Why It Matters That Climatologists Forgot the Sun Was Shining

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

It is now almost two years since we submitted our paper on the central error perpetrated by climatologists in their attempts to derive climate sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings – namely, their failure to appreciate that such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining. Yet one of the world’s most eminent climatologists reflected the error that is near-universal throughout his trade when after several days’ fencing, he answered a direct question from me by admitting he did not consider there was any feedback response to emission temperature.

The diagram below shows the two competing methods, as they apply to 1850. Method (a), in red, is the incomplete method that led climatologists into error. Method (b), in green, is the complete and correct method, which takes due account of the fact that the Sun is shining.

It is necessary to follow the latter method because the base signal, the 260 K emission temperature R0 (shown in sunshine yellow in the corrected diagram but omitted from the defective diagram), is about 30 times the 8 K reference sensitivity ΔR0 to (or direct warming by) the naturally-occurring, noncondensing greenhouse gases that were present in the preindustrial atmosphere of 1850. Then R1, the sum of R0 and ΔR0, is the entire input or reference signal as it stood in 1850. That year is of interest because there was then a temperature equilibrium: there would be no temperature trend for 80 years thereafter.

The feedback response to emission temperature R0 is B0. Likewise, the feedback response to ΔR0 is ΔB0. The feedback response to the entire input signal R1 in 1850 is thus B1. The differential feedback fraction or closed-loop gain factor h is the fraction of the uncorrected output signal, equilibrium sensitivity ΔE0, represented by the feedback response ΔB0. Likewise, the absolute closed-loop gain H is the fraction of the corrected output signal, equilibrium temperature E1, represented by the total feedback response B1.

Let us ask the computer to do a more sophisticated energy-budget calculation than the much-simplified version I showed earlier this month, and let it show its working:

We begin in 1850 by calculating the forcings by the principal naturally-occurring greenhouse-gas species in 1850. The data are from Meinshausen et al. (2017); the formulae are from IPCC (2007, table 6.2). The advantage of these particular formulae is that they were designed to permit calculation of forcings from zero rather than from some arbitrary concentration greater than zero. The forcings to 1850, therefore, work out at 25.3 Watts per square meter.

Next, midrange initial conditions are specified. All are standard, but for two. First, the aerosol adjustment of 0.6 Watts per square meter corrects IPCC’s excessively negative aerosol forcing to take account of a substantial body of literature on the subject. Professor Lindzen is on public record as having stated that the strongly negative aerosol forcing adopted in the models is a fudge factor calculated artificially to exaggerate climate sensitivities.

Secondly, the anthropogenic fraction M of total greenhouse-gas forcing is taken as 0.9. In reality, one might deduce by weighting the entries in table 2 in Wu et al. (2019) by  reference to the relevant period lengths that, of the total period forcing of 0.96 W m–2, 0.71 W m–2 was anthropogenic and 0.25 W m–2 was natural. On that basis, some 73.5% of the forcing over the period was anthropogenic. However, we have cautiously assumed that as much as 90% of the forcing was anthropogenic.

The emission temperature is then derived via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Note, however, that, as is regrettably customary in climatology, no account is taken of the fact that if there were no greenhouse gases in the air there would be no clouds, so that the albedo would be half the standard value used here,  and the emission temperature – even after allowing for Hoelder’s inequalities, which climatologists generally ignore – would be well above 260 K. Indeed, Professor Lindzen has estimated 271 K, in which event ECS would be a great deal less than is shown here.

It is then shown that the system-gain factor in 1850, the ratio A1 of equilibrium temperature E1 to reference temperature R1 in that year, was 1.0764, implying that – if the feedback regime has not changed since 1850 (which the le Chatellier principle and the minuscule warming since then would lead us to expect, and which climatologists implicitly assume) – equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity is only 1.1 K. By the incorrect method, the system-gain factor erroneously expressed as the ratio a1 of equilibrium to reference sensitivities would be 3.712, leading us to expect 3.9 K ECS.

How do we know that this is the mistake that climatologists have made? The reason is simple. Some 15 years ago I wrote to Sir John Houghton, then chairman of IPCC’s climate “science” panel, and asked him why, given that direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air was little more than 1 K, it was imagined that final warming was 3 or 4 K. Sir John replied that the total natural greenhouse effect in 1850 was 32 K, and reference sensitivity to naturally-occurring greenhouse gases was about 8 K. Therefore, he said, the system-gain factor was about 4 and, therefore, ECS would be of order 4 K. Similar sentiments are expressed in numerous IPCC documents and peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity.

Next, it is necessary to conduct an energy-budget experiment for the period 1850-2022. Here, the objective is to see whether, using midrange, mainstream data throughout, the system-gain factor A2 in 2022 differs significantly from the system-gain factor A1 = 1.0764 obtained from the data for 1850. In fact, on the basis of the mainstream, midrange data shown, the two turn out to be identical. The feedback regime, then, has not changed with the increase of a mere 0.35% in global mean surface temperature since 1850. Not much of a surprise there.

A note of caution. Precisely because – whether climatologists like it or not or admit it or not – the feedbacks present at any given moment respond to the entire input signal, including the enormous 260 K sunshine temperature, even a very small change in the feedback regime would potentially lead to a very large change in global mean surface temperature, since the elevated feedback strength must act on the entire reference temperature including the dominant sunshine temperature, and not merely on the paltry reference sensitivities.

A further note of caution: the data and hence the climate sensitivities can be readily tweaked in any desired direction. For instance, IPCC has changed the midrange values and bounds of the underlying data time and again (for instance, it has raised the midrange estimate of the doubled-CO2 forcing from the mean 3.52 W m–2 in the CMIP6 models to 3.93 K, an increase
breaching the long-established ±10% bounds).

Precisely because small changes in the underlying data affect the feedback strength and hence the system-gain factor, and because the system-gain factor applies not only to anthropogenic reference sensitivity but to the entire input signal, including the emission temperature, it is simply not possible to constrain ECS by diagnosis of feedback strengths from the models’ outputs. Therefore, the notion that the high ECS predicted on the basis of such diagnoses represents “settled science” signifieth even less than the twattling of crickets outside my window here in stone-age Gozo.

Even the simple energy-balance method used by our computer is prone to this defect. Why, then, can we rule out the notion of a large change in the feedback regime since 1850? The reason is a practical one. If there had indeed been a major departure from the feedback regime as it stood in 1850 the warming since 1990 would not be – as it is – two and a half times less than what IPCC had confidently but misguidedly predicted in that year.

That is why the long Pauses in global temperature at a time when anthropogenic forcings are continuing to increase in a straight line are so significant. They provide a visual indication that global warming is not, after all, happening at anything like the originally-predicted rate, and that, therefore, there has been no change to speak of in the feedback regime.

Now, critics have commented that if one were to apply the actual changes in forcing since 1850 to IPCC’s diagrams showing predicted forcings for individual greenhouse gases from 1990, IPCC’s predictions would have been proven correct. One obvious problem with that: if the outturn in forcings since 1990 has proven to be so very much less than IPCC’s business-as-usual predictions in that year, why does IPCC continue to predict two and a half times as much warming as the outturn in forcings would lead us to expect?

Another favorite objection among critics, is that we have been guilty of illegitimate “extrapolation”. However, it should be apparent from the above calculation that there is no “extrapolation” in it at all.

It is climatologists, not we, who insisted that ECS was about 3-4 K on the basis of the data for 1850 and that it is still 3-4 K today on the basis of the data since 1850. The energy-budget method we have used does not rely upon extrapolation at all. One would not expect much, if any, change in the feedback regime given a mere 0.35% increase in absolute global mean surface temperature; and the above calculation shows that, using mainstream, midrange values, there may well have been no change at all in the system-gain factor from 1850-2022, so that ECS is of order 1.1 K.

A recent postercited four climatologists as disagreeing with us. But none of the climatologists in question has read our paper. None has any particular knowledge of control theory (any more than the poster does). Two could not even be brought to admit that there is any feedback response to emission temperature at all (Hint: there is: get used to it). The other two are not on record as having commented on our result at all. If our paper were as easy to refute as the poster suggests, it would not still be sitting before the editor of a leading climate journal, marked as “With Editor” on the editorial-management site, almost two full years after it was submitted. If it were defective, it would simply have been thrown back at us, and it has not been. Go figure.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because, if we are right, two important scientific conclusions follow. First, by the energy-budget method it is possible to demonstrate that, using mainstream, midrange data, ECS is likely to be as little as 1.1 K, and is necessarily as little as that if one adopts climatology’s own not unreasonable assumption (critics  would call it an “extrapolation”) that the feedback regime has not changed since 1850.

Secondly, once the extreme sensitivity of ECS to very small changes in the feedback regime is properly understood – as it is not at present understood in climatology – it becomes immediately self-evident that models’ outputs provide no basis whatsoever for deriving ECS values any better than guesswork, because the data uncertainties exceed the very narrow interval of system-gain factors that would allow reasonable constraint of ECS.

Those conclusions matter because, as paper after paper has demonstrated, the energy-budget method suggests that ECS is a lot smaller than IPCC et hoc genus omne find it expedient to admit. Previously, climatologists have dealt with the low sensitivities found by the energy-budget method by declaring that the models’ outputs are more sophisticated and that, therefore, diagnoses of feedback strength and consequently of ECS therefrom are to be preferred. Our paper puts paid to that illusion. Just as Pat Frank has already demonstrated, the models’ predictions of future global warming are no better than rolling dice. Our results confirm his in spades, but by the distinct method of demonstrating the extreme sensitivity of all such predictions to very small perturbations in the feedback regime.

Let us end, then, by updating the estimate of just how little global warming would be abated even if the whole world went to net-zero emissions – which it won’t, since 70% of all new emissions are from so-called “developing” nations such as China and India, that are exempt from any legal obligation under the various climate treaties to reduce their emissions. Indeed, China has recently and sensibly proposed to build hundreds of new coal-fired power stations.

But let us pretend the world will actually reach net zero emissions by 2050. A first-order assessment of the “benefits” and costs of this questionable achievement is on the back of the envelope below –

In the past three decades, there has been 1 W m–2 anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing, arising in a near-straight line at 1/30 W m–2 per year –

f

Despite all the waffle at successive conferences of the parties to the framework convention on climate change, and despite the trillions already squandered by Western nations on emissions reduction, that straight line shows no flicker of a downturn. Thus, only half a Watt per square meter would be abated by 2050 even if the whole world moved in a straight line from here to net zero by that year – which it won’t, since 70% of the world is moving in a straight line in the opposite direction, and the remaining 30% are finding it a lot more difficult and expensive to attain net zero than they had originally pretended.

Now, let us imagine that IPCC is correct in its midrange estimate that there would be 3 K ECS in response to 4 K effective doubled-CO2 forcing and that, therefore, there should have been at least twice as much warming since 1990 as there has been in the mere real world of which the modelers have proven so contemptuous. If so, abating half a unit of forcing, which is all that would be abated by 2050 even if all the world got serious about net-zero emissions, would abate a whoppingly pathetic 3/8 K global warming by 2050. And that is little more than 0.1% of the prevailing absolute global mean surface temperature.

However, according to McKinsey Consulting, the capital cost alone of attaining global net zero would be £275,000 billion. And that estimate was made before the recent price hikes in energy, whose root cause was the West’s foolish insistence on shuttering coal-fired power stations generating power at $30 per MWh and replacing them with unreliables at many times that unit cost, to say nothing of the tenfold hike in Siberian gas prices that allows the Kremlin to profiteer handsomely for as long as it can keep its special military operation going in Ukraine, sanctions or no sanctions.

Our intelligence assessment is that if Moscow can keep the war running it will have made so much money from the order-of-magnitude price hikes in gas, oil, grain, nickel, cobalt, copper, lithium and other raw materials that have long been the chief earner of its resource-based economy that Mr Putin, who has a pathological (and legitimate) fear of national debt, will be able to pay down the entire Russian national debt in just two years. He has already reduced it to about 25% of annual GDP, one of the lowest rates in the world. He is aiming not for net-zero emissions (his academy of sciences has told him he need not worry about that) but for net-zero national debt. Despite the recent setback for his forces in Ukraine, it is not at all clear that he will fail in that legitimate ambition.

Let us ride with IPCC’s “mainstream” midrange estimate that each unit of forcing abated will reduce global temperature by 3/4 K. Divide the 3/8 K that would be abated up to 2050 by the half-unit abatement of forcing if the world actually went to net zero by the $275,000 billion cost of attaining net zero, and the amount of global warming abated by each $1 billion squandered on net-zero emissions would be – wait for it – less than 1/700,000 K.

Less than one seven-hundred-thousandth of a degree per $1 billion slung down the gurgler. Not exactly good value for money – indeed, it would be the worst value for money in the history of global taxation.

But now factor in the following facts. In consequence of the Ukraine war, compounded by the idiocy of governments in grossly and inefficiently interfering in the free market in energy supply by forcibly shuttering coal-fired plants and replacing them with costly unreliables, the capital cost of attaining net zero will now be many times greater than McKinseys had imagined. What is more, the current-account costs of attaining net zero, which were not included in McKinseys’ estimate, will be no less than the capital cost. Indeed, in the UK the grid authority has estimated that to achieve net zero by 2050 would cost $3,000 billion just to re-engineer the electricity grid.

One must also factor in the cost of installing enough charging-points for electric buggies, which would increase electricity demand by 70% in the UK alone. And where are the nickel, cobalt, copper and lithium for the batteries going to come from? Oh, yes, from Russia and China, whose propagandists have been undermining the West’s capacity for rational thought on this issue for decades. Putin is already laughing all the way to the Moscow Narodny Bank. Now imagine how much more he and his Communist soulmate Xi Tsin-Ping will have to laugh about when the following fact is borne in mind. If Britain alone were to replace all its real cars with electric buggies, the batteries would consume twice the world’s annual output of cobalt and almost all its output of lithium. As other Western nations idiotically follow similar lunatic policies, the price of the rare metals that make up the batteries in the buggies is bound to increase by another order of magnitude. We are looking to store some lithium carbonate in our shed and then wait five years before cashing in as billionaires.

