.

Ben Vorlich
September 13, 2022 7:19 am

Surely for the Climate any feedback should be more like a Summing Amplifier? One with as many inputs as you can think of

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/opamp/opamp_4.html

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 13, 2022 7:30 am

Born’s “alternative” circuit (sorry don’t have the link) was easily demonstrated to not behave as he claimed. He hooked the feedback from the output to the non-inverting input which was at virtual ground. The amplifier would quickly go out of linear operation and the output would jam at one of the supply voltage rails.

Last edited 2 months ago by Carlo-Monte
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 13, 2022 8:25 am

Found it, right at the bottom of the page, third figure:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/11/an-electronic-analog-to-climate-feedback/

Because of the virtual op-amp ground, Vout must be equal to Vf. If is equal to KVf^a which means it must be a current source that splits between R1 and R2.

This will not result in linear operation.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 13, 2022 11:53 am

To me, basic electronics knowledge fifty years old., it doesn’t seem right that a complex system like a climate with inputs that can be off for decades, centuries, or millenia which have their own feedback amplified or not as the case may be cannot be represented by a simple single input opamp with a single feedback.
The Glacial-interglacial cycle to me is a square wave. More like a noisy bistable multivibrator than anything else. Taking a small part of it, for example the modern warm period, will lead you up the garden path.

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/waveforms/bistable.html

Joe Born
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 13, 2022 7:53 am

For an electronic analog see Fig. 4 of “The Power of Obscure Language.” For the sake of simplicity it adds only a single feedback quantity to a single “direct” input. (If you understand electronics, you’ll see that most of the guys on these pages who purport to analyze circuits don’t know what they’re talking about.)

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 8:14 am

(If you understand electronics, you’ll see that most of the guys on these pages who purport to analyze circuits don’t know what they’re talking about.)

I happen to have a degree in EE which included operational amplifiers, and have designed circuits using them professionally.

Joe Born
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 13, 2022 8:50 am

Readers who do understand electronics may want to compare my circuit analysis with that of “Carlo, Monte” above. You may judge for yourself whether he knows what he’s talking about.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 11:50 am

Are you implying that my employer should sue me to get their money back?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 1:25 pm

Dude,

S+C = R

Where does the power in C come from? The sun is the only power entering the system. C would have to be on fire to generate its own power.

That doesn’t include that the power feeding back must come from E so that the actual E is (E – F).

We are talking about power here, not infinite impedances that can operate on voltage only. W/m^2, the equivalent of V or I or R alone.

Your summing node must deal with power not simple voltages.

JamesD
September 13, 2022 8:46 am

From my read of things, it starts here:

But it has sometimes involved the claim that according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) the “feedback parameter” and the “climate-sensitivity parameter” are “nearly invariant.” And here Lord Monckton mixes apples with oranges.  

So Lord Monckton accepts the IPCC claim that the feedback parameter are nearly invariant AS THE STARTING POINT. He goes back to a low CO2 environment, pulls the data, and calculates the parameter. He then used correct feedback equations (and they are correct) and constructs a simple model to predict todays temperature. It is surprisingly accurate.

This leaves us with two options:

  1. The modelers are using the wrong calculations.
  2. Climate feedback is HIGHLY non linear.

That’s what his method concludes. He is correct. And it show that the climate models can’t be trusted.

More on option 2, articles on this site show that feedback is not highly non-linear, and in fact there is a degree of negative feedback.

Kevin kilty
September 13, 2022 9:25 am

Joe,

Thanks for your efforts here, but I would read the various updates of this thread of argumentation over the years and would be left with the impression that the group involved had taken a non-linear control problem (starting from 255K or even 0K if desired) and then linearized around the present operating point wrongly. I could sustain no more mental effort about it than that. Now that you have revealed your status as a work-a-day attorney I now understand your persistence. You lawyers are trained for it!

One sign of an incompetent argument is to try to explain a fairly complicated idea or reality by using an analogy to some other idea that is perhaps even more complicated. It seems to me this is what happened when Hansen decided to use control theory to explain the physics of heat transport through a “systems dynamics” lumped elements model.

Joe Born
Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 13, 2022 10:46 am

That’s a little abstract, and I’m not sure whom you mean by “the group involved,” so I don’t know how relevant the following is to what you intended:

I claim no modeling expertise, but as far as I can tell what happened is the following. Climate modelers assumed current carbon-dioxide concentrations, applied Clausius-Claperyron, Navier-Stokes, etc. together with various fudge factors to arrive at current conditions of, e.g., temperature, watched what happened when they changed the concentrations, boiled the results down to an ECS, and then after the fact used feedback-theory terms to provide a simplified description of the whole process.

Certainly their calculations implicitly implemented feedback–temperature both affected and was affected by humidity, for example–but the probable reason they got the wrong ECS is that they chose the wrong set of fudge-factor values; we have no reason to believe they misapplied feedback theory in providing their description of the results. Yes, they used small-signal quantities in the math they thereafter used to describe it, but I’ve seen no valid argument for the proposition that they did so for anything other than the usual, valid reasons. Anyway, it wasn’t until after they’d arrived at the high ECS values that they concocted that description.

Look, the core of Lord Monckton’s argument has been this:

[T]he main point . . . is that such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof. Once that point – which is well established in control theory but has, as far as we can discover, hitherto entirely escaped the attention of climatology- is conceded, as it must be, then it follows that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be low.

And, as I demonstrated with the electronic analog, that conclusion does not follow from its premise. His theory is therefore wrong. And he’s employed a farrago of evasion, ambiguity, and non sequitur to conceal this fact from the more-credulous members of the skeptic community.

My concern is what might happen if he manages insinuate so indefensible a theory into some high-stakes climate litigation.

Kevin T Kilty
Reply to  Joe Born
September 13, 2022 1:31 pm

Thanks for your reply.

I seem to recall there were a few other folks involved along with Monckton in this work, but maybe I am thinking of some other controversy.

More basically I really don’t like the use of feedback explanations because they are complex in their own right, but then miss what is actually going on with regard to transport through a gray atmosphere. For example, people complain about how a small climate forcing of 3Wm^{-2} at TOA can translate into a much larger energy flux needed to sustain a 3K rise at the surface. But this is a symptom of looking at a lumped element model, with or without feedback, when one really needs to have a transport theory to see that more H2O along with CO2 and a higher temperature in the near surface atmosphere produces something like the required effect after sufficient time. Transport through gray gas mixtures is a very difficult problem to solve. It’s why engineers do it in very simplified ways.

I sent something about this to WUWT some days ago but have no idea if it might appear.

When Monckton claimed this…

[T]he main point . . . is that such feedbacks as may subsist in a dynamical system at any given moment must perforce respond to the entire reference signal then obtaining, and not merely to some arbitrarily-selected fraction thereof.

I thought he was saying it is not permissible to linearize around the present operating point. It is, of course, if one only allows sufficiently small signals.

Then when he goes on to say…

 Once that point – which is well established in control theory but has, as far as we can discover, hitherto entirely escaped the attention of climatology- is conceded, as it must be, then it follows that equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be low.

I interpreted him promoting an average feedback over a very large range of conditions starting back where it is a small value and proceeding up to the present state, then applying this average value to where the feedback is now much larger. I interpreted here an inappropriate linearization. Maybe I should go back to look at his work but doubt I will. In fact, I think your contribution here tells me I won’t.

Joe Born
Reply to  Kevin T Kilty
September 13, 2022 2:33 pm

I interpreted him promoting an average feedback over a very large range of conditions starting back where it is a small value and proceeding up to the present state, then applying this average value to where the feedback is now much larger.

Yes, that’s my interpretation, too, if I understand you. Fig. 5 above is my attempt to illustrate this, although not to scale. (If it were drawn to scale, Fig. 5’s green line segment would be tiny in comparison with the blue segment.)

As to purported collaborators, you’ll see their pictures at his “end of the global-warming scam in a single slide” post. It’s hard to imagine how so many credentials could support a slide that, as I explained, is so obviously wrong. But there it is.

September 13, 2022 10:19 am

Monckton is yet basically right, though for reasons he might not know about. I think I have well illustrated the problem here..

https://greenhousedefect.com/about-the-physical-impossibility-of-feedbacks

comment image

The graph depicts different planets (including Ceres) and moons of our solar system. We have the distance from the sun in AUs on the x-scale, and the reported temperatures on the y-scale. Temperatures were taken from wikipedia and are certainly not all totally correct. The drawn line represents black body temperatures (excluding albedo!) at the respective from the sun.

As we can see the celestial bodies follow this line very strictly, with the exception of Venus. That is why I added the light blue dots. I should note the “surface” of gas giants is arbitrarilly defined as the pressure level of 1 bar, like Earth. So the surface of Venus is at 92 bar, that of Jupiter at only 1 bar. To make it more comparable, the light blue dots give the temperature of Venus at 1 bar, and that of Jupiter and Saturn at 92 bar. I think the problem is quite obvious..

Anyhow, the interesting question is how Earth would behave, if it was moved closer to, or further from the sun. Would it stick to the blue line, or not? If the were no feedbacks, the answer would be yes. The blue line is just representing the forced temperature. If you say there were feedbacks multiplying that forcing only a factor of 2, you get the red line. Then Earth would turn much colder than other celestial bodies more distant from the sun, if you would move into their respective positions. Or hotter than Mercury, on the other extreme.

However such a small feedback would not get it even close to the heat of Venus. So the question is essentially if Venus is the benchmark, or all other celestial bodies. Given what I provided above, there is already an answer around the corner. The massive GHE of Venus is obviously depending on the mass of its atmosphere.

Theoretically it is thinkable that Earth runs so hot, that the oceans evaporate and provide Earth with a similar massive atmosphere, mainly consisting of H2O. For anything like it to happen, for even a moderate feedback, we would need to see a mass increase of the atmosphere. Or growing air pressure respectively, and substantially so. To my knowledge that is not happening..

comment image

Of course there is further knowledge confirming the insights above. WV feedback has been calculated excluding overlaps, giving some 1.8W/m2. Allowing for overlaps, and accurate surface emissivity, this figure drops to about 0.65W/m2. Effectively this is less than negative “lapse rate feedback”, meaning WV is actually a negative feedback as a whole. Also other assumed feedbacks, like albedo or cloud feedback are full of flaws and speculation. It is safe to say the feedback narrative is politically, not evidence driven.

Macha
Reply to  E. Schaffer
September 13, 2022 3:07 pm

Excellent post. Mass and emissivity are crucial. Movement of mass creates pressure differences that give rise to temperature changes. The magnitude of the temperature change depends on the total mass and its emissivity.

Last edited 2 months ago by macha
Macha
Reply to  E. Schaffer
September 13, 2022 3:45 pm

Eshaffer. Good post. I forgot to add this link on importance of mass with air movement. By Erl Happ.
Lots of chapters led to this summary.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/10/26/new-book-the-movement-of-the-atmosphere/

Last edited 2 months ago by macha
Ron
Reply to  E. Schaffer
September 14, 2022 11:01 am

That is practically another approach to come to the same conclusion as N&Z that TSI and atmospheric mass are setting basic temperature of celestial bodies.

It would be particular appealing as it explains, if true, temperatures independent of “weather” phenomena and annual variations on each celestial body.

The math of N&Z might be curve overfitting but the data points into the direction that this relation could be true and CO2 concentrations completely irrelevant to the climate.

Reply to  Ron
September 14, 2022 5:45 pm

I wish I’d know what “N&Z” is..

Phil.
Reply to  E. Schaffer
September 15, 2022 10:54 am

It refers to Nikolov and Zeller who published a paper under fake names:
“Emergent Model for Predicting the Average Surface Temperature of Rocky Planets with Diverse Atmospheres”
The paper was withdrawn when their use of fake names was revealed.

Reply to  Phil.
September 15, 2022 1:34 pm

Oh yes, I remember this one. I am afraid what they published is bull*#/+. For any specific gas there is a strict relation between pressure, density and temperature. Just because you can calculate temperature based on pressure and density, does not mean you have explained WHY it has a certain temperature.

In fact it is not only atmospheric pressure that determines the magnitude of a GHE. There are other factors in play, as I pointed out in the article. With large, “runaway” GHEs however, pressure is indeed the most significant factor by far.

Also I would not say CO2 is completely irrelevant. It plays a role and in fact is the most significant GHG, rather than vapor. Yet the “science” hugely overstates it.