After taking these facts into account, and after bearing in mind that ECS is not 3 K but 1.1 K at midrange, the true warming abated by each $1 billion spent on chasing the chimera of net zero emissions could be as little as one five-millionth to one ten-millionth of a degree.

Now, even if we were indeed facing the near-certainty of ECS at 3 or 4 K that the climatologists profitably imagine (and which Professor Lindzen says would be net-harmless even if it were to occur), it could not be reasonably argued that such large expenditures for such infinitesimal returns are in any degree justifiable.

Yet our result shows that official climatology’s conclusions, based as they are on the outputs of general-circulation models, are mere guesswork. They do not in any degree warrant or justify any action whatsoever to abate global warming.

On the basis of climatology’s own implicit assumption that the total feedback strength, denominated in Watts for each Kelvin of reference temperature, that obtained in 1850 also obtains today, it is proven that ECS will be only of order 1.1 K. The critics who accuse us of wrongful “extrapolation” should, therefore, address their concerns not to us but to official climatology.

Put the scientific case and the economic case together and the correct policy option is to ignore the far-Left critics, stop subsidizing unreliables, shutter the IPCC, abolish the UNFCCC, silence the costly conferences of the parties, unshutter coal-fired power stations and bring to an end the long-planned and now imminent economic hara-kiri of the West that the climate activists and those behind them have so long, and so dishonestly fostered.


NOTE FROM ANTHONY: Over the past months, there has been a running duel of back and forth postings from Joe Born vs. Christopher Monckton over this topic. Everything that could be said, has been said. Some of it has been said multiple times. I don’t agree with all the opinions expressed, but I have given both sides a fair airing of points and greivances.

This is not the Festivus channel.

Because both authors have submitted manuscripts with highly charged language, it has become a burden to edit them for publication. Therefore, this will be the very last posting on this topic from either author. Since Mr. Monckton is a long-time friend and supporter of WUWT, I’m giving him the last word on this contentious topic.

-Anthony

4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
555 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 3, 2022 10:23 pm

The first figure here shows the wrongness of the thinking here. It isn’t even wrongness about feedback, but the basic concepts of signal and amplification. Here is the figure again:

comment image

The left is conventional. Suppose ΔR₀ is zero – no input signal. Then as expected ΔE₀ is zero. No input, no output.

But on the right, the input is said to be R₀, and the output E₁. That is in the absence of anything changing. It is said to be affected in some way by feedback, but what does that mean? In electrical terms, it is just describing the operating point of the amplifier. The bias, DC state etc. It isn’t signal in any meaningful sense. It is the rest state. If it isn’t resting, in the case of zero input change, then there is a serious problem.

If the author had expanded E₁ as E₀ + ΔE₀, then the true state of affairs would be clear. The Δ parts are still related, the constant parts just express a different operating point. It is still a linear amplifier on the true signal, just differently described.

Robert B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 12:36 am

“The left is conventional. Suppose ΔR₀ is zero – no input signal. Then as expected ΔE₀ is zero. No input, no output.”

No change in input, no change in output. Green is saying “No input, then no output”

I don’t understand how you can write as if you are on top of things when so clueless.

Reply to  Robert B
October 4, 2022 1:19 am

 Green is saying “No input, then no output””
No, it’s saying that you always have input R₀, which might then be perturbed, He later equates it to reference temperature (“sun is shining”). And you get always output E₀ (equilibrium temperature), which again might be perturbed.

But these are just state variables, like the steady DC voltages in an amplifier. You drop them when talking about signal amplification. That is all, about what happens to perturbations.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 1:54 am

In an amplifier the peturbations are filtered out using a capacitor.
I’ve looked but I can’t find a sky capacitor anywhere.
The whole concept of amplification of just the peturbations is flawed.
BTW if the filter capacitor in an amplifier goes hard down then the entire voltage is amplified and goes pffftttzzz and blows the fuse or avalanches to the maximum power available.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ken Irwin
October 4, 2022 2:01 am

I reckon any Sky Capacitor would be Electrolytic with a high leakage current and high Q-Factor

Reply to  Ken Irwin
October 4, 2022 2:59 am

In an amplifier the peturbations are filtered out using a capacitor.”

Then what is left to amplify?
In fact the DC is blocked with a capacitor, which passes the signal (perturbations).

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 7:30 am

Show a text that indicates op amp circuitry requires a coupling capacitor, Nitpick.

commieBob
Reply to  Ken Irwin
October 4, 2022 4:27 am

Control systems analysis doesn’t just apply to electronic circuits. For instance, in mechanical systems, we have mass, dashpot, and spring. link

For the climate, there is no sky capacitor but there is the huge heat storage of the ocean.

In any event, maybe for the last time, but I doubt it, feedback analysis doesn’t apply to the climate because it isn’t an LTI (Linear Time-Invariant) system. If I remember correctly, Joe Born insisted that he had a textbook that dealt with non-LTI feedback analysis. I asked for a citation and none was produced.

As far as I can tell, the only way to apply feedback analysis to non-LTI systems is to use it in a regime where you know for sure that the system closely approximates LTI. Given the recent greening of the globe, I think we know for sure that the climate does not approximate LTI.

What Monckton has done is to demonstrate that, even if feedback analysis were a valid approach, Hansen did it wrong in a very significant way.

Reply to  commieBob
October 4, 2022 5:41 am

CommieBob is mostly correct. Climatology uses feedback formulism in an attempt to justify its multiplying direct greenhouse-gas warming by about 4 to obtain final or equilibrium warming. Feedback theory is of universal applicability to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, such as the climate.

We know that feedback processes are at work in the climate system because in 1850 the reference or pre-feedback temperature was the 263 K sum of the 255 K emission temperature plus the direct warming of 8 K by naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases, and yet the observed temperature was the 287 K sum of the 255 K emission temperature and the 32 K entire natural greenhouse effect. The 24 K difference between 287 K and 263 K is entirely accounted for by temperature feedback.

The question is: feedback to what? Climatology, in paper after paper, says that the system-gain factor is 32 / 8, or 4, when the corrected system-gain factor for 1850 is (255+32) / (255+8), or less than 1.1.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 9:38 am

“We know that feedback processes are at work in the climate system because in 1850 the reference or pre-feedback temperature was the 263 K sum of the 255 K”

Baloney Alert
A global average temperature for 1850 does not exist. At best it is a wild guess. At the time, there were mainly land weather stations in the US, Europe and Eastern Australia. Ocean measurements were haphazard, with buckets and thermometers, and mainly in Northern Hemisphere sea lanes.

There is no way that the minimal, inaccurate data from 1850, or at any time before 1900, can be used to estimate a global average temperature that’s better than a wild guess. Science is not based on wild guesses. Monckton’s claims that based on numbers from !850 (or any numbers pre-1900) are meaningless.

Doonman
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2022 10:20 am

Monckton’s claims that based on numbers from 1850 (or any numbers pre-1900) are meaningless.

But they are not Moncktons claims, which is the beauty of his argument. They are the claims of the climate alarmists. By accepting those claims and showing the mis-application of control theory on them, he destroys their entire argument of their derived value of climate sensitivity.

Whether you think he has accomplished that or not is the current argument, not the numbers you don’t believe exist.

Last edited 2 months ago by doonman
Reply to  Doonman
October 4, 2022 11:01 am

The climate alarmists destroyed their own arguments by 50+ years of wrong predictions of a coming climate criss that never showed up !

Derg
Reply to  Doonman
October 4, 2022 11:16 am

This ^

Reply to  Doonman
October 4, 2022 7:50 pm

nope

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 4, 2022 9:19 pm

The Lord High Mosher has spoken: debate no more!

Give it a rest Mosher! Nobody here thinks as highly of yourself as you do. If you have an argument to support your opinion, present it. Nobody is going to accept a single word as the final word — even from you.

Derg
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 12:44 am

Yep

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 4:58 am

Yup

Bellman
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2022 3:41 pm

A global average temperature for 1850 does not exist.

It doesn’t even matter for Monckton’s case what the actual temperature was. It could have been a degree or two warmer or colder, you will still get pretty much the same feedback ratio, and end up with a similar estimate for ECS.

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2022 7:50 pm

A global average temperature for 1850 does not exist. At best it is a wild guess. 

A global average temperature during the LIA does not exist. At best it is a wild guess. 

hence its not any warmer now

Derg
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 12:45 am

Hockey stick 😉

Reply to  Derg
October 6, 2022 5:01 am

Hokey stick.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 6:09 am

We do have three Central England weather stations that show over +2 degrees C. warming since the cold 1690s

We also have local climate proxies.

All suggest global warming since the late 1600s Maunder Minimum period. None suggest global cooling since that period.

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 6, 2022 5:03 am

But most of the warming since the cold 1690s occurred in the 40 years 1694-1733, as solar activity recovered after the Maunder minimum. England warmed over those 40 years at a rate equivalent to 4.33 K/century. No such rate has been seen in the Central England record since then. All those Jacobean and Georgian SUVs, one supposes.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 7, 2022 7:07 am

But most of the warming since the cold 1690s occurred in the 40 years 1694-1733, as solar activity recovered after the Maunder minimum.

More highly selective, and wrong, analysis.

First off, it ignores the highly uncertain nature of CET in the 17th and early 18th century, and the large variability in general.

Secondly, it only looks at the trend over a cherry-picked period, and gets it wrong. As I’ve pointed out to Monckton before, you should not calculate a trend on highly seasonal data. Using annual data the trend over that period is 4.0 ± 1.3°C / century. Uncertainty interval based on a 2 sigma value, with no correction for auto-correlation.

Of course he’s looked at every 40 year period and chosen the one that gives him the fastest rate of warming.

Thirdly, he ignores the first 30 years of CET data, and starts at an abnormally cold decade.

Fourthly, he ignores the fact that after after the 1740s temperatures fell back and remained relevantly flat until the end of the 19th century. Claiming the 1730 warm spike as representing most of the warming is misleading.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
October 7, 2022 7:26 am

I think you can get a much better understanding of the the history of CET looking at 30 year averages, rather than arbitrary trend lines.

20221007wuwt3.png
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
October 7, 2022 7:42 am

To put some (over precise) figures on this.

First 30 years
8.81°C (1661 – 1690)

Coldest point, including the extremely cold 1690’s
8.45°C (1672-1701)

High point of the early 18th century (Moncktons “most of the warming”)
9.44°C (1720 – 1739)

After that for 150 years temperatures fluctuated between
8.98°C and 9.27°C.

The mid-20th century peak
9.63°C (1932-1961)

Falls back to
9.41 (1952 – 1981)

Most recent 30 years
10.23°C (1992-2021)

Current temperatures are 0.79°C above the early 18th century peak, 1.42°C above the start of CET, and 1.78°C above the coldest 30 years.

Monckton’s “most of the warming” peak is 0.63°C warmer than the start, and 0.99°C above the coldest point.

So yes, you could say there was slightly more warming from trough to peak in the early 18th century than there was from peak to peak over the next 300 years. But I think that’s misleading. It ignores all the other ups and downs, and starts at very low point.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 7, 2022 9:36 am

You never bothered to learn anything about forecasting when we discussed it before, did you?

In forecasting, recent data carries far more weight than past data. You are stuck in the box that only linear regression over long periods of time are meaningful.

If you had ever run a hardware store and had to maintain inventory you would understand that how many shovels you sold 40 years ago has little bearing on how many shovels you will sell next year, The current sales of shovels carries far more weight for next year than the sales from 40 years ago.

It’s the same with temperature. Current trends carry far more weight that trends from the past. You are stuck in the box of Argument by Tradition and you can’t seem to punch your way out.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 7, 2022 11:05 am

In forecasting, recent data carries far more weight than past data. You are stuck in the box that only linear regression over long periods of time are meaningful.

That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Monckton is the one obsessed with the trend in the 18th century. I’m saying the warming over the last 50 or 100 years is a better indicator of what’s happening.

And my main point is that linear regressions over something like CET are pretty meaningless considering the huge variance in year to year temperature and short term trends.

Again, you seem to be attacking Monckton here. He’s the one who mentions the cherry picked 1694-1733 period as having some meaning.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 7, 2022 4:52 pm

how many shovels you sold 40 years ago has little bearing on how many shovels you will sell next year

Which is why I don’t expect temperatures next year to be the same as they were 40 years ago.

Current trends carry far more weight that trends from the past.

So you keep saying, but you never actually tell us what your predictions, or see how your, weight current trends strategy would have worked out over previous periods.

How do you determine what current trend you are using? Is it the last 8 years, where there’s been a small negative trend, or the last 10 years where there’s been a warming rate of 0.2°C / decade? Or the last 11 years where the trend has been 0.3°C / decade? How do you know that 11 years is too long but 8 years is just right?

You are stuck in the box of Argument by Tradition and you can’t seem to punch your way out.

You really need to learn what these fallacies actually mean.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 8, 2022 7:10 am

I can give you an example from real life experience in business. One of the things I was responsible for was forecasting call volumes for telephone switches and operator requirements on an hourly basis. Forecasting those call volumes used weighted volumes from past data. Yesterday’s volume was highest weighting, then last week’s same day, last year’s volume smaller yet and further past was weighted least.

Forecasting for a two year period was done using similar type algorithms but also included many items like projected plat developments, population and business growth, etc.

Now, I realize that this example doesn’t necessarily involve long cyclical phenomena. Seasonal is about as long a cycle as there was. But, the fact remains that past growth was not as important as current growth. Temperature is not that much different. The current pause in growth is indicative of an ongoing pause in growth, at least for the near term. It also is indicative of the fact that at the very least, natural variation is a substantial factor in temperature not withstanding what CO2 growth will do.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 7:12 am

So, there was a LIA?
And we are not in it anymore, are we?
When alarmists wet their panties over 1.5 warming since “pre-industrial times”, what they really mean is “since the LIA conditions prevailed.”

I for one am damn glad we are no longer suffering through the coldest period in the past 12,000 years.

ATheoK
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 3:12 pm

A global average temperature for 1850 does not exist. At best it is a wild guess.”

That exactly applies to modern times.
Worse, in fact, because of the badly adjusted/sited/uncertified temperature stations, the modern “wild guess” is overbaked with climate fiddling and shenanigans!

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:01 am

Mr Mosher knows nothing about climatology. If he knew anything, he would know that the HadCRUT global surface temperature anomaly dataset has been kept since 1850, and that, unlike the other datasets, it routinely publishes its uncertainty interval. Ir Mr Mosher wishes to argue inexpertly that the uncertainty interval is inappropriate, let him take the matter up with the keepers of the dataset. Don’t whine here.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2022 9:15 pm

Sometimes even an order of magnitude estimate can be useful to establish bounds on a variable. Just don’t try to pretend that several significant figures are justified.

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 6, 2022 4:57 am

If Mr Greene wishes to challenge the uncertainty interval for 1850 in the HadCRUT temperature record, then there is no point in whining at me about it. Let him direct his whingeing at the keepers of that dataset and tell them their job.

If he had any mathematical competence, he would in any event have realizes that our analysis is very little affected by the precise value of temperature at the equilibrium in 1850.

Don
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 11:19 am

Dividing temperatures yields a meaningless number. Dividing the powers creating those temperatures would have meaning.

Reply to  Don
October 4, 2022 7:52 pm

nope

Bill Toland
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 3:11 am

Mr. Mosher, someone has hijacked your account and started giving monosyllabic responses in an attempt to make you look like a moron.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:04 am

Don’t whine.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 7:48 pm

. Feedback theory is of universal applicability to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, such as the climate.

mere assertion

EEs have made a hash out of discussing climate feedback.
this essay just sprays more black ink into the water

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:05 am

Mr Mosher, like all the climate Communists, is becoming desperate as our result takes hold. Otherwise he would not attempt to assert that feedback theory is inapplicable to the climate. If it is inapplicable, then ECS is less than 1.1 K, and not the 4 K that the models currently imagine on the basis of – er – feedback analysis of the dynamical system moderated by feedback that we call the climate.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 6:02 am

Mosher is just complaining about using a method of analysis that was proposed by Hansen to evaluate the models. I suspect he is unable to assess the program (think spaghetti code) to find where the feedback is occuring. I don’t doubt that it is “hidden” amongst various routines, but I’ll guarantee that it exists.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 6:19 am

That ink is impenetrable to you isn’t it? To us EE’s, it is the nectar of life. We live and die by it’s quality.

Don’t expound on what you dont know! BTW, feedback theory is more applicable to many things that you also don’t understand. Governor’s on motors, electrical, steam, and ICE. Airplane control surfaces. Lots of others. Look at a modern ICE, think of the O2 sensors, knock sensors, crankshaft position sensors, mass air flow sensors, etc. These are all feedbacks to a computer running an engine. Do you think that Bode and control theory as taught in EE curriculum doesn’t apply?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 6, 2022 6:33 am

And Stokes and Born still don’t understand what a summation node indicates.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 13, 2022 11:43 pm

 Climatology uses feedback formulism in an attempt to justify its multiplying direct greenhouse-gas warming by about 4 to obtain final or equilibrium warming. 

nope. nowhere. this misquotes hansen and makes a hash of his abortiive attempt to apply control theory to climate.
where feedbacks are entirely different in character from the input signals.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
October 4, 2022 5:46 am

If there is no power supply to an amplifier there can be no amplification.

That means any feedback power is subtracted from the actual input power. P_out = P_in – P_feedback becomes the actual output.

Anything else implies a perpetual motion machine.

Before anyone says the sun is the power supply, the sun is the INPUT. It can’t be both the input and the power supply for an amplifier.

commieBob
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 8:03 am

For feedback theory Hansen et al 1984 cited Bode’s 1945 book.

That book was based on vacuum tubes. I haven’t read the whole thing but, as far as I can tell, it didn’t make the input reference voltage explicit. (That said, differential amplifiers do exist in vacuum tube form.) Also, as far as I can tell, it deals with small signals and ignores energy conservation.

By 1984 there were many good undergrad control systems texts that might have saved Hansen from his grievous errors. But that would be mere engineering and apparently beneath his dignity. 🙂

btw: Control theory had its mathematical basis in Maxwell’s analysis of centrifugal governors for steam engines. link That was, of course, long before the invention of the electronic amplifier.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
October 4, 2022 2:25 pm

I sincerely doubt Nick has ever seen a working steam engine let alone have its operation explained to him.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 7:53 pm

nice attack, for a 5th grader.look you cant hold a candle to nick

Derg
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 12:47 am

Lol…says the one word attack dog.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 7:15 am

Who you are does not matter a whit in science.
All that matters is what is correct and what is wrong.
You guys and your disproven not-even-a-clearly-enunciated-hypothesis are wrong.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 5, 2022 11:19 pm

Tell that to you-know-who:

<blockquote>

Pat Frank’s paper remains unrefuted in the peer-reviewed journals. Before publication, it was reviewed by Professor Wunsch. He knows what he is talking about, and is willing to be fair, while the two bloggers mentioned […] have no credibility whatsoever.

</blockquote>

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375544

Perhaps I should have said who-cares-who.

Reply to  Willard
October 6, 2022 5:08 am

Pat Frank’s paper remains unrefuted in the peer-reviewed journals. Instead of whining inexpertly and futilely here, the furtively anonymous “Willard” may care to try to write a paper trying to trash Pat’s result, and submit it for peer review.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 6:30 am

This Willard identity is a rat, and the selected label/handle is quite appropriate.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 6, 2022 8:23 am

> This Willard identity is a rat, and the selected label/handle is quite appropriate.

The rats in the movie are not named Willard, Monte.

Is there anything you can get straight?

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:06 am

Don’t whine.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 6:41 am

Sometimes the truth hurts. Have YOU ever been around a working steam engine? Part of learning about the real world is actually experiencing the real world. It’s where good “engineering judgement” comes from.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 6, 2022 8:20 am

Please stop whining, Tim.

Are you related with Jim by any chance?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Willard
October 6, 2022 11:37 am

Ahhh! The truth *DID* hurt you! I’m not surprised!

Who cares about who I am related to? What difference would it make anyway?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 6, 2022 11:48 am

This lamer goes around trying to dox people who disagree with Stokes & Co.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 8, 2022 9:20 am

Still here, Monte?

Has your confirmation ever failed you, Xim?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 5:38 am

Nick think in terms of DC amplifiers. The set point input voltages matter as well as any delta.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 7:29 am

Op amp circuits don’t require coupling capacitors, you vast education has failed you again.

b.nice
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 4, 2022 4:35 pm

Anyone that thinks the atmospheric climate feedback can be modeled WITHOUT a huge capacitor.. is not paying any attention to reality. !

Tim Gorman
Reply to  b.nice
October 4, 2022 4:57 pm

That capacitor can be seen quite effectively by tracking the temperature curve after sunset. It is every exponential with the decay factor determined by the resistance it is discharging through (i.e. the atmosphere). The higher the resistance the slower the discharge – meaning higher Tmin values once the cycle starts over the next day. During the day the capacitor just charges to the power supply voltage, i.e. the sun, that’s all the higher it can go so you don’t see much impact on Tmax.

That means that when the temps went so high during the 30’s something drove that to happen – but it most likely wasn’t CO2 or we wouldn’t have seen cooling in the following decades.

Reply to  b.nice
October 4, 2022 7:55 pm

of course it can. look climate models do not implement feedbacks directly.

NONE of you have looked at actual models

Derg
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 12:48 am

All those models…settled science indeed.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
October 5, 2022 6:55 am

Someone is going through and giving Mosh upvotes! Amusing.

Reply to  Derg
October 5, 2022 1:44 pm

well if youre going to argue that climate models do feedbacks wrong
evidence would be looking at a damn model

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 11:16 am

Mr Mosher, in his desperation to uphold the Communist party line on the climate question, has made even more of a fool of himself than usual. A little up

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 11:17 am

Mr Mosher, in his desperation to uphold the Communist party line on the climate question, has made even more of a fool of himself than usual. A little upthread, he says, correctly but pointlessly, that models do not directly implement feedback formulism. Now he talks about whether one can argue that “climate models do feedbacks wrong”. Bah!

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:11 am

Mr Mosher imagines that we do not realize the models do not implement feedback formulism directly. In fact, they do not implement it at all. Feedback strengths, and consequently ECS, are diagnosed from the models’ outputs in accordance with the methods described e.g. in Soden & Held (2006) or Vial (2013).

However, feedback analysis may be used as a yardstick to assess the plausibility of such diagnoses, and that is what our paper does. We find the diagnoses, and consequently all ECS predictions, to be no better than mere guesswork.

There is certainly insufficient evidence to pretend that there is a “climate emergency”.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 5:43 am

That is the whole point isn’t it, to make accurate predictions? Models run hot, even the IPCC knows that. That means the ECS that “emerges” from the calculations must be wrong! There can be no other conclusion. If ECS is a legitimate “thing”, evaluating it by other means is possible. A difference indicates something is not kosher with what it is claimed to be.

Hansen and others invited the evaluation of temperature rise due to feedback. It is a proper scientific enterprise to evaluate any hypothesis for accuracy and correctness. The fact that models do or don’t use feedback is truly irrelevant.

OTH, a high ECS indicates some feedback is occuring in the models whether Bode math is being used diectly or some other calculations are taking it’s place. Even though Mosher proclaims otherwise, he can’t escape the fingerprint of feedback occurring at points in the model’s calculations.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 12:12 pm

Look Ma, no capacitors!

Screen Shot 2022-10-04 at 1.08.54 PM.jpg
Robert B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:57 pm

But these are just state variables, like the steady DC voltages in an amplifier. You drop them when talking about signal amplification. That is all, about what happens to perturbations.”

You do not make that point when you write “No change in input. No change in output”

If you are clearer about input being an oscillation in Ro, then people can go “WTF?”. Ro is analogous to a steady-state DC voltage and  ΔR₀ is analogous to a frequency input???

Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
October 4, 2022 3:01 pm

Amplitude of …

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:19 am

“ If it isn’t resting, in the case of zero input change, then there is a serious problem.”

Hahah, do you actually read the stuff you write?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:26 am

The ever-partisan Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong. First, one might say, with Gauss, non notatio, sed notio. Of course the equilibrium temperature E1 in 1850 is the sum of the equilibrium responses E0 to emission temperature and dE0 to the directly-forced warming by the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases. That is implicit, though not explicit, in the diagram.

More seriously, Mr Stokes fails to appreciate that the diagram may stand not only for a linear amplifier but also for a nonlinear amplifier at a particular moment.

His lack of elementary knowledge of control theory is also evident in his failure to grasp that in a feedback-moderated dynamical system in a state of equilibrium, as the climate was in 1850 (there would be no trend in global temperature for 80 years thereafter), there is indeed what, in his unscientific way, he clumsily calls “the absence of anything changing”. For the changes wrought by feedback have already occurred.

As often, his aim appears to be to sow confusion. It is likely that he understands full well the simple point being made, and knows perfectly well that it is sound, but finds it uncongenial to admit that fact, which demonstrates the Party Line on climate to be erroneous.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 3:21 am

“His lack of elementary knowledge of control theory…”

OK, here is a real simple transistor feedback amplifier. I’ve marked it with AC voltages; normally you just assume that there are separate bias arrangements to set the DC operating point, which you don’t need to know about for feedback performance. But you can run it as shown with say, V=10 V as the steady supply; the bias won’t be optimised, but it can be made to work. The base voltage (shown as V=0), and so the steady part of Vin, will be about 0.6V for a silicon NPN transistor. The steady part of Vout will probably be set at about 5V (midrange).

comment image

Now you would say that the whole input is 0.6+perturbation, and the gain is 5/0.6, or about 8. That is your E1/R1, and it is nonsense. That ratio has nothing to do with the true gain of the amplifier. Those voltages are just what you choose as an operating point. The gain is the ratio of perturbations.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 4:41 am

Mr Stokes again deliberately obfuscates a simple issue. Like it or not, at any given moment the feedback processes then extant must necessarily respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, and not merely to each unit of the perturbation signal. Since the base signal – in climate the emission temperature – comprises 97% of the reference signal, Hansen and many others thereafter were incorrect in assuming that feedback responded only to the 3% of the reference signal represented by natural and anthropogenic reference sensitivities. They were wrong to assume that, therefore, based on the data for 1850, there would be 4 K equilibrium sensitivity in response to 1 K directly-forced warming by doubled CO2.

Several of our co-authors are control theorists of more than usual integrity as well as competence. To them it is no less natural to express the system-gain factor as the ratio of the entire equilibrium signal to the entire reference signal as it is to Mr Stokes to express it as the ratio of perturbations only. In the climate, precisely because the base signal is so very large as a fraction of the entire reference signal, it cannot be ignored in the manner in which climatologists have ignored it.

Once it is realized that the Sun is indeed shining, it must also be realized that even a very small change in the feedback regime might cause a very large change in equilibrium sensitivity. For this reason, making predictions based on feedback strengths diagnosed from models’ outputs cannot constrain equilibrium sensitivities reliably, since the entire interval absolute system-gain factors falls well within the envelope of uncertainty in published feedback strengths. There is, therefore, no legitimate scientific basis for the current predictions of “climate emergency” based on the models’ outputs.

Don
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 9:19 pm

Nobody would write a climate sensitivity model assuming the Sun wasn’t shining. Can you show me a climate model that assumes the Sun not not shining?

If you want to compare the effect of climate forcing at various times you need to know the temperature at that time since equal forcing’s will produce different direct temperature changes. Knowing the temperature assumes the Sun is shining.