Ron
Reply to  E. Schaffer
September 21, 2022 4:20 pm

They found practically a similar correlation that – whatever the exact mechanism may be – would put TSI and atmospheric mass in the center and diminish the importance of atmosphere composition to a degree it plays only a minor role as different gases have different masses at same pressure per volume as they have same density.

Luke B
Reply to  E. Schaffer
September 15, 2022 8:50 pm

I came to a similar conclusion from reading Monckton v. Spencer and so forth and so on. Monckton is close to correct, but not quite.

Bob
September 13, 2022 11:12 am

I didn’t understand a lot of this, Born is disagreeing with Monckton’s methodology. I don’t know who is right what I do know is that the climate models have not matched observations. Monckton believes the modelers assign too much of an affect from a doubling of CO2. Born disagrees with Monckton’s thinking but doesn’t refute that the models don’t match observations. So if he thinks Monckton is wrong then what is the reason? My understanding is that CO2 in and of itself does not raise average global temperatures but the feedback from the added CO2 is responsible. I think the modellers have figured for the positive feedback but not the negative feedback. I think their models are worthless until they are properly configured. I have no idea where Born stands on the issue except against Monckton. That is not helpful.

ferdberple
September 13, 2022 12:18 pm

I find long winded “proofs” in math unconvincing. If the math is wrong a few lines is all it takes to show this. 100 scientists signed a letter saying relativity was wrong. Einstein’s reply, “if I’m wrong it only takes 1”

I looked at the math behind this some years ago and concluded monckton had a point.

Feedback in a steering wheel for example is not relative to the current position of the steering wheel. It is relative to the “hands off” zero feedback position.

Climate science has the wrong definition for feedback.

Luke B
Reply to  ferdberple
September 15, 2022 8:52 pm

Monckton does have a point. Hopefully, sometime he will nail it really well.

ferdberple
September 13, 2022 12:33 pm

The problem is ECS. It is relative to a doubling of CO2. This is a nonsense because there are an infinite number of doubling between 0 ppm CO2 and current CO2. So ECS is thus mathematically undefined.

The ECS curve is a nonsense because
There must be a discontinuity around 0 C, when CO2 concentrations permit liquid water. Where is this?

The no ghg temp is -18. Current temp is 15. 33 C diff. How is this possible? Water has near zero GHG effect at -18 because it is ice. How did CO2 get us from -18 to 0? . How many doublings of CO2 is this?

Divide 18 C by number of doublings from 0 to 280 ppm and you have min ECS. how many times do you have to double 0 to get 18?

ferdberple
September 13, 2022 1:37 pm

Here is a “simple” feedback device

comment image

This device powers the trim tab on the rudder of a boat. It converts positive feedback to negative feedback with gain, allowing a small autohelm to steer a 40 foot 12 ton sailboat offshore.

I designed and built the device and sailed 10s of thousands of miles offshore using the device.

My experiences driving this device was what convinced me climate science has feedback wrong.

Thomas Edwardson
Reply to  ferdberple
September 13, 2022 6:38 pm

Points awarded for dragging your 40ft sailboat into the fray. We sail a Sparkman & Stephens designed Hughes 40 Ketch on Lake Michigan and the long full length keel leads to sluggish turns, so much so that impatient helmsmen will keep increasing rudder deflection to increase the turn rate right up until they stall the rudder, at which point you get an emergent phenomenon – the boat no longer goes where you want it to go.

RickWill
September 13, 2022 3:21 pm

 like the theory that there’s no greenhouse effect

That is the same as saying there in no GOD. Of course there is a GHE. It is a deeply held religious belief that has nothing ti do with Earth’s energy balance.

All this nonsense started with Manabe making silly atmospheric models that linked CO2 to surface warming. They are unrelated to what occurs on Earth’s surface.

Atmospheric CO2 CANNOT change the freezing point of sea ice. Therefore the insulating property of sea ice remains. The water below never gets colder than -1.8C.

Likewise CO2 cannot alter the point in the atmosphere where a level of free convection forms and deep convection sets in to prevent open ocean surface sustaining more than 30C. This process limits further heat uptake.

CO2 would have to be selective in whether it cools, warms and does not alter surface temperature – explain that if you think there is a GHE involved in Earth’s energy balance? The fact is there is NO GLOBAL warming. Some regions are warming, some cooling and some steady.

Any climate model that shows the Southern Ocean warming in this century are WRONG. They are ALL WRONG.

NCEP_Three_Trends-3.png
Last edited 2 months ago by RickWill
Captain climate
September 13, 2022 5:43 pm

Could it kill you to learn to write clearly with actual structure? Nobody has. F-ing clue what argument you’re trying to make until the final paragraph. This is terrible writing.

Allen Stoner
September 13, 2022 7:04 pm

Still have not seen a clear statement of what would happen if the atmosphere did not have water vapor and other green house gasses in it. The fact we have an atmosphere should change the base temperature of the planet, as the atmosphere would have no way, other than black body radiation, to lose energy. How much energy would the atmosphere gain from conduction and convection from the earths surface at near equilibrium? What temperature would that leave the near surface atmosphere, and would that temperature increase or decrease the surface temperature of the planet?

Which then leads to, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leads to the atmosphere gaining a path to expelling energy it did not have previously. I personally think the Greenhouse gases are a wash in determining temperature. Not a gain.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Allen Stoner
September 14, 2022 7:25 am

Without any IR active gasses in it the atmosphere would heat/cool by contact with the ground surface, and would be stirred into convection when warmed. But without those IR active gasses the atmosphere would be exceptionally transparent to IR radiation, and the surface would lose heat constantly to space directly. You would have a situation where radiation and gasses would present different temperatures.

Don
Reply to  Allen Stoner
September 14, 2022 12:22 pm

A few facts that may help.

The Troposphere is heated by the Earth’s surface through convection, conduction and latent heat.

All IR radiation entering the Troposphere leaves the Troposphere either to space or back to the surface. It does not heat the Troposphere.

The fraction of the radiation returning to the surface adds heats to the surface which then adds heat to the Troposphere through the process mentioned above.

So the atmosphere does not heat the surface GHGs do not add a path to expel energy. They limit existing paths.