Derg
Reply to  Don
October 5, 2022 12:50 am

Try reading his post again.

Reply to  Don
October 5, 2022 1:49 pm

nobody write sensitivity models. ecs is an emergent property. its observed

Reply to  Don
October 6, 2022 9:32 am

In reply to Don, the original basis for the notion of a 4 K midrange ECS was the notion that the system-gain factor at the temperature equilibrium in 1850 was the ratio of the 32 K total natural greenhouse effect to the 8 K reference sensitivity to preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

In reality, at the 1850 equilibrium the correct ratio was not 32 / 8: it was (260 + 32) / (260 + 8), or about 1.1.

Climatologists had indeed forgotten the Sun was shining. For it is the Sun that drives the emission temperature whose feedback response they had implicitly set at zero.

Don
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 9:15 pm

Perhaps we differ on the definition of feedback. The literature I am familiar with defines feedback as the result of the heating caused by the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, but it does not include the temperature rise directly caused by the GHE. The GHE process includes CO2 returning energy to the surface which then transfers heat to the atmosphere until the TOA heats to the temperature at which radiation to space increases enough to bring the system back into equilibrium. That additional heating is the input.

The feedback is what happens next resulting from such things as change in cloud cover, reflectivity, melted permafrost etc. The feedback from these items obviously requires the Sun to be shining. This feedback theoretically could be infinite.

Does everybody here define feedback differently?

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 5, 2022 1:48 pm

Hansen and many others thereafter were incorrect in assuming that feedback responded only to the 3% of the reference signal represented by natural and anthropogenic reference sensitivities. They were wrong to assume that, therefore, based on the data for 1850, there would be 4 K equilibrium sensitivity in response to 1 K directly-forced warming by doubled CO2.

nobody uses feedback analysis to estimate ecs. its estimated from observations

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 9:35 am

Mr Mosher seems content to continue to advertise his bottomless ignorance. In the real world, every feedback-moderated dynamical system, including the climate, must comply with the laws of control theory, which, like the laws of thermodynamics, are not up for repeal anytime soon.

Therefore, it does not matter whether climatologists derive their guesses at ECS from tea-leaves or Vegas roulette wheels. We may use feedback analysis to investigate their predictions; and when that analysis is applied it is clear that all their predictions of ECS are no better than mere guesswork, for the reasons adumbrated in the head posting.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 5:53 am

If V=0 then how do you get anything out of the amplifier?

If V is not equal to 0 then where is the power supply coming from? It can’t be both Vin and V since there would be no voltage between the collector and base of the transistor.

The biosphere is *NOT* a transistor amplifier. Trying to turn it into one is useless.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 11:59 am

As said, the voltages marked on the diagram are AC voltages. V=0 at the top power supply rail means the voltage is constant. V=0 at the base reflects the very low input impedance. Of course it still varies a little, but for the feedback calculation can be taken as constant.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:43 pm

AC voltages? What in the biosphere is an AC voltage? And you show V = 0 at the top of the diagram before R1.Since when is the power supply to a dc amp an AC VOLTAGE?

V=0 does NOT* mean the voltage is constant. If you had said ΔV = 0 then you would be describing a constant voltage. But if ΔV = 0 then what is being acted upon?

Question 1: When Vin goes up what does Vout do? Assume no feedback.

Questino 2: When Vin goes up what does Vout do? Assume Rf is in the circuit. What does Rf cause Vout to do?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 2:58 pm

He won’t answer—he’ll post and run, again.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 3:30 pm

I have spelt it out with words. But OK, here is an extended diagram. Signal (AC) voltages are in black. The DC (operating point) voltages are in red.

comment image

V=0 at the base is of course an approximation, justified by the low input impedance. If Vin rises, base current rises, collector current rises, and Vout comes down. With Rf in place, that then reduces the base current, diminishing the extent to which Vout comes down. That is why Rf provides a negative feedback.

The gain, and feedback, relates to the ratios of these increments. It has nothing to do with ratios of the DC voltages, as Lord M would have it.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 4:21 pm

Oh, malarky! Where in the biosphere does the V=10 power supply exist? How does it relate to Vin?

Negative feedback. If you think this circuit explains the greenhouse theory then you need to explain how negative feedback can INCREASE output, i.e. raise the temperature of the surface!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:14 pm

The power supply is the 240 W/m2 of sunlight that is converted to IR. The input signal is the variation in GHG impedance.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 5:27 pm

ROFL!! So the input signal is a varying base resistance?

Like I said, when you are in a hole, stop digging!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 9:41 am

Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong, and particularly so when one considers that very nearly all feedback response in the climate system is feedback response to emission temperature, for the good and sufficient reason that emission temperature, the base signal, represents 97% of the entire reference signal.

Since feedback response to the 3% of the entire reference signal is, at any given moment, 3% of the entire feedback response at that moment, ECS based on data for 1850 was about 1.1 K. The arithmetic is shown in the head posting.

However, even a minuscule change in the feedback regime between 1850 and the present would greatly alter ECS, because any such change must be applied to the entire reference signal, including emission temperature.

For this reason, ECS is simply not constrainable by any general-circulation model, for the uncertainties in feedback strength are far too great. There is no getting around that.

James B.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 6:14 am

If the voltage across the transistor base is 0, the transistor is off.

Reply to  James B.
October 4, 2022 1:41 pm

As I said, that is the AC voltage. The DC bias voltage must be about 0.6V (for silicon NPN).

But again, this just shows the folly of Lord M’s using the ratio of DC output/DC input at the measure of gain. If you do that using 0.6V, the ratio is 5/0.6. But you can just as well regard the positive supply rail as earth. Then the ratio is (-5)/(-9.6), a very different figure. Ratios of these aspects of the resting state have no relation to gain, and nor does Lord M’s ratio of state temperatures.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:25 pm

Your strawman is still burning bright in the night sky, Stokes.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:55 pm

You have shown an amplifier with negative feedback. Is that what you *really* want to try and show? That would mean the sensitivity to CO2 is negative, not positive!

This is just one more indication that trying to use a simple transistor circuit to explain what is going on in the atmosphere is useless.

In your circuit the summing node is the base of the transistor. The transistor responds to Vin + Vf. It doesn’t just respond to Vf. That’s all Monckton is trying to show. And which you keep trying to deny using all kinds of rationalizations which make no sense.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 3:09 pm

Exactly what the (+) nodes indicate! Born also doesn’t understand this.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 6, 2022 9:45 am

I am most grateful to the Gormans and to Monte Carlo for their assistance. These discussions have served to illustrate the increasingly desperate and unhinged irrationality of those who are paid, many of them, to support the anti-Western Party Line on the climate question. Some prosecutions for treason will be in order in due course. I have a little list, I have a little list, they’ll none of them be missed.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 10:44 am

Thank you for the mention.

Personally, I don’t think feedback correctly describes what happens in the sun-earh surface-atmosphere. I think heat transfer via conduction, convection, and radiation is most appropriate. Since climate science promotes CO2 absorption/emmitance via radiation, then addressing heat transfer by radiation is needed. There is no better reference for this than Max Planck’s thesis. It is difficult slogging due to the math, but it also has never been refuted.

However, your analysis of the misapplication of Bode feedback is on point. If one is going to use feedback as a cause, then it is appropriate to use it correctly.

The problems are numerous. Stokes doesn’t realize that his circuit uses the sun (VCC) to create an operating point which is what you are proposing. As MC says, this becomes a summing point for both the sun and all feedbacks.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 11:53 am

Very glad to help.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 4:09 pm

This is just one more indication that trying to use a simple transistor circuit to explain what is going on in the atmosphere is useless.”

It is Lord M who uses circuits and control theory to try to explain what is going on in the atmosphere. I use them to show what is wrong with his understanding of the theory. And here I use a simple negative feedback circuit to show the wrongness of trying to infer gain (or feedback) from the simple ratios of operating point quantities. Not to prove anything about the atmosphere.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 4:36 pm

And now you are just propping up your errors with lies.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 4:48 pm

ROFL!! Who did it first? Lord M or Hansen?

Again, operating points *HAVE* to infer gain (or loss). The output power *has* to be greater than the input power for it to be an amplifier. Thus *something* has to increase, Vout>Vin or Iout>Iin.

That increase *is* defined in the operating points. It might make more sense if you consider a vacuum tube. If the plate voltage isn’t greater than the grid voltage then how do the electrons get past the grid to the plate? If the cathode is at a higher voltage than the plate what happens to the electrons being emitted? Do they get to the plate? Or do they just form a cloud around the cathode?

The physics of a transistor are different than a vacuum tube but the same logic applies. It is the operating points that define the gain. The operating points are set so that the collector-emitter voltage swing is greater than the base voltage swing for small-signals. If that wasn’t the case then you wouldn’t have an amplifier. If you tied the collector directly to the power supply and the emitter to the opposite polarity of the power supply how much gain would you get from the transistor? Go read up on Class A vs Class B transistor amplifiers. It is the *operating point* of the transistor that determines the operating class. And the operating class determines all kinds of things like distortion and efficiency. Ever hear of a Class D amplifier?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:10 pm

Who did it first? Lord M or Hansen?”
Well, it wasn’t me. And it wasn’t Hansen either. You won’t find a circuit anywhere in his writings.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 5, 2022 7:33 pm

i think it starts here

Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen, and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, 130-163.Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen, and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, 130-163.

which references

Bode H, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design, 1945 assumption of external power supply and active gain, 31 section 3.2 gain equation, 32 equation 3-3 real definition of sensitivity, 52-57 (sensitivity of gain to component drift) effects of consuming input power, 56, section 4.10 impedance assumptions, 66-71, section 5.2 – 5.6 a passive circuit is always stable, 108 definition of input (forcing) 31 

followed up by

M. E. Schlesinger (ed.), Physically-Based Modeling and Simulations of Climate and Climatic Change – Part II, 653-735, 1988 Michael E. Schlesinger. Physically-based Modeling and Simulation of Climate and Climatic Change (NATO Advanced Study Institute on Physical-Based Modelling ed.). Springer. p. 627. ISBN 90-277- 2789-9, 1988

found this checking the good lord for plagarism

http://www.palisad.com/co2/feedback.pdf

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 9:49 am

The useless Mosher, increasingly desperate as he sees the climate-Communist house of cards toppling, now tries to suggest I have perpetrated plagiarism. However, our paper cites those upon which our argument relies, including the deeply misguided and woefully ignorant papers by Hansen and by Schlesinger. To cite such papers is not plagiarism, though Mr Mosher, who seems to have very little knowledge of the physical sciences or of the norms of scientific publication, perhaps does not know this.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 5, 2022 7:38 pm

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf

he mentions using bode writings in analyzing not representing the system.

huge difference

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 8:31 am

Word salad argument!

If Bode is used to ANALYZE the system, then BODE must also represent the system interactions.

Us EE’s learn how to analyze a “black box” by inputting a step function and analyzing the output to determine the transfer function INCLUDING feedback.

Too bad climate science can’t determine a transfer function based on the sun’s insolation beginning each morning at sunrise for all individual places on the globe and then combine them.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 9:51 am

If Mr Mosher were to get his kindgarten mistress to read our own writings on this subject, we have made it plain that we too use feedback analysis not so much to generate estimates of ECS as to investigate the plausibility of the official ECS guesses. The difference is that we use control theory correctly.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 9:47 am

Mr Stokes is being silly. Hansen expressly appeals to feedback formulism in his silly paper of 1984 (an appropriate year). One of the many control theorists we have consulted, who has four degrees in the subject, has said he would never have passed that paper for peer review.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 9:46 am

Mr Stokes is wrong.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 9:43 am

Mr Stokes continues wilfully to confuse the issue. The problem with the climate system is that the base signal is so very large a fraction (97%) of the entire reference signal. For this reason, constraint of ECS by current methodologies is no better than guesswork.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 6:16 am

Nick clearly knows sweet stuff all about electronics as well as physics .. V = 0 is impossible.

Current runs thru R1 then the Rf and then thru the base-emitter junction and the lowest voltage possible is Vbe on the circuit shown

The f in Rf stands for feedback which is positive in this example … just a FYI.

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Reply to  LdB
October 4, 2022 11:54 am

You don’t read. The voltages marked are the signal voltages. V=0 (almost) at the base is a consequence of the low input impedance. But as I said, the DC voltage there must be about 0.6 V (Vbe)

.The feedback is negative; the grounded emitter transistor is an inverting amplifier.

The circuit comes from here, where the gain is calculated.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 12:07 pm

How many transistors are inside an LM741 DIP, Stokes?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 4, 2022 2:56 pm

I sincerely doubt if he even cares.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 3:09 pm

Nope…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:56 pm

If the feedback is negative then does that mean the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere is negative as well?

Or are you just lost in the weeds like usual?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 7:48 am

So a single-transistor amplifier is the only circuit available in your repertoire, Stokes?

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 4, 2022 2:24 pm

It is quite enough to show the difference between signal and state variables. And to show the nonsense of picking out ratios of operating point quantities and interpreting them as gain.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 2:56 pm

And to show the nonsense of picking out ratios of operating point quantities and interpreting them as gain.

Total strawman, Stokes, CMoB’s work does not use the mathematics of single-transistor amplifiers.

The question from which you ran away in a fast and furious fashion:

How many transistors are inside an LM741 DIP, Stokes?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 4:14 pm

Give it up, please! System gain is Output/Input – A RATIO!

If the operating points are not related to gain then what *are* they related to? If Vin isn’t less than Vout then what do you have? If Iin isn’t less than Iout then what do you have? You *must* have operating points that demonstrate gain in order to have an *amplifier*. In an electrical circuit you *need* to consider power in and power out because of input/output impedances.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 4:59 pm

“System gain is Output/Input – A RATIO!”

Yes, if it is a ratio of increments. But not of absolute voltages. That should never be done. A reason is that voltages are always relative to something, and there is no unique something that they should be relative to.

My circuit shows that. Input DC is an 0.6V, output at 5V. Ratio 5/0.6=8.33
But those voltages are by convention relative to the negative supply rail. You could equally use the positive rail:
Input -9.4V, output -5V, Ratio 5/9.4=0.53
Same circuit, two very different answers.

Taking ratios of temperatures, as in Lord M’s gain=E1/R1= 287/267 is also almost always wrong. Again the result depends on what the temperature is relative to. C or F? It’s true that K does have a thermodynamic zero, but it is way beyond anything you get in climate. And including it in a gain calculation ignores that long before you get there, gases have liquefied etc.

But that is just a symptom; the basic wrongness is the understanding of signal vs operating point.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 5:23 pm
  1. You *have* to use kelvin for thermodynamics. Nothing else gives the right answer.
  2. You are lost in the weeds concerning amplifiers. If you flip from an npn to a pnp you would have -0.6 vs -5, the same ratio. You must calculate from the ground rail, be it positive or negative.

When you are in a hole, stop digging!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:41 pm

 If you flip from an npn to a pnp you would have -0.6 vs -5, the same ratio.”

You are big on making up rules to fit the occasion. But I don’t think many would follow that one. You would switch the earth convention because you have a grounded emitter PNP somewhere in the circuit? What if you have a NPN stage followed by a PNP stage, both grounded emitters?

But whatever, these are conventions. If changing convention gives differing answers for something that should not depend on convention, like gain, than something is wrong.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 5, 2022 3:47 am

Nick,

You are lost in the weeds, man. You come up with some method of calculating gain which shows an amplifier is actually a loss element. They you speak of combining npn and pnp transistors without a clue that such arrangements exist, e.g. using a pnp stage as a gain control for an npn amplifier. You *still* calculate the gain of the amplifier in the normal way. You can’t even address how the different classes of amplifier work – which is determined by their operating points – such as a Class B which is one more example of using an npn and pnp transistor to form an audio amplifier.

You are trying to teach an old electrical engineer how to suck eggs. You know enough to be dangerous. And I know more about electrical stuff than you ever will.

You’re in a hole. Stop digging.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 4:06 pm

 You come up with some method of calculating gain which shows an amplifier is actually a loss element. “

It isn’t my method. It is yours and Lord M’s. Divide the output DC voltage by the input DC. The main objection is that this is not gain. But an illustration of the absurdity is that the base (zero) to which voltages are measured is arbitrary. And you can, by your method, get any gain you like by changing base, including loss.

“They you speak of combining npn and pnp transistors without a clue that such arrangements exist”

Of course I know such arrangements exist; that’s why I raised it. You made up a rule that the voltage base changes from one supply rail to another if the transistor is PNP. To show this is nonsense, I asked what your rule is if there are two different stages. No answer.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 5, 2022 4:30 pm

Oh, MALARKY!

This is all BS. You claim operating point doesn’t determine amplifier response. Meaning you obviously don’t know anything about Classes of amplifiers. The fact that you can’t even address a question about them stands as mute proof you actually know nothing.

You are trying to baffle everyone with BS. It’s not working.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 10:07 am

Mr Stokes continues pointlessly to push the feedback-circuit analogy beyond the point of breakdown, apparently in the vain hope of obfuscating the issue. However, more and more readers of this column have come to realize that he is not an honest broker here, and that he is spectacularly ignorant both of climatology and of control theory, otherwise he would not write as he does.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 11:58 am

Absolutely correct, he’s got his strawman all set up and isn’t going tear him down.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 10:06 am

Mr Stokes should understand that a feedback-amplifier circuit is an analogy. It is the characteristic of any analogy that, ex definitione, it will break down at some point, for otherwise it would not be an analogy but an identity.

The climate is not an electronic circuit: but, since control theory applies to every dynamical system moderated by feedback, its principles apply no less to the climate than to an electronic circuit.

One of those principles is that, if the base signal (emission temperature in the climate) exceeds the reference signal (reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases) by orders of magnitude, one cannot predict how the output signal may change over time as the feedback regime changes unless one is able to constrain the feedback strength to a precision that is wholly unattainable in climate.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 10:01 am

Mr Stokes is showing himself to be more than usually accident-prone. In climatology, temperatures are measured in Kelvin, the measure of absolute temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not work correctly except in Kelvin, for the relevant constant is set by reference to Kelvin.

And twattling on about thermodynamic zero not being close to any real climatic condition is way off the point. For, as I have explained many times, the feedback processes that subsist at any moment in the climate must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the total reference temperature then obtaining, without distinction between a Kelvin of emission temperature and a Kelvin of reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, and the feedback processes, being inanimate, cannot and do not distinguish between one Kelvin and another at any given moment. They respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature then subsisting.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 12:38 pm

A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, and the feedback processes, being inanimate, cannot and do not distinguish between one Kelvin and another at any given moment.”

This is one of the most telling arguments in your thesis. Once the input signal and the feedback signal are summed there is no way to distinguish between them. The summing node does not tag each one with a different identification. Even the most simple of dimensional analysis verifies this conclusion. The dimensions of both signals are exactly the same both before and after the summing.

I would also point out that if Hansen referred to Bode’s work to drive his feedback analysis then he didn’t understand Bode’s work at all. Without a power supply to provide energy providing amplification, i.e. u > 0, there can be no feedback.

Assume Er/Eo = 1, i.e. no gain. This implies a short circuit between the input and output and no passive network can provide any feedback since its impedance would be higher than 0, the short circuit between Eo and Er. So Er will equal Eo always and everywhere.

What did Hansen describe as the gain element? I can’t quite figure that one out. It can’t be just CO2 because CO2 appears to provide just about the same amount of cooling as it does warming. Nor can it be just water vapor for the same reason. Thus their net feedback is effectively zero.

What they do provide is insulation just like the cellulose or fiberglass insulation in the attic of your house. Insulation doesn’t provide feedback, per se, it just changes the thermal gradient between the interior and the exterior.

If the rate of heat loss is given by Fourier’s law as

q = -kA(dt/dL) where L is the perpendicular distance of travel.

Then increased CO2 and water vapor increases the effective distance the heat must travel which reduces the transmission of heat.

This is for the conduction/convection terms of heat loss. However, radiant heat loss is not significantly different. The transiting material can not provide “gain” since there is no external power source to provide it but it *can* reduce the rate of heat transmission. Over time this will tend to raise the minimum temperature involved which affects any average associated with it.

Since many temperature stations since 1980 have recorded temperature at 2 minute intervals you should be able to track this change in the rate of heat loss by analyzing the exponential decay of temperature at night. This would give you thirty years worth of data that could be used to determine if the rate of heat loss has changed. If it has then more research would be needed to determine the actual causes and the contribution of each. If it has not then the whole climate science edifice needs to be examined.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2022 9:56 am

It is Mr Stokes who, as usual, is peddling nonsense. He is well out of his depth here. In 1850, for instance, the reference signal was the 267.1 K sum of the 259.6 K base signal, emission temperature, plus the 7.5 K perturbation signal, reference sensitivity to the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases. However, the equilibrium temperature that year was 287.5 K. The ratio 1.0764 of the equilibrium to reference temperatures fully accounts for the entire influence of feedback on the system, and it is childish to continue to try to suggest otherwise.

Robert B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 5:25 pm

I’m confused. Is energy dissipated when GTA oscillates?

Last edited 2 months ago by Robert B
Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
October 4, 2022 7:10 pm

The temperature of the Earth is postulated to go up so that output doesn’t drop. So you calculate a feedback that is the extra energy bouncing around the system, and that extra Q gives you the increase in temperature. Surely this is taking an analogy with an amplifier, where the output depends on an oscillating voltage, too far?

At least Monkton does a proper job for a back of envelope. How much water vapour and clouds were in the atmosphere depended on temperature at the beginning of the IR as much as it does now. Any analogy with an amplifier to argue otherwise is stupid.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 7:57 pm

he ever-partisan Mr Stokes is, as usual, wrong.

look mom thats a personal attack and arguement by assertion!

the good lords errors always come in twos.

Derg
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 5, 2022 12:56 am

Oh look…Mosh can’t understand

Reply to  Derg
October 6, 2022 10:09 am

Mosh won’t understand, just as Stokes won’t tell the truth.

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 10:09 am

Mr Mosher, as usual, quotes me out of context. I explained why the partisan Mr Stokes, who is paid to disrupt these threads but does not disclose that fact, is wrong. Therefore, there is no argumentum ad hominem, and the assertion that Mr Stokes is wrong is amply and repeatedly proven.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 12:04 pm

I noticed that in the thread below your reply to Roy Spencer, Stokes was advocating science-by-consensus when he claimed Pat Frank’s paper was invalid due to not having a sufficient number of citations to please the Almighty Nitpick Nick Stokes.

Lit
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 5:11 am

Cold air provides no amplification in the temperature of hot solids.

Do you know how an air-cooled engine works? The atmosphere cools the engine by absorbing the heat from the surface of the cylinder. Sounds familiar? That cold air absorbs heat from a surface?

So, why would the atmosphere have the OPPOSITE effect on the surface itself, compared to all hot objects that exists ON the surface?

Cold air cools. Kids know this, but you don´t.

Reply to  Lit
October 4, 2022 9:44 am

” the atmosphere have the OPPOSITE effect on the surface itself, compared to all hot objects that exists ON the surface?”

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily water vapor, impede Earth’s ability to cool itself with upwelling infrared radiation. The atmosphere’s greenhouse gases do not “heat” the surface — they prevent some surface heat from escaping into the infinite heat sink or space.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2022 12:30 pm

I’m not sure everyone around here agrees with that. It is said that greenhouse gases radiate downward and those photons are just as capable of heating as any other downward photons flying down with them – even if they strike an object already warmer than the gas that radiated the photon.

The argument has often been made on this site that, just because a relatively cold item cannot heat a warmer item overall, that doesn’t mean some heat doesn’t travel from colder items to hotter items.

If a billionaire and a millionaire decide to give 1% of their wealth to the other person, the millionaire will end up richer after the exchange and the billionaire will end up poorer. But the billionaire will, in fact, receive income from the millionaire. Each will BOTH end up with something more than 99% of his original wealth, though they both gave away 1% of it.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
October 4, 2022 3:01 pm

Those downward photons are just replacing photons that have already been lost from the surface by going upwards.

They don’t “add* to the total heat of the surface, they just change the gradient of the heat exchange. You can’t stop the surface from cooling, that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. The surface cools even during the day, not just at night. As the sun drives its temperature up it radiates more intensely, it doesn’t stop radiating just because the sun is above the horizon.

Don
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 9:27 pm

The photons returning to the surface reduce the net heat flow from the surface, hence the surface warms.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Don
October 5, 2022 8:37 am

No, the gradient changes. You may say that the surface is warmer than it would be without the colder radiation but you can’t say that it warms the already hot body.

Without the cold body, the hot body’s gradient may be -1° per second. With the cold body the gradient may change to -0.5° per second. But there is no way the cold body can turn the gradient of the hot body to a positive value.

Now as the hot body warms the cold body, there will come a time when the gradients become zero. That is known as equilibrium. From that, you can see that if the cold body could change the sign of the gradient to positive, you could never achieve equilibrium. Entropy would be violated, making that process not possible.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 6, 2022 1:22 pm

There is no such thing as colder radiation, the excited CO2 vibrational temperature is higher than the surface. The excited CO2 molecule will lose energy either by radiation or by collisional deactivation with surrounding molecules. Either way it warms its surroundings.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 6, 2022 4:41 pm

Sorry, but there is such a thing as colder radiation. Bodies radiate power based upon their temperature. The lower the temperature, the less the power radiated. Power = σT^4. The colder body means there is less power in the emitted in the EM wave and a reduction in the number of photons that are “carried” by that EM wave. As explained several times, a hot body can absorb power (energy) from a cold body, but it doesn’t change the amount of radiation it is emitting. The hot body compensates by reducing its cooling gradient.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 7, 2022 3:42 pm

We’re not talking about emission from ‘bodies’ we’re talking about emission from ‘gas molecules’, a subject you apparently know nothing about. Excited CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are excited from their ground state to the first excited state of the bending mode, which means they are ~8kJ/mole above unexcited molecules in the atmosphere. That is, their vibrational temperature is above the temperature of surrounding molecules. This excess energy is lost to their surroundings by either radiation (the emission of a single photon), or collisional deactivation by surrounding molecules (thereby raising the temperature of those molecules).

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 7, 2022 4:35 pm

I hate to tell you but MOLECULES radiate based upon their temperature.

If the absorption/emission didn’t depend on temperature there would not be a lapse rate and CO2 at altitude would radiate at the same power as those next to the surface.

You’ll notice I said nothing about thermalization resulting from collisions. That has nothing to do with radiation.

Here is some info from a paper.

https://climateauditor.com/co2-infrared-absorption/

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 7, 2022 7:21 pm

No, gas molecules radiate based on their internal energy which in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere depends on its rotational and vibrational energy. Again you indicate that you know nothing about the subject. Yes, a vibrationally excited CO2 molecule at altitude will indeed radiate at exactly the same power as one near the surface. That paper you referenced is junk I suggest you read a real text book. It is based on the nonsense that the only source that emits at 667cm-1 must be at -80ºC which is garbage!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 8, 2022 6:33 am

So you don’t believe that S-B or Planck’s derivation of temperature relationship to emission power is correct? You might explain how your assertion dovetails with those.

Also, the paper you call “junk” was written by a professor utilizing the HITRAN information. I’m sure you are in a good position to explain why it is “junk”. Simple assertions like that mean little without backup.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 8, 2022 9:46 am

“So you don’t believe that S-B or Planck’s derivation of temperature relationship to emission power is correct? You might explain how your assertion dovetails with those.”

Because they don’t apply to the emission of gaseous molecules in their excited states. The emission of which depends on the internal energy not the translational temperature and in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere on the vibrational temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann describes the power radiated from a black body, gas molecules are not black bodies! Planck’s law also applies to black bodies, not gas molecules.