Thomas Edwardson
September 13, 2022 9:03 pm

Many here are missing the Viscount’s main point, which is that in all real-world cases where amplifying control circuits are used, there are TWO power sources – (1) VCC, and (2) the input signal. The DC power supply (VCC) is practically infinite when compared to the variable input signal to be amplified. To make a simple amplifier, you bias the transistor midway between zero and the supply voltage so that power flows through the transistor. The transistor is chosen to produce a large change in current for a small change in voltage (the input signal voltage) at the quiescent point. The large current change is then forced through a resistor to produce a large change in voltage – viola, amplification.  This used to be a freshman electrical engineering lab assignment. The Viscount merely points out that solar insolation is the wattage (VCC) that balances the atmospheric circuit and sets the quiescent point, and that wattage and resulting temperature must be measured from zero (Kelvin for temps). He then stipulates to CO2 providing a few more watts of feedback, and then asks the question, “how are these last few watts of forcing any different than all of the watts that came before?” His answer is of course, there is no difference, a watt is watt. Ergo, the old watts (insolation) must also be affected by feedback the same as the new watts (CO2 forcing).
 
And for any who want to argue the importance that the response is non-linear, don’t bother. Even for strongly non-linear circuit responses, the forcing wattage is such a small percentage of solar insolation that the response is effectively linear. For the atmosphere, the input signal is the sum of Solar Insolation (340 watts) + CO2 forcing (3 watts?), which is +/- 1%. Pick any non-linear function like y=x^4, and vary x by +/- 1% and see how much y changes. It’s pretty linear. Those of us who did that freshman lab know this to be true.

Reply to  Thomas Edwardson
September 13, 2022 10:23 pm

The Viscount merely points out that solar insolation is the wattage (VCC) that balances the atmospheric circuit and sets the quiescent point, and that wattage and resulting temperature must be measured from zero (Kelvin for temps). “
Yes, it sets the quiescent point. And so it is not part of the signal. It doesn’t change. And as you say, the power involved in VCC is far greater than the signal.

For the atmosphere, the input signal is the sum of Solar Insolation (340 watts) + CO2 forcing (3 watts?”
No, it isn’t. Solar insolation is the VCC; the constant power source. CO2 is the signal. The problem is that by including part of a steady VCC component in the signal, he is treating it as if that DC is an amplitude. IOW, as if it swung from that value through zero (which is why he has to extrapolate down to 0K, obviously unphysical). Then his algebra goes that there is only a relatively small response to this hugely inflated input, so the sensitivity must be small.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 14, 2022 4:44 am

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Why do you think a DC coupled amplifier only responds to a small signal? There is nothing in this system to “block” a “DC” signal, therefore an amplifier would respond to any DC at its input, whether it is insolation or feedback, with a corresponding output.

As I pointed out above, you also need to tell everyone where the power from “C” comes from. As TE pointed out. The power for the amplifier comes from the insolation. “C” does not have an independent power source. It is derived from “S”, consequently you have S-C as the input. When you add [(S-C)+C, what do you get “S” alone. Therefore you can’t just add them together.

Likewise, the feedback doesn’t have its own power source. It must come from “E”. Therefore, the output is actually “E-F”, and when you add “F” back in, what do you get? “E”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Thomas Edwardson
September 14, 2022 6:13 am

This is truly what is wrong with the feedback theory. Basic feedback needs some kind of an amplifier with a separate power supply to work. There is no amplifier in the earth’s system.

Using a three terminal device you can’t draw a system with no GHG’s (where radiation in equals radiation out) that has both an input and a power supply of the sun’s energy unless you tie the Vcc node directly to the input or output.

You literally can’t draw a passive circuit where feedback can add energy without a separate source of energy separate from the sun. Any feedback subtracts from the output and when connected to the input results in the output remaining the same, i.e., (S+F) = E.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2022 7:58 am

Stronger solar wind states in the 1970’s drove colder ocean phases, which increased low cloud cover and reduced sunshine hours. Weaker solar wind states since 1995 drove warmer ocean phases, which reduced low cloud cover and increased sunshine hours. An amplified negative feedback with considerable overshoot.

September 14, 2022 8:02 am

 “However,” Christopher Monckton said of such papers’ authors, “they can’t absolutely prove that they are right. We think that what we’ve done here is to absolutely prove that we are right.” 

there are few clues i look for in ascertaining whether a sceptical argument or discussion will be worth my while or possibly shed light on some unsolved problem in science

  1. appearence of the good lord monckton or his name. this is a signal to move

on, or skim the text for humor. nothing substantive will follow

2 appearence of the word PROVE. skeptics never understandthe concept of proof
it is up to sceptics to demonstrate that they understand the meaning of proof.

despite these two red flags i kept reading and ran across more red flags

  1. the word feedback. existence of this word in a text insures that EEs will desend

and talk some nonsense. you see its human nature to find one word you understand and see every conversation through that word.
2 mentions of ecs and gcms. two clear red flags that sceptic nonsense lies ahead.

theres nothing more annoying than people who dont understand a theory debating finer points which are in contentionbetween people who do understand the theory.within the science there is plenty of debate about ECS. sceptics who join that debate, like nic lewis gain power and shape the course of science. people who dont understand the concept. waste eeryones time with silly debates.
so sceptics need to prove they understand the concept of ecs and that they understand how and why gcms are used before they ever TRY to argue about them. reading online gcm code is a good start.

t

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 14, 2022 8:57 am

Reading FORTRAN spaghetti is a good use of someone’s time?

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 14, 2022 9:19 am

Finding drive-by nonsense is real easy to find: the post is written by Steven M Mosher.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 14, 2022 9:23 am

“appearence of the word PROVE. skeptics never understand the concept of proof

it is up to sceptics to demonstrate that they understand the meaning of proof.”

It is mathematicians who have no idea what the meaning of proof is in physical science. Physical science requires that a hypothesis be completed with a physical functional relationship defined in mathematical terms such that the relationship of variables provides an accurate prediction of what will occur in a system. This functional relationship can be tested and measured for accuracy. THAT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

A correlation may result in a hypothesis, BUT IT IS NOT PROOF. Thus far all I have seen from you and climate science is correlation.

“the word feedback. existence of this word in a text insures that EEs will desend”

Of course we will DESCEND.

Why do you think we spent hours in class and labs working on that very subject of physical science?

Why do you think we spent hours in class learning about complex feedback systems in control theory?

How many hours have you spent in class time learning the ins and outs of complex feedback problems?

How many analog computers have you built to verify your mathematics for climate? Do you think analog computer components for adding, subtracting, integrating, with non-linear response weren’t built before digital computers even existed?