“Also, the paper you call “junk” was written by a professor utilizing the HITRAN information. I’m sure you are in a good position to explain why it is “junk”. Simple assertions like that mean little without backup.”

Nothing wrong with the HITRAN data, however the statement:
“The source temperatures that radiate at the CO2 absorption peaks are:
a.     193.5̊K, ie. -79.5̊C,
b.     685̊K, ie. 412̊C,
c.     1080̊K, ie. 807̊C, and
d.     1446̊K, ie. 1173̊C.
Since 99.83% of the photons that may be absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 molecules will be from the 15 micron absorption band and these represent radiation from a source at 193.5̊K,”
indicates that the author doesn’t have a clue about S-B law.
What is meant is that a black body at a temperature of -79.5ºC has its peak emission at 667cm-1, not that that’s the only source of that frequency. In fact a black body emits a continuum of radiation and a black body at 300K will emit much more radiation at 667cm-1 than one at -79.5ºC!
comment image

In fact using the range quoted in that ‘paper’ a bb will emit
4.4W/m2/sr at -79.5ºC compared with 26.9W/m2/sr at 300K, which is more than 5x as much!
I strongly doubt whether it was written by a professor but it is indeed junk. I’ve explained numerous times before on here why such a statement is junk.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 9, 2022 10:35 am

Then read this site.

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer – PMC (nih.gov)

Notice sections 2.1 & 2.2 and others. They discuss the absorption coefficients and heat equations of the atmosphere. You will notice that temperature is a prominent term.

In addition, from Planck’s book The Theory of Heat Radiation:

“47. The law holding for the quantity (42) can be expressed in a different form, by introducing, by means of (24), the volume density uν of monochromatic radiation instead of the intensity of radiation. We then obtain the law that, for radiation in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the quantity

u(sub v)q^3

is a function of the temperature T and the frequency ν, and is the same for all substances.11 This law becomes clearer if we consider that the quantity

u(sub v) dv q^3/v^3

also is a universal function of T , ν, and ν + dν, and that the product uν dν is, according to (22), the volume density of the radiation whose frequency lies between ν and ν +dν, while the quotient represents the wave length of a ray of frequency ν in the medium in question. The law then takes the following simple form: When any bodies whatever are in thermodynamic equilibrium, the energy of monochromatic radiation of a definite frequency, contained in a cubical element of side equal to the wave length, is the same for all bodies.”

Max Planck. The Theory of Heat Radiation by Max Planck (pp. 50-51). Prabhat Prakashan. Kindle Edition. 

Notice that temperature is a very dependent value for determining radiation quantity. It applies not only to volumes, but also the independent quantities making up that volume. Consequently, each similar molecule in a volume must radiate similarly.

Your insistence that a CO2 molecule only absorbs and emits a single photon with a unique energy signature regardless of its temperature is just not the case.

Again, if temperature did not matter, then CO2 at the top of the atmosphere would be radiating the same amount as CO2 at the surface. I have never seen that claimed, in fact, just the opposite.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 9, 2022 2:52 pm

Again you fail to realize that you’re talking about different things, CO2 molecules are not black bodies! Planck is referring to black bodies not molecular spectra. The NIH paper you link to is talking about the absorption bands in the atmosphere, not black bodies, the influence of temperature is to broaden those bands. A CO2 molecule absorbs in a narrow band of wavelengths centered about a single vibrational energy with a range of rotational fine structure. In the atmosphere the absorption band is centered on 667cm-1. As I said before an excited CO2 molecule will radiate a photon of the same energy whether it’s at the top or bottom of the atmosphere. Here’s the CO2 spectrum for you, the only effect of temperature is to broaden the fine structure of the bands.

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1

Transmittance at surface:
rte-lbl-1013mb-1meter-600-750.png
Transmittance at tropopause:
rte-lbl-200mb-216k-3-7meter-600-750.png

Don
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 7, 2022 5:58 am

I understand your argument, but you are, to maintain the theme, ignoring the sunshine. The surface is constantly being heated to some temperature by some external source. The body in equilibrium with that source is radiating an equal amount of energy. If I now add additional energy from the returning photons the body will increase its temperature until it once again obtains temperature equilibrium.

Discussing hot bodies and cold bodies is misleading for this scenario. A 15 micron photon has energy 2.20 x 10^-26 w sec leaving a body or arriving at a body regardless of the temperature of the source.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Don
October 7, 2022 9:16 am

 If I now add additional energy from the returning photons the body will increase its temperature until it once again obtains temperature equilibrium.”

The receiving body had to heat first before it could send anything back. That heat added to the second body comes from the first body which then cooled from the loss of heat. If *all* the energy from the first body was returned it would only return to its original temperature.

Think carefully about the words “additional energy”. Where did the “additional energy come from?

Don
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 7, 2022 1:23 pm

If we are talking about the GHE then the receiving body does not have to be heated by incoming radiation before it sends back the incoming radiation.. In fact the atmosphere is not heated by the IR radiation, it is heated by convection and conduction from the surface.

But you have been talking about the surface as a closed system. Energy radiated from the hot surface that later returns cannot increase the temperature of the surface you say. I only pointed out that the hot surface is hot because there is a source heating it with witch it is presumably in thermal equilibrium. In that case adding the returning previously radiated energy will raise the surface temperature.

The total energy consists of the energy from the sun heating the hot body, the IR energy radiated by the hot body, and a portion of the energy radiated by the hot body returned to the surface. No other energy is involved.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Don
October 7, 2022 3:27 pm

While that source is heating body 1, body 1 is also radiating heat away. It is not returned radiation that heats body 1 beyond where it started, it is the other source of heat.

It’s why the temperature of the earth doesn’t go up at night!

It’s still getting returned energy from the atmosphere so why doesn’t it’s temperature go up?

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 6:27 am

But, the argument goes, they were already lost to the surface. The surface cooled because of the outgoing photons. Now some photons return a second time. They mingle among the other photons striking the surface, doing what photons do. They aren’t too tired from their first trip, nor are they on strike, thinking “I’ve already done my warming”. The surface doesn’t say, “I’ve already received warmth from you, I’m not receiving any more.”

The surface of the earth is warmed as it is struck by photons. Why does it matter where that photon originated from? I’m not creating a perpetual motion machine; I’m warming the surface of the planet. I live on the surface. I’m very interested in the temps around me. Am I interested in the temperature at 10,000 feet? Not so much.

I get it, I need to be concerned somewhat about temps aloft, because the earth is a whole and complex system. But, for the most part, I’m interested in the surface temp and that is heated by photons raining down from above. I really don’t care what fired them at me, I’m just thankful for them.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
October 5, 2022 1:16 pm

The surface of the earth is warmed as it is struck by photons. Why does it matter where that photon originated from? “

It doesn’t matter. What matters is what happens over time. Using an average aggregate hides what actually happens.

If the earth loses Photon1 then it cools. If Photon1 is intercepted by CO2 and sent back then the earth doesn’t get “warmer” than it was, at most it can only return to the previous temperature. Since some of those intercepted photons actually do escape, there aren’t enough coming back to warm the earth back to where it was to begin with.

New photons from the sun *can* warm the earth, it happens every day. There are enough of those photons from the sun to make up for what the earth loses to space plus additional more. At night, however, there isn’t a source replacing the photons being lost and the earth cools. All the “back radiation” can do is modify the rate of cooling.

This is all quite complicated. If CO2 at height X100 intercepts a photon from earth and radiates it back why isn’t that “back photon” intercepted by the CO2 from X0 to X99 and radiated back toward space?

It all needs to be integrated over time as a time dependent gradient of some kind. CO2 isn’t an infinitely thin mirror somewhere in the atmosphere letting some photons pass while reflecting others back. But that seems to be how climate scientists look at it.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Lit
October 4, 2022 1:33 pm

Indeed. Not to detract anything from the monumental amount of effort that Lord Monckton et. al. have put into this analysis, nevertheless I think they are arguing the wrong point entirely. (Notwithstanding that anything that shoots holes in the CAGW theory, as admitted by CAGW proponents themselves, is to be commended.) But I think official climatology went off the rails long before they got to trying to calculate feedbacks. Somewhere around here, in fact: “The forcings to 1850, therefore, work out at 25.3 Watts per square meter.” No they don’t! There is no downward “forcing” (in the sense of power from radiation) at night time, i.e. from the atmosphere as opposed to from the sun. And since that is fictional, the rest constitutes either counting the angels on the head of a pin, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, ’cause that ship is sinking fast… actually it sank decades ago, but not everyone got the memo…

(I would not try to tell Lord Monckton how to spend his time, but for my money, the best bet would be to start with the most fundamental error, and work upwards from there… no point worrying about the crenellations on the towers, or the chains on the drawbridge, when the foundation is made of sand)

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
October 4, 2022 1:39 pm

Radiative forcing exists, and is not realistically impugnable. However, climatology’s feedback analysis is demonstrably incorrect. And it is that feedback analysis that, in the current misguided understanding, accounts for between three-quarters and nine-tenths of all predicted global warming. Where, then, should one concentrate one’s effort? On the direct forcings, which are not provably wrong, or on the feedback responses, which are very likely to have been grossly exaggerated?

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 5, 2022 2:27 pm

Well, it’s difficult to predict how to get the most bang for one’s analysis buck when faced with a corrupt establishment. However, I would disagree that “radiative forcing exists, and is not realistically impugnable”. Downwelling radiation (as longwave IR from the atmosphere) exists, yes, but is not measured in power units (Watts). This is as fundamental an error as you can get in thermodynamics. Yet official climatology insists on doing so anyway. Proving that they are incorrect to do this is very straightforward. And does not require constructing elaborate feedback test beds out of electronics either, not to say that that isn’t fun in itself. So, it seems to me that you would get a much bigger bang for your analysis buck by starting with the more fundamental error.

Ask yourself this question: what kind of fools would the official climatologists look like if they didn’t have their 350 W/m2 of atmospheric DWLWIR to stand on? Take their platform away…

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
October 6, 2022 10:15 am

Mr Schilling appears unaware that forcings are indeed measured in terms of radiative flux density: i.e., in Watts per square meter of the emitting surface, which is in the upper mid-troposphere.

Our approach is to accept all of official climatology, including the radiative forcings from the Sun and from greenhouse gases, except what we can prove to be wrong. We cannot prove the forcings to be wrong, but we can and do prove the feedback analysis that originally led to the prediction of large and dangerous rather than small and net-beneficial warming to have been incompatible with long-established control theory.

There is, in the present context, no point in trying to pretend that such forcings do not exist.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 8, 2022 2:22 pm

Well, as I said, I do think there is certainly value in pointing out as many flaws in official climatology as possible. No argument there.

But if you are referring to me instead of to Mr. Schilling, who is also contributing to this thread but independently of my line of reasoning, then I can respond that the only pretending is being done by the climatologists. They do a lot. Accepting their pretenses for the sake of argument is fine, but I do recommend being aware of the pretenses as you accept them. And I believe you could be a lot more effective by demolishing the pretenses rather than just accepting them at face value, and it would be a lot less work for you, to boot.

For instance, the term “forcing” is not a physics term – it was made up by climatologists in order to attract more grant money. They use it as a drunkard uses a lamp-post – for support rather than illumination.

“Force” is a physics term, but it refers to the ability to change another object’s momentum. Technically photons do apply force when they are absorbed, but that is not what the climatologists are talking about.

“Radiative flux density” is a sketchy term too, and one that climatologists would prefer you not to examine too closely with your physicist hat on. “Flux” is a term most commonly used for liquids or semi-liquids, or even electrons, when they flow according to a potential gradient. Radiation as realized in photons isn’t really analogous to anything that flows. It is a form of energy, basically a consequence of temperature (and measured in the same units). It can certainly travel from point A to point B, and do a lot of weird things in the middle, and it doesn’t matter as much as you’d think where points A and B are either, but: that occurrence must be kept entirely separate from the notion of power. So don’t be using Watts for this phenomenon at all. It is safer to think of it as a potential, even while it is in transit. Measure it in Kelvins and you won’t go wrong.

Of course radiation is indeed one way to move energy at a macroscopic scale from place to place, always from lower entropy to higher entropy, i.e. hotter objects to colder objects. That will result in work being done and power being developed. But that work and power can only occur while increasing entropy. Radiation can travel in more or less any direction, but not while doing work.

If you are referring to diagrams like Trenberth’s radiant energy flow diagrams, with radiation arrows all over the place labeled in W/m^2, those arrows are almost all imagined. Practically none of them are measured, other than at the surface and top of atmosphere. (Not too many people are quibbling about those ToA measurements, so I will leave them alone, although there is quite a bit of uncertainty there too.) But no one has measured any radiative Watts in the mid troposphere, at night, that’s for sure. If they did, they would get some very small numbers, and none of those numbers would be directly attributable to CO2, and they would all be negative numbers if looking upward (as energy makes its way from the surface back to cold molecules in space).

(Remember that a measurement involves using some sort of tool, like a ruler or a thermometer or a thermopile, to detect an intrinsic characteristic of some system, such as length, or temperature, or voltage.)

People have measured energy loss (cooling) at the surface at night, when isolated from conductive and convective loss, i.e. the radiative part only, and of course that will be primarily in the longwave infrared frequencies.

And these measurements (of voltage from a thermopile, which produces a voltage when subjected to a temperature differential, itself resulting from some sort of energy gain or loss, i.e. heating or cooling) show an energy transfer (heat loss) (“radiant greenhouse effect”) of between 0 and ~100 W/m^2, from the surface upward to the colder atmosphere, in accord with the laws of thermodynamics. (The difference depends on the humidity level, since water vapour inhibits radiative heat loss very effectively. We can learn a lot about the relative rate of energy loss via radiation vs. conduction and convection from this measurement, but that’s a separate discussion.)