Basically you haven’t learned yet that you don’t even know what you don’t know.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jim Gorman
BrianB
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 14, 2022 7:52 pm

theres nothing more annoying than people who dont understand a theory debating finer points which are in contentionbetween people who do understand the theory

Actually I can think of at least one thing considerably more annoying.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 15, 2022 1:51 pm

There is something more annoying: Condescension coming from a source that has no right to push it.

Don
September 14, 2022 10:18 am

Isn’t this all a bit academic? CO2 concentration is growing at about 2 ppm per year. At that rate it will take 200 years to double the concentration.

September 14, 2022 2:07 pm

[[The theory that feedback law rules out high ECS values is like the theory that there’s no greenhouse effect: although its conclusion is attractive, the theory itself is clearly wrong.]]

Um, you’re wrong. The U.N. IPCC’s greenhouse warming theory is forever “clearly” disproved by the profound observation that Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a black body radiator like the surfaces of the Sun and Earth, and it’s all a category mistake. If you need a primer on sweet pure thermal physics unfettered by IPCC hijacking then click the following link:

http://www.historyscoper.com/whyaregreenhousegastheoriesdeadwrong.html

Or see this cool Quora article I wrote recently:

(505) TL Winslow’s answer to Why do we say ‘no net heat flow between two objects of different temperatures’ but not ‘no heat flow’? – Quora

Robert W Turner
September 14, 2022 4:42 pm

The very first sentence says it all. With ECS from CO2, you might as well be talking about Jabberwockies.

David Blenkinsop
September 14, 2022 11:07 pm

In the head posting here, the author says that,

“It is widely accepted that if there were no feedback the equilibrium-temperature increase caused by doubling carbon-dioxide concentration would be modest; Lord Monckton’s new slide calls it 1.05 K, which he refers to as the “reference climate sensitivity,” or “RCS.”

The author then goes on through a discussion, illustrated by several similar temperature feedback response graphs (or iterative trend graphs) as to how Monckton’s way of doing things could amount to an underestimate or what the “true” ECS (or CO2 doubling) sensitivity might be. That section of the head article then ends with the statement,

“In short, his correction imposes a linear-proportionality requirement that true feedback theory does not.”

Now look, what we are actually talking about here amounts to asking whether some sort of reasonable “Monckton-like” piecewise linear graph could be a good approach to estimating how much feedback amplification to expect in the more or less short term future? It’s a question of how much can we expect a 1.05K CO2 connected “at first estimate” delta-T to be multiplied by feedback, over, say, the next 60 or 70 years, or whatever?

One thing that I think tends to get lost in all the theorizing over how to derive a “whole signal” approach to feedback is that the exact nature of this overall, presumably nonlinear, temperature feedback may *not* matter as much as having a perceptive outlook on what short term implications might be, across many reasonable scenarios.
If the feedback “grand picture’ is at least something that lends itself to a generally consistent function, then ‘piecewise linear’ ought to be a helpful idea, given that the temperature ranges of concern are of only a few degrees, and are much less than the absolute ‘Kelvins’ numbers involved (i.e. ‘255 K’ or higher).

Just thinking in a relatively short term linear way, people tend to say that the average surface temperature has warmed just one degree C since year 1850 (and how that even gets attributed to human activity is a bit of a mind bender, but never mind). If we think about the ratio between 400 ppm CO2 today and 280 ppm back in 1850, that’s the square root of two, essentially, so in logarithmic terms, that’s half a doubling, for the CO2 concentration, that has taken place. Even if all the temp rise were occurring due to CO2 as advertised, we would then have to say that only about half a degree would be due to “at first estimate of conventional theory”. After that, just one more nice doubling (due to feedback as such) would get us to the 1 degree C rise that’s been estimated as empirical (more or less). So the linear implication then, is that it’s just “times two” for any pragmatic feedback implication, in ‘current’ time — and it would seem to be about that much of a boost for feedback almost no matter what we assume for the general nonlinear function.

If things aren’t so strange that we get an unaccountable acceleration in effects, isn’t it then reasonable to think that we are right now effectively on a temperature slope up or ‘boosting’ effect that will persist for at least a little while in the big picture of things? If you forecast another half doubling (or square root of 2 ratio increase) of CO2 over the next 60 years, say, and our little “piece” of piecewise linear feedback functioning goes on, what you’ll get in that time frame is {0.5 degree times “2” for the ongoing feedback enhancement} or just another 1 degree Celsius, then. Alarmists will have to scratch mighty hard for arbitrary tipping point alarms to make much of *this*, surely!

Now where I do have some sympathy for the writer of this current article is that for sure, trying to understand the big picture of atmosphere feedback is apt to result in some very fussy or complicated ways of considering things! My perception of the big picture theorizing is that Monckton himself tries to “get” the big picture as simply as possible, while at the same time, our current article writer likes to fuss over all that and redo it all in some way. But, what I would ask is both whether the conventional premises of how to boost the earth’s temperature are sound, and even if they are, how do we even know then what variety of amplification or signal boosting is the truly correct one for a really good take on temp feedback as such, ‘big picture’ wise?

Mathematically, many things are possible for the big picture here, including scenarios where *negative* feedbacks in fluctuating temperatures would naturally *combine* in some way, to make a build up or boost up in the overall steady state or median temperature. In addition there is the chance that conventional climate theorists have been wrong all along to think that there is any significant temperature enhancing effect related to feedback in the first place, there’s always *that*.

Last edited 2 months ago by David Blenkinsop
Jim Gorman
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
September 15, 2022 6:11 am

A long post but a good question. All of this is basically trying to find an hypothesis that might be plausible. Hard to do with no more data than we have. What I see is an extremely complicated waveform and trying to extract intermod components from straight harmonics to fundamental oscillations is going to require much more information than we currently have. We don’t even know what we don’t know yet.

So far the models are nothing more that game playing and give about the same unreal answers as any game “virtual” environment would. Monckton’s basic assumption is that he doesn’t believe the feedback theory, people forget this. His argument is that even when accepting the premise it is easy to show how wrong it is. I agree with him. An amplifier needs an external power source to provide the energy for amplification. Feedback in a non-amplifier (gain <= 1) can only use energy that is extracted from the output which is the same or less than the input. Consequently, there is no way to absolutely increase the output.