However, that’s not what the climatologists tell us! They claim that there are 300 or so W/m^2 of downwelling longwave infrared power (I can’t even type that without cringing, the claim is so badly formulated) at the surface, at night, constantly. That is not a measurement, it is not physics, it is an imagination. It is entirely false. But the entire radiant greenhouse effect is based on this. So you could try pointing that out to them, and then watch them get all red-faced and huff and puff and try to defend their false physics with a mishmash of technical-sounding words that they don’t actually understand. Try it and see!

TL;DR: Power is not an intrinsic characteristic of electromagnetic radiation. But energy is (whether you measure it in electron-volts, Joules, or degrees). So in order to think about power, you first have to start with an entropy differential (possibly a temperature differential), and then you can think about the energy moving in one direction only, according to the laws of thermodynamics, and then think about the power developed that way.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 7:28 am

Looks like you still haven’t figured out how a basic non-inverting op amp circuit works yet, Nitpick.

Hint—no coupling capacitor.

JamesD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 8:07 am

So without feedback, and with the sun shining, you say the Earth should be at absolute zero. You confirm the Lord Monckton’s argument.

The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 8:16 am

Here again the feedback model is not understood. Nick has seen the error, but not quite explained it very well.Forget this “voltage” model, look at power transfer instead. Power transfer requires that something is not in a steady state, in an amplifier input power leads to output power x the circuit gain. In principle this has nothing to do with assumed voltages, and the additional output power due to gain can only come from the electrical power supply!

Where in the atmosphere is this power supply, allegedly we have already accounted for all the energy? The Green model above is erroneous, simply because there is NO power supply available to boost the steady state condition Rsub0.

In fact I have pointed this out a number of times in personal communications to the authors, but seeing the wood for the trees is I agree very difficult. Many of the system diagrams we have been shown get extra energy by false accounting, again there is no source for any additional energy from the feedback amplifier gain, so the outcome must be that the feedback effect does not exist, and therefore an atmospheric “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, certainly not due to gases anyway. Clouds and convection clearly do have a huge effect, often of many degrees, but this is not new energy, it is simply what we have already being partly prevented from escape to space!

The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
Reply to  The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
October 4, 2022 8:18 am

I should have also pointed out that Energy is expressed directly as power, but I am sure you knew that.

Reply to  The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
October 4, 2022 9:14 am

Since R0 is emission temperature, the Sun provides the temperature.

The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 5, 2022 12:31 am

Christopher, you are still seeing temperature in the wrong way. I see exactly why you attempt to make your argument in the way you do, but the problem is not really because of a “feedback” amplifier, which I suggested to you a number of years ago.
Perhaps I may restate the problem, which may clarify why: The sun provides a heat input H by radiation only. The Earth looses heat by several processes, many of which are complex and potentially chaotic. This is obvious from weather process which have the same characteristics, and are equally difficult to reduce to a simple picture, and cannot be done accurately.

The Earth loses some heat from the surface by radiation, into the cold sink provided by space. It loses more heat by convection flow of atmospheric gases. These gases cool as they rise, losing more heat to space. The gases are also heated by direct sunlight (sunheat actually) with wavelengths in the absorption bands, rise somewhat faster and lose heat to space, cooling, become less dense and falling back to collect more heat. Water does the same cycle, as water vapour, again moving heat to space. Essentially the system loses just as much heat as it gains overall, so temperatures are fairly stable on a global scale.

The question is simple, what proportion of these processes can be changed by a trace gas in the atmosphere? How is its energy transport mechanism different to all the other gases, including water vapour? The real answer is that they are not, it is all about energy transport, and nothing else. The Solar intensity also changes fairly radically in energy terms over long periods, but of course this is ignored as unhelpful too.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
October 5, 2022 6:59 am

You haven’t grasped the why for CMoB’s analysis, try reading it again.

Reply to  The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
October 6, 2022 10:17 am

“The Real Engineer” is entitled to his theories, but they have no bearing on our argument. We accept ad argumentum all of official climatology except what we can prove, and have proven, to be incorrect.

Reply to  The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
October 4, 2022 9:52 am

“therefore an atmospheric “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, certainly not due to gases anyway.’

That ‘no greenhouse effect’ claim implies that you are right and virtually every scientist in the world, include “skeptic” scientists, is wrong. I’m betting on the scientists. One of them discovered the greenhouse effect in the late 1800s, in a laboratory. You have some catch-up reading to do.

“Where in the atmosphere is this power supply”

The “power supply” for Earth’s climate is the sun. NASA claims incoming solar energy measured at the TOA has declined slightly since about 1960. The next question is whether a change in cloudiness has allowed more solar energy to reach Earth’s surface since 1960. Does anyone here have an answer to that question? 

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 5, 2022 8:18 am

Enough with this “every scientist in the world” foolishness. Virtually every scientist in the world at one time believed in the Ptolemaic model. There was a time when hardly any scientists in the world believed in plate tectonics, or that bacteria could possibly cause ulcers… that is, until they did.

Most human endeavors are rife with lemmings following other lemmings simply because those other lemmings are following someone. Science is just one more human endeavor that is rife with lemmings.

Give me one Newton sitting under a tree looking up at the sky, or one Einstein alone in an elevator letting his imagination run free, to ten thousand technicians as busy patting each other on the backs as they are tinkering for decades around the edges of a better person’s work.

Last edited 2 months ago by MattXL
Jim Gorman
Reply to  The Real Engineer, CEng etc.
October 4, 2022 10:44 am

You got it. I tried in another thread to show that we are taking POWER GAIN, and not voltage gain. I^2R = VI.

As in earlier posts, the sun can not be both an input and a power source to a an amplifier.

I know Monckton is trying to show how the original “feedback” theory is wrong using similar design. However, the whole “feedback” and amplification is hosed. It is based on the radiation from a cold body adds to the hot body to make it warmer.

The Earth’s system is a thermodynamic system made up of a hot surface and a cold insulating atmosphere.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 4, 2022 11:05 am

‘The Earth’s system is a thermodynamic system made up of a hot surface and a cold insulating atmosphere.‘

Ta da! But there are feedbacks in the ‘system’ and they have to be sufficiently net negative to maintain stability around whatever base conditions pertain over geological time.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 6, 2022 10:22 am

No, feedback in the climate is not feedback “based on radiation from a cold body” to a warmer body. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. However, if one puts a blanket around a pot of Arabic rice after boiling it and leaves it to stand, the rice will cool more slowly than if there were no blanket. It is that slower cooling that gives the Arabic rice its unique texture. If Mr Gorman were to do an experiment with two identical pots of rice both brought to boiling point and then stood to cool, one with a blanket and one without, at all points until both pots had reached ambient temperature the rice in the pot with the blanket would be warmer than the rice in the blanket.

But how can this be? The blanket is cooler than the pot. Have we breached the laws of thermodynamics? No, of course not. The blanket, though cooler than the pot, inhibits the cooling of the pot, which is, therefore, warmer than the pot without the blanket. Haud secus the Earth and its blanket, the atmosphere.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 12:43 pm

The blanket provides no feedback. It merely changes the coefficient of thermal conductivity of the material surrounding the pot. This changes the rate of heat transmission away from the pot. It is most definitely not feedback. It’s no different than changing the R-value of the insulation in the walls of your house.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 1:17 pm

Please don’t misunderstand what I am saying.

I perhaps didn’t say this in the most accurate manner. What I should have said more explicitly is that feedback from a colder body can not change the sign of the cooling gradient of the hot body. The feedback may decrease the magnitude of the cooling gradient, but can not change the sign from negative to positive which would be necessary to make the hot body hotter.

As such you are correct that the blanket will make the pot warmer at a future time than it would have been without the blanket. However, it can not increase the temperature of the pot unless it becomes hotter than the pot. Yet, the blanket can only ever reach an equilibrium temperature with the pot and can warm it no further. At most that equilibrium temperature could be whatever the pot started at, assuming the pot is at equilibrium with it’s heat source.

This is why thermodynamics is of importance. Entropy rules here. Heat must be analyzed in terms of what entropy will allow. Work must be done to have a decrease in entropy, such as in an amplifier with gain. If there is no power source capable of providing additional work energy, the gain can never exceed more than 1, and the output must be diminished by the power being used in feedback, voila, no gain.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 6, 2022 3:37 pm

However, it can not increase the temperature of the pot unless it becomes hotter than the pot. Yet, the blanket can only ever reach an equilibrium temperature with the pot and can warm it no further. At most that equilibrium temperature could be whatever the pot started at, assuming the pot is at equilibrium with it’s heat source.

You forgot the sun is shining.

If energy is going in to the pot, and you reduce the energy leaving the pot, it will get hotter.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 8, 2022 9:57 am

As explained to you above an excited gas molecule is not a ‘colder body’. Your whole argument is based on a flawed understanding of molecular spectroscopy and thermodynamics.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 9, 2022 10:53 am

I have been meticulous in showing references that you have yet to factually explain what is wrong. You making assertions without supplying supporting information is not what one does when making an argument.

Show some supporting references that dispute my claim that temperature is a factor in absorption/emission of radiation if you want to make a cogent argument.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 9, 2022 3:09 pm

“I have been meticulous in showing references that you have yet to factually explain what is wrong. You making assertions without supplying supporting information is not what one does when making an argument.”

I have been very clear in explaining what you don’t understand, you think molecules are black bodies!

Your one reference which you claimed was by a professor was actually by a retiree who has a batchelor’s degree in math. Who made the classic error of misunderstanding Planck’s law which I explained to you.

“Show some supporting references that dispute my claim that temperature is a factor in absorption/emission of radiation if you want to make a cogent argument.”

I have, I note that you’ve also misrepresented your problem again, you think molecules absorb/emit as black bodies. Even the papers you’ve linked show that they don’t.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 10, 2022 8:59 am

You have made assertions with no references at all. Your explanations mean nothing without references. I have provided references that you merely dismissed with ad hominem attacks.

Here are some more references from:

Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, December 22, 2020

by Wijngaarden and Happer

Section 3.1 – Line Intensities

“The partial cross section, σul, is assumed to be the product of a lineshape function, Gul = Gul(ν, τ ), and a line intensity, Sul = Sul(T)”

Equations (3) thru (15) all have explicit (T) temperatures in their relationship.

Section 3.2 – Lineshapes

Eq (17), (18), and (19) all include a temperature component.

Section 4 – Radiation

I(tilde) is the spectral intensity of a pencil of radiation. In thermal equilibrium, the intensity I(bar) equals the Planck intensity from Eq (9). Eq (9) has a temperature component.

“Temperature controls the distribution of the molecules between translational, rotational and vibrational states. Pressure, together with temperature, determines the width of the molecular resonance lines.”

The spectral forcing, F˜, is defined as the difference between the spectral flux πB˜ s through a transparent atmosphere from a black surface with temperature Ts, and the spectral flux Z˜ for an atmosphere with greenhouse gases,

Look at equation (39). Wonder of wonders, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation appears. Temperature is VERY important in this equation.

Section 5 – Intensity and flux

“In this section we discuss model atmospheres with greenhouse gas concentrations comparable to those of the year 2020. The spectral flux has a complicated dependence on frequency ν, the altitude profiles of the temperature T and greenhouse gas concentrations C {i} , and latitude.”

Setion 7 – Temperature and Forcing

“Temperature changes induced by the forcings are less clearly defined because various feedbacks change the temperature profile of the atmosphere.”

“The flux depends on altitude z because Cg, Cw and T are each functions of altitude.”

I have tried to point out just a few of the uses of temperature in this paper. If CO2 had no variabilities with temperature (and pressure), then a lot of the paper would be greatly simplified. Forcing could be simply calculated by integrating the concentrations over a given height to determine the total forcing.

Your assertion is a very simplistic explanation with no mention of temperature and pressure affecting absorption/emission. You should read this paper to get a better understanding of the physical effects of an atmosphere.

Your attempt to denigrate my knowledge and education is an ad hominem attack. It carries no weight with anyone familiar with making a cogent scientific argument. That requires facts gathered from references.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 10, 2022 2:59 pm

“You have made assertions with no references at all. Your explanations mean nothing without references. I have provided references that you merely dismissed with ad hominem attacks.” 
I have provided references and data, one reference you gave had the nonsense link between 667cm-1 and temperature of -80ºC which is rubbish.
I hate to tell you but MOLECULES radiate based upon their temperature.”
This was your assertion and you claimed that S-B and Planck described the dependence of CO2 molecules emission/absorption which is blatently false, as I have pointed out.
Will’s paper is a good one on the subject which I have read before and it quite clearly shows that CO2 emission/absorption is not governed by S-B! He does point out that there is a small temperature effect on line width and broadening which agrees with my point earlier (and the graphs I provided). Figure 2 clearly shows the Planck spectrum from a black body (T=296K) compared with the CO2 spectral lines which verifies my statement.
You make the assertion that equation 39 refers to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, not in the version of Will’s paper that I have:
E3(τ∞ − τe) = 1/4, or τ∞ − τe = 0.41904. (39)
Your attempt to denigrate my knowledge and education is an ad hominem attack.”
It certainly is not, I’m just pointing out that you don’t understand how gaseous molecular emission/absorption works, you keep digging deeper and deeper and providing references that prove you are wrong!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
October 11, 2022 12:25 pm

What you are basically doing is denigrating a macro examination of heat in the atmosphere by implying that only an examination at an atomic level is worthwhile. You are wrong in that assumption. Assuming an homogenous body of a not too large or too small a volume (atomic) allows a macro examination of the radiant associated with heat transfer in that volume. By being homogenous, all elements of that body must act similarly.

Temperature and pressure are fundamental properties concerning absorption of radiant heat.

Heat is another subject when discussing absorption coefficients of CO2 in the troposphere. See the following paper at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/

See equations 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Especially eq 8 has a temperature relation. Temperature is used throughout this paper.

Please provide some references that CO2 (along with N2/O2) does not embody the characteristics of an insulator with a temperature gradient. Without references supporting your position you are not presenting a cogent scientific argument.