The other problem is that we are dealing with power here, not infinite impedances where no power is lost when using feedback. We are discussing power gain, not just voltage or current gain. Any power gain has to be supplied from somewhere.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 15, 2022 8:07 am

Another way to frame this is to ask:

What is the transfer function from solar irradiance to surface temperature?

Cli Sci calls irrradiance “forcing” but doesn’t quite state how E changes into T.

Don
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 15, 2022 8:43 am

I think the transfer function relating the Sun’s irradiance to surface temperature is the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Don
September 15, 2022 11:35 am

Does this go the wrong direction? Note that I specified solar irradiance.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 15, 2022 12:37 pm

You can’t really use T, both because it has a 4th power, but it doesn’t add directly, it adds via power, i.e. through flux.

I just put a diagram up that uses power splitters/combiners. It’s rough and doesn’t include everything that goes on, but is shows that there is only one source and everything must derive from that source!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 15, 2022 3:09 pm

S-B says E o= T^4, but the T is on Earth, it cannot control the Sun. At any given moment there is a wide range of T on Earth, so the transfer function can’t be simple.

The splitter/combiner has to be a better way of modeling, although I confess to not understanding what the individual letters mean. S is Sun and F is feedback, I presume, but don’t know what the others are. Why are S and C added prior to the summing node?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 15, 2022 3:48 pm

S is sun and C is CO2, then F is a feedback loop. CO2 doesn’t create its own energy so I used a splitter to show that S is split into (S – C) and C, then combined back together.

Don
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 16, 2022 6:11 am

I have no idea what you mean by go in the wrong direction. Nobody thinks the Earth heats the Sun.

It is not difficult to understand what energy heats the surface of the Earth. Obviously the electromagnet energy from the Sun and energy radiated by the surface that is returned to the surface by the action of the greenhouse gasses. The temperature of the surface is not limited by the Sun’s irradiance. In this sense there is a second source of power, namely the GHGs, that is independent of the power from the Sun.

There are many variables that would greatly complicate an exact calculation of the surface temperature everywhere on the planet but determining averages seems to be doing pretty well..

Last edited 2 months ago by Don
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 6:26 am

The transfer function is from solar irradiance (E) to surface temperature on Earth, and you replied that is the S-B equation. This does not work because E is a function of T in the S-B equation, so it cannot be a transfer function.

Don
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 16, 2022 6:58 am

No, E is not a function of T in the S-B equation. E = 1360 w/m^2 and is radiation from the Sun measured outside the planets atmosphere thus having no relationship to the surface temperature.

Last edited 2 months ago by Don
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 7:40 am

Sorry, but without the sun’s energy the temperature would fall drastically, so there is a relationship. Whether the temp is determinate via the S-B equation is another question. The basic question is can temps be used in a “feedback” solution. I would postulate that they can not until a better power to temperature functional relationship can be developed, and that doesn’t include the S-B equation as a transfer equation.

Don
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 16, 2022 8:33 am

The Sun’s energy reaching the Earth above the atmosphere is a constant independent of the temperature of the Earth. The surface temperature due to that energy can be approximated using the S_B relationship modified by considering the effects of rotation and reflection.. The temperature derived from the incident radiation from the Sun is of course not the correct temperature because the energy returned to the surface as a result of the GHGs is not included.

Can temperature be used in a feedback solution. The temperature to power relationship is given by Plank’s equation. If you integrate over the radiated spectrum of a body at some temperature you determine the radiated power from that body at that temperature. You can even determine how much power is radiated at each frequency.

I would say that temperature itself can’t be used because temperatures cant be added or subtracted but powers derived from temperature can be added or subtracted.

Are we on the same page or are we talking past each other?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 8:44 am

Emissivities, specific heats, convection, albedo, and latent heat screw up temperature calculations.

Fluxes can be added directly. Plus temperatures don’t cause other temperatures other than through convection/conduction.

Don
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 16, 2022 9:55 am

Did you mean to exclude radiation from the last sentence?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 11:41 am

I left it out because S-B deals only with radiation and not the other things.

You can’t use S-B as a temperature proxy in the earth’s internal climate system. If you want to deal with radiation only, like the “feedback” using Bode, you must use power, and not temperature. One must also realize that S-B does not adequately express the “monochromatic” flux that molecules radiate.

The S-B equation assumes that the entire black body radiation curve is radiated and that determines the flux. The emissivity can be used to modulate this, but one must know what emissivity to use for each molecule under varying pressure, temperature, etc.

Look, I don’t agree with this whole Bode feedback process at all. I think any attempt to use it is wrongheaded and we end up arguing about angels. We are talking heat transfer of all kinds, conduction, convection, radiation, and all of that is modulated by all kinds of periodic processes in the ocean, the surface of the earth, and by atmospheric processes.

One must understand Planck’s heat transfer theories by radiation and how to deal with gradients of temperature due to too many things to list. If we can’t develop timely and accurate gradients for all this, it will never be solved. I along with many others don’t feel CO2 can have the effects being attributed to it. H2O has so many fingers that it is the obvious culprit for temperature control of the atmosphere.

The mere display of a theory that CO2 causes temperature is misplaced. There is evidence otherwise and little to NO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes temperature.

Don
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 16, 2022 2:00 pm

I believe I can explain how a physicist might explain the relation between temperature and CO2. First they define temperature as the amount of kinetic energy within the body. This involves all the atoms, molecules lattice structures, whatever all vibrating around. At absolute zero all vibration stops. Energy is released as a photon when KE is reduced by some collision. The photon energy corresponds to the change in KE resulting from the collision. Likewise when a photon is absorbed by some atom the KE and thus temperature is increased.

A photon released from a body at say 15 microns will strongly interact with a CO2 molecule giving it KE in the form of vibration or rotation. Within a bout 5 microseconds the molecule releases an equivalent photon. If that photon strikes the originating body it will add KE increasing the temperature.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 2:25 pm

I’m not going to educate you. S-B is built on black bodies. CO2 is not a black body, it only absorbs a portion of the S-B calculated calculation. Same with H2O, CH4, etc. Absorptivity/emissivity factors let you calculate it. But is feedback calculable via temperature alone for different molecules? Also, remember that thermalization is involved. Ultimately it needs to all be converted to a power basis to preserve the energy relationships.

Feel free to use temps if that’s what you want. It won’t come out in the end, I assure you.

Don
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 16, 2022 8:48 pm

With anything involving the GHE in the atmosphere the question is not is CO2 gas a black body it is does it act like a black body and follow the temperature vs radiation intensity that characterizes a black body for the frequency band of interest . Every analysis I have seen says it follows that relationship.

But good luck with you attempt to show that H2O controls the temperature of the atmosphere. Heating the atmosphere is not done by the GHE which only results in heating the surface of the planet. That is LW radiation from the surface does not heat the atmosphere.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 8:11 am

No, E is not a function of T in the S-B equation. E = 1360 w/m^2 and is radiation from the Sun measured outside the planets atmosphere thus having no relationship to the surface temperature.

This irradiance has no effect on surface temperature?

From wikipedia:

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

The radiant emittancej⋆ has dimensions of energy flux (energy per unit time per unit area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre.

Recall that it was you who stated that the S-B equation was the transfer function. Here is what you wrote:

I think the transfer function relating the Sun’s irradiance to surface temperature is the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Which is it?

Don
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 16, 2022 10:36 am

S-B works regardless of which variable is chosen as the independent variable. Choose T as a constant independent variable and you can calculate the outgoing radiated power flux. Or choose the incoming flux as the constant independent variable and calculate the temperature. Most formulas work that way.

All I was saying is that the Sun’s radiance arriving at the Earth’s atmosphere is a constant. The surface temperature could be 1000C warmer and the arriving radiance would still be 1360w/m^2.

However if you want to know how that radiance will effect the Earth’s temperature given no other sources of energy flux then use the S-B relationship. It relates how the energy transfers into temperature.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 10:42 am

OK, I’m done. Please learn what a transfer function is.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Don
September 16, 2022 12:07 pm

You can use S-B in an isolated system where no other bodies or processes exist and the involved bodies are considered black bodies.

You do realize a transfer function is an equation that takes an input signal and tells you what the output signal is.

S-B doesn’t do that.

In an electronic scenario one would input a “step function” and analyze the output to determine the individual components that exist in it. In the frequency domain a Fourier or wavelet analysis would be used. Hard to do with the earth.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
September 15, 2022 7:45 am

What is the physical mechanism that sees an increment of temperature as different to the prevailing temperature in its feedback effect? Let’s deal with that before getting into ECS suppositions. Geoff S

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
September 15, 2022 9:28 am

In my readings, it would seem that climate theorists ever since the year 1900 or so have been looking to water, H2O, as such, to create a “mutual reaction of the physical quantities”, i.e., an enhanced feedback, or “positive” feedback of some sort. In these terms, they look to the watery Earth system to do something that they would never expect on some really different planetary surface, like the surface of Titan say. On Titan, we’ve got lakes, but they aren’t made of water, so ‘presto’, no feedback there, I guess!

As one alternative to making water feedback an essential in everyone’s favourite theory, it occurs to me that planet Earth as such is *materially* at least roughly a closed system, despite the flow through of energy. So maybe something like Le Chatelier’s Principle (or the Equilibrium Law) could apply here, as in the following link, say,https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-le-chateliers-principle-605297

To quote the above, under “Temperature” heading, it says.
“In other words, the system compensates for the reduction in temperature by favouring the reaction that generates heat.”

Note that the reference above does not appear to be saying that a system would be generating heat from nothing indefinitely. The point is that the system responds with enough heat to limit the imposed change in temperature to the extent possible.
Then, by the same kind of process, such an equilibrium system would respond to an *increase* in temperature by attempting to *limit*the temperature *rise* as well!

If Le Chatelier holds true, it would seem that there’s no good reason why a presumed temperature forcing would be enhanced, boosted, exaggerated, positive feedbacked, etc.? I mean, all effects ought to be folded into the initial temperature estimate in the first place, and no fair doing an extra step of “mutual reaction of quantities” to boost that up?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
September 17, 2022 9:14 am

We can just view the paleoclimate record and see thar CO2 at levels far higher than today has never induced any “runaway” temperature response, and that 10 times as much as is in the atmosphere now could not prevent climate from plunging from “hot house” to “ice house” conditions that lasted MILLIONS of years to establish (1) CO2 doesn’t “drive” temperature; and (2) “ECS” of CO2 increases is indistinguishable from ZERO.

Don
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
September 15, 2022 7:59 am

There is a complication to the feedback issue with CO2 doubling that you might appreciate. There is a saturation effect with increasing CO2 concentration. In essence every CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere has less heating effect than the previous molecule.

This means there is a time factor that should be considered during the concentration doubling. Assuming the concentration is increasing uniformly, a change of say 100ppm at the start of the doubling will result in a greater change in climate forcing than the same change in concentration at the end of the doubling. Therefore the temperature change as the CO2 concentration increases will not be linear in time and neither will any feedback resulting from the change.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
September 17, 2022 9:11 am

David, you have some interesting thoughts there, to which I’ll make two comments.

The first is that while Monckton does try to get the big picture simply, he made a mistake in assuming that one of his parameters was constant enough for a small change over time not to matter, and I showed that because of his large scale Kelvin outlook, a very small change made a significant change to sensitivity. Please see the link I posted in my comment a few minutes ago.

The second is about non-linearity. I looked into this in 2018 and found that it was important to concentrate on radiative fluxes, which can be added, rather than temperatures, which cannot. This led me to a 4th degree (so non-linear, and because of Stefan’s law) implicit equation for temperature, and a sensitivity dependent on the gradient of water-associated (ice cover, vapour) feedbacks over time. I was able to use data from a paper by Ramanathan & Inamdar to estimate that feedback, and arrived at sensitivity ~ 2.1K. In the end, the (in my view admirable) non-linear theory leads to an estimate which does just depend on local linearity.

However, 3 journals have rejected my paper : – (. I have been doing other stuff and not looked at it for 6 months.

Rich

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
September 17, 2022 2:56 pm

As far as saying we should just add radiative fluxes, or radiative power flow, and never add temperatures, that might make some sense, if we were really adding significant power to the *total* earth system, from outside. So there’d be more radiant power coming into cloud tops, oceans, land surfaces and all — you’d add some real power in, and try to see what comes out of that. Turn up the sun, someone!

At the same time, if the sun as such is more or less constant, and we are looking at temperature adjustments within the earth system, it is not obvious to me why temperatures as such shouldn’t be added, or adjusted up and down, subtracted where appropriate, etc? Maybe energy conservation would tend to flatten or attenuate any feedback adjustments, since there’s a limited flow of energy to work with, but that’s not the same as saying that the appropriate functions would fall down and not work, so somehow failing to add any certain temperature?

FWIW, as far as the CO2 doubling sensitivity you mention, that’s pretty compatible with the easy calculation for the next ’60 to 70 years’ that I roughed out earlier.
I basically guessed at a doubling of CO2 occurring in the time frame 1850 to year 2090 or so, and your number of 2.1 degrees C for the result of that is quite close to the 2 degrees total that I roughly estimated there. That’s all hypothetically guessing that CO2 is the ‘valve’ for temperature that traditional climatists claim it to be, of course.

Continuing on here a bit, someone remind me why, even if conventional theory were right, there seems to be this fear that the CO2 fraction would double suddenly, with some tremendous fuel burning release, to double or even just “partially” double the CO2 fraction, within a short enough time period for this to pose an unmanageable threat? This would clearly take a lot of input (input that the earth system would then somehow refuse to absorb to any extent) to make an alarm, or even make a dent in the inertia of the whole situation.

I suppose that maybe it’s just too much fun to make up stories about accelerations, feedbacks and tipping points — storytelling about doomsday is just so good..

Last edited 2 months ago by David Blenkinsop
Tim Gorman
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
September 18, 2022 6:16 am

it is not obvious to me why temperatures as such shouldn’t be added, or adjusted up and down, subtracted where appropriate, etc?”

Temperatures don’t really add. They really don’t tell you much about heat flow since they are only one piece of the puzzle. Using temps as a proxy for heat flow is really not very accurate or appropriate. The old PV = nrT depends on more than just T. Specific heat and mass are just as important as T.

Temperature doesn’t tell you much about latent heat either but it is an important part of the engine that is the biosphere.

Steve O
September 17, 2022 7:29 am

Attribution can mean a merely mental act, an act that has no physical consequence.”

— I almost stopped reading after this bit of nonsense.

See - owe to Rich
September 17, 2022 8:50 am

Hi Joe, please note that I was probably the first on WUWT to refute Monckton’s theory, using his own mathematics rather than anything independent, in 2018 – see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/21/temperature-tampering-temper-tantrums/#comment-2440661 and some other comments by me downthread of that.

Rich

Joe Born
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
September 17, 2022 3:46 pm

Yes, that did seem to go to the heart of the matter. But it does seem to me that readers saw the problem back when WUWT first started promoting Lord Monckton’s theory. Reader Frank comes to mind, but I know there were others.

Joe Born
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
September 17, 2022 5:46 pm

Oh, I should also mention that just over a week after the comment you just cited I submitted a proposed head post employing graphs like those above to refute Lord Monckton’s theory, but WUWT wouldn’t run it.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Joe Born
September 19, 2022 2:39 am

Well that’s a shame (and I know the feeling). But at least WUWT published it this time! And it’s good to keep that coffin nailed down, to keep climate sceptics on the high moral and scientific ground.

Re Frank’s refutation, it is admirable, but open to LM saying “that’s all very well but it doesn’t refute my mathematics”. It took me a while to spot the flaw in those, but I did, using only his own maths. For new readers, a summary is that LM claimed that a parameter was near constant and that a small variation would not matter. That would have been true if he had been working in a small range of numbers, but by working over a large range the multiplier of that small variation became very significant, increasing sensitivity from 1.1K to around 1.7K.

Joe Born
September 18, 2022 6:42 am

As sort of a coda to the discussion I’ll make a comment about the length of the head post. I’ll set aside the fact that it’s shorter than the one in which Lord Monckton introduced his theory, and I’ll focus on the following comment by Mr. Blenkinsop, which gets things backwards.

Monckton himself tries to “get” the big picture as simply as possible, while at the same time, our current article writer likes to fuss over all that and redo it all in some way.

No, I didn’t “redo” it at all; I quoted Lord Monckton’s exact words and calculations.

Yes, the rule that Lord Monckton’s “corrections” actually apply, i.e., ECS = RCS × E/R, is simple. But the head post is long (although, again, not as long as Lord Monckton’s) because it deals with the many ways in which Lord Monckton has attempted to evade that simplicity. He needs to evade the fact that he is indeed applying that simple rule, because his “proof” is based on the contention feedback theory requires his corrections, whereas it actually imposes no such rule.
 
He says that, unlike others who have concluded that ECS is low, he can actually prove it. The proof, he says, is based on a feedback law obtained from control-systems theory. The “corrections” by which he’s illustrated the application of that law always take the following form:

ECS = RCS × E/R,

where RCS is the equilibrium-temperature change that doubling carbon-dioxide concentration would cause if there were no feedback, E is the absolute equilibrium temperature under the conditions that prevailed in, say, 1850, and R is what that temperature would have been in the absence of feedback. Since according to Lord Monckton E/R doesn’t greatly exceed unity, ECS doesn’t greatly exceed the RCS value, which by all accounts is modest: feedback law requires ECS to be low.

In other words the “correction” he performs imposes the requirement that the ratio of temperature change to what it would have been without feedback equal the ratio of the absolute temperature to what it would have been without feedback:

ECS/RCS = E/R.

What is the purported feedback law that requires such a “correction”? Well, Lord Monckton looks upon R and E as the equilibrium stimulus and response of a feedback system whose open-loop gain is unity: the “stimulus” is what the response would have been in the absence of feedback.  This means that RCS becomes a stimulus change ΔR, ECS becomes the resultant response change ΔE, and the ratio of response change to stimulus change must equal the ratio of entire response to entire stimulus. 

But that relationship prevails in general only if the ratio is a constant k independent of E and R, i.e., only if

E = kR. 

In other words, the purported feedback law would appear to be that in a feedback system the response E must be linearly proportional to the stimulus R. Given that in Lord Monckton’s framework the “stimulus” is what the response would have been without feedback, the law becomes the requirement that the response be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.

Logically, that’s the essence of Lord Monckton’s purported proof: feedback law requires that the response of a unity-open-loop-gain feedback system must be linearly proportional to what it would have without feedback, so ECS = RCS × E/R. And, since RCS is modest and E/R doesn’t much exceed unity, ECS has to be low. QED.

The problem is that there’s no such feedback law, and the head post is long because it deals with four years of Lord Monckton’s attempts to evade the logical consequences of that fact.