Phil.
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 13, 2022 9:49 am

What you are basically doing is denigrating a macro examination of heat in the atmosphere by implying that only an examination at an atomic level is worthwhile.”

No what I did was refute your erroneous statement that the emission from excited CO2 molecules was subject to S-B and Planck’s Laws. I provided adequate justification and you even provided links which justified my point! I never disputed that the absorption coefficient of gaseous molecules had a small dependence on temperature, in fact I pointed out that there was line broadening, nothing to do with emission though. You continue to make it clear that you don’t understand molecular emission/absorption.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 4, 2022 3:03 pm

The Δ parts are still related, the constant parts just express a different operating point.

It is not an “operating point“!

Those little circles with the plus signs inside should be a clue for you.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 6, 2022 10:22 am

Mr Stokes appears to be unfamiliar with the diagrammatic representation of a summative node.

PCman999
October 3, 2022 10:27 pm

While I think the accepted Climate Science™ is horse shit, I can’t see the climate response having to respond to each additional degree in the exact same way. W.E. has published some great articles here on emergent phenomena, where the atmosphere and tropical ocean’s response was dramatically different over just a few degrees.

With water changing phases at 0°C, basically in the middle of the Earth’s temperature range, isn’t it impossible to have a linear response to inputs, or the response to increasing temperatures being the same at 270, 280,….300K?

I definitely think, however, that the environment is more likely to act as a damper than an amplifier.

Last edited 2 months ago by PCman999
Reply to  PCman999
October 4, 2022 2:31 am

It would be helpful if PCman999 were to read the head posting. There, he will find it made explicit that, since feedback processes respond to the entire reference temperature, the sum of emission temperature and the minuscule natural and anthropogenic perturbations thereof, even a very small change in the feedback regime would engender a very large change in equilibrium sensitivity.

The fact that at any given moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature then subsisting does not necessarily require that the system be linear.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 3:30 am

Saying that feedback processes must respond “equally” to each Kelvin, implies to me a linear response. I’m not sure what else it could mean.

If you are saying this only applys to the temperature “then subsisting”, and that it may respond differently to future rises then I think that’s what people have been trying to tell Monckton. You simply cannot assume that the ratio of feedback response to the entire reference temperature will be the same for any additional warming.

Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 4:49 am

Bellman, as usual, writes without knowledge and without intention to attain the objective truth. Precisely because in this respect he reflects climatology at large, and because climatologists have little or no knowledge of control theory, we not only built our own test rig to ensure that what the equations in any event mandate will indeed occur in reality, but we invited a national laboratory to build its own rig. The lab came to the same conclusion.

Whether Bellman or any other climate Communist likes it or not, at any given moment the feedback processes then subsisting must respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature then obtaining. They can do no other, for they are inanimate and they have no way of distinguishing between a Kelvin of emission temperature and a Kelvin of reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

However, nothing in that statement in any way implies that the unit feedback response and hence the system-gain factor will be invariant with temperature. The head posting, which “Bellman” ought perhaps to have read before seeking to comment inexpertly on it, explicitly draws attention to the fact that, precisely because emission temperature constitutes 97% of reference temperature, even a very small change in the feedback regime over time might exercise a very large change in equilibrium sensitivity. Anyone less ill-educated than Bellman would recognize that this fact is equivalent to the statement that unit feedback response is not necessarily invariant with temperature.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 8:49 am

I’m not claiming to be any sort of expert. I’m just trying to understand your logic.

The head posting … explicitly draws attention to the fact that… even a very small change in the feedback regime over time might exercise a very large change in equilibrium sensitivity.

I think this is the point where we keep talking past each other. Monckton is talking about a change over time, but I’m saying the feedback response does not have to be linear, or proportional, to temperature.

What Monckton is arguing is that the feedback response must be given by kt, where t is the absolute temperature before feedbacks, and k is some specific fraction. This is the only interpretation for the claim that feedback response has to be the same for each Kelvin, and is required to make the assessment for k of around 0.1, based on previous temperatures.

Now what Monckton seems to mean when he says the feedback regime over time, is that you could have a new value for k, say k_1, but it still would be just a different linear function k_1*t. In which case a small change in the value produces a large response as it’s multiplying a large value of t.

But all of this is still on the unproven assumption that this is the only possible equation for feedback response. What I’m saying is that the the equation might not be directly proportional to t. Irrespective of time.

If the actual response was kt^2, or ke^t, or even kt + b, any calculation based on just assuming a proportional response and extrapolating it from one specific value for t will not give you a correct response for future temperature changes.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 11:06 am

You are making stuff up. What do you think these “tipping points” would be that cause such a “jump” to an entirely new climate with new feedback functions? You make a hypothetical claim but provide no factual basis to explain your hypothesis. Hard to formulate a response to such an “Argumentum Ad Speculum”!

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 4, 2022 6:15 pm

What do you think these “tipping points” would be that cause such a “jump” to an entirely new climate with new feedback functions?

It was Monckton who was claiming the feedback regime might change over time. I’m saying the function doesn’t have to change over time, it just has to be no linear with respect to temperature.

You make a hypothetical claim but provide no factual basis to explain your hypothesis.

I’m not the one making a claim. I’m not saying I know how the feedback function works, or even saying for certain that it isn’t linear, though that seems very unlikely.

All I’m pointing out is the Monckton doesn’t provide a factual basis for his claim that all feedback responses must perforce be linear and proportional to the entire absolute temperature range.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 12:52 pm

 I’m saying the function doesn’t have to change over time, it just has to be no linear with respect to temperature.”

Yet you can’t give even a single example of an atmospheric process that is non-linear.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 2:02 pm

Utter lies now. I’ve mentioned several, including the most important, water vapour.

And again, the onus is not on me to prove that nonlinear feedbacks exist. It’s for Monckton to prove that all feedbacks must be linear.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 3:29 pm

Exactly what do you think exists in the atmosphere that could give a k^2 or ke^t response? It’s not aliens. Be specific.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 3:58 pm

Exactly what do you think exists in the atmosphere that could give a k^2 or ke^t response? It’s not aliens. Be specific.

They were examples of non-linear functions, not an assessment of actual feedback responses. It’s not up to me to model how the actual atmosphere works – it’s up to Monckton to justify his assertion that the only possible function is kt .

I doubt if there’s a simple equation that describes all the complexity climatic feedbacks. That’s why there is still so much uncertainty about the correct ECS.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 4:30 pm

They were examples of non-linear functions, not an assessment of actual feedback responses”

In other words you *were* just trying to muddy the waters.

Stop it.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:11 pm

I see “muddy the water” is your new catch phrase. I wonder where you got it from.

Really, do I have to spell out to you that when I said “if” I meant the equations were just examples of what a non-linear equation might look like, rather than a detailed real world model of the entire feedback response? I apologise if I credited you with too much intelligence.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 5:25 pm

Really, do I have to spell out to you that when I said “if” I meant the equations were just examples of what a non-linear equation might look like, rather than a detailed real world model of the entire feedback response? I apologise if I credited you with too much intelligence.”

In other words, you are *STILL* trying to rationalize your attempt at muddying the waters as being something “good”. Stop it!

As usual, you are stuck in a little world of your own making which has no relationship to the real world.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:42 pm

“You are trying to muddy the waters” says someone who has spent multiple posts debating whether kt^2 is an accurate model for a feedback response, whilst completely ignoring the substantive point I was making. If the feedback response is not linear then Monckton’s claim is wrong.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 3:59 am

So what? If pigs could fly …

If you can’t give a reason for claiming the feedback response is not linear then why even bring up the subject other than to muddy the waters?

RickWill
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 5:46 pm

What I’m saying is that the the equation might not be directly proportional to t. Irrespective of time.

Correct – The response is highly non-linear. Once ice forms on an ocean surface it no longer responds to forcing in the same way as it did before. It takes a change 198W/m^2 of solar forcing to move the Southern Ocean 1C. A combination of sea ice and persistent condensing cloud.

Within most of the tropics, the response to solar forcing is negative. More sunlight results in cooler temperature once the ocean surface gets above 26C. Ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature above 30C. It is hard limit set by the atmospheric mass and physical properties of water. Most people who live or have lived in the tropics are aware of only two season – wet and dry. I looked forward to January/February in northern Australia because that is when the monsoon set in and the relentless sun was often behind cloud.

Snow covered land reflects much more sunlight than land covered with growth or barren dry land.

The temperature response to solar forcing on land in mid latitudes is twice that of water at the same latitude. Central USA requires a change of just 13.5W/m^2 to move the temperature 1C. The Mediterranean requires a change of 28W/m^2 to shift the temperature 1C.

Biomass makes a huge difference to the response of land. The tropical rain forests respond more like ocean surface than barren land mid latitude land surface.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 8:53 am

They can do no other, for they are inanimate and they have no way of distinguishing between a Kelvin of emission temperature and a Kelvin of reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases.”

Nobody is saying they have to know what to do. They a physical responses to specific temperatures. A pot of water doesn;t need to know it has to respond differently at 272K verses 372K, and not knowing does not mean that if water boils at 372K, it must half-boil at 186K.

Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 9:17 am

Bellman appears to be deliberately trying to muddy the waters. We are not dealing with 272 K vs. 372 K. We are dealing with a single moment at which, whatever the reference temperature is, the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of the reference temperature at that moment.

However, the unit feedback response at that moment is not necessarily identical to the unit feedback response to a different reference temperature obtaining at a different moment.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 3:34 pm

All he knows how to do is muddy the water.

I think you typed a little too fast here. The feedback processes respond to the output which, in turn, is a response to both the input and the feedback signals.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 3:37 pm

Bellman appears to be deliberately trying to muddy the waters.

I thought my point was clear enough. Monckton claims that inanimate objects cannot respond differently at different temperatures, but must to every Kelvin in exactly the same way. Whatever he claims, this implies a linear proportional response.

If inanimate objects behave differently at different temperatures then there is no point in dividing the response at a specific temperature by that temperature in order to predict how it will behave at a different temperature.

However, the unit feedback response at that moment is not necessarily identical to the unit feedback response to a different reference temperature obtaining at a different moment.

Yet that’s the assumption that Monckton makes when he tries to calculate sensitivity from past values. What does

287.5 / 267.1, = 1.0764

tell you about climate sensitivity if another degree rise gave you, hypothetically

290.5 / 268.1 = 1.0836

If you admit the feedback response may be non-linear with respect to temperature, the the ratio of feedback to any specific absolute temperature is useless.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 4:23 pm

If inanimate objects behave differently at different temperatures then there is no point in dividing the response at a specific temperature by that temperature in order to predict how it will behave at a different temperature.”

Please give us a specific example of something in the atmosphere that responds differently at temperature T1 then it does at temperature T2.

If you can’t then you *are* just trying to muddy the waters.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 4:53 pm

Please give us a specific example of something in the atmosphere that responds differently at temperature T1 then it does at temperature T2.

Water vapour.

Fiugure-3-2447134018.jpg
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 5:16 pm

ROFL!! And exactly what does this have to do with feedback in the atmosphere from CO2? What does it have to do with the ECS? What does it have to do with feedback at all?

You are *still* throwing out crap hoping some of it sticks to the wall. Stop it!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:50 pm

I sure if you stopped rolling about the floor and instead tried to think, you could figure it out for yourself.

You asked for a specific example of something in the atmosphere that responded differently at different temperatures. Water vapour was my specific example.

You want to now move the goal posts and relate it to feedbacks, which results in an own goal for yourself, as water vapour is related to climatic feedbacks. Indeed it may be one of the most important.

So do I need to draw any more dots for you? I’m guessing I do from past experience. So, if water vapour does not increase in the atmosphere proportionally to absolute temperature, and if it’s feedback effect is related to the proportion of water in the atmosphere, do you think it’s reasonable to assume that this feedback response will be proportional to absolute temperature?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 4:08 am

You asked for a specific example of something in the atmosphere that responded differently at different temperatures. Water vapour was my specific example.”

And you were wrong. Water vapor doesn’t respond differently at different temperatures unless you are speaking about a phase change point. Relative humidity might change but the water vapor response causing that relative humidity won’t change its response.

The entire subject is concerned with feedback response in the atmosphere. It is *YOU* that is wanting to discuss something different.

“So, if water vapour does not increase in the atmosphere proportionally to absolute temperature”

Water vapor in the atmosphere is *NOT* determined by temperature. If it was then the air over a desert would be very humid. You *really* need to stop and think once in a while instead of just throwing out stuff you hope will stick and then trying to defend it.

“do you think it’s reasonable to assume that this feedback response will be proportional to absolute temperature?”

A function that is “proportional” is LINEAR by definition. You can’t prove a function is non-linear by claiming it is linear. You are in a hole, stop digging.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 2:11 pm

And you were wrong. Water vapor doesn’t respond differently at different temperatures unless you are speaking about a phase change point.

Do you really not understand how these feedbacks work, or are you just trying to distract from Monckton’s inability to support his claim?

It has nothing to do with water changing it’s properties at higher temperature. It’s just that the warmer the atmosphere the more water can be held, and hence the greater the greenhouse effect.

The entire subject is concerned with feedback response in the atmosphere.

No. It’s about all feedbacks on temperature, regardless of where they occur.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is *NOT* determined by temperature.

Every thing I’ve seen on the subject says it is.

You *really* need to stop and think once in a while instead of just throwing out stuff you hope will stick and then trying to defend it.

You really need to stop these cheap ad homs if you want anyone to think you are making a serious point.

A function that is “proportional” is LINEAR by definition.

Yes that’s what I’m saying. But it’s important to distinguish between a general linear function, and what Monckton claims, which is one that is proportional, i.e. goes through zero zero.

You can’t prove a function is non-linear by claiming it is linear.

Of course not. What a weird thing to say.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 4:07 pm

. It’s just that the warmer the atmosphere the more water can be held, and hence the greater the greenhouse effect.”

The operative words here are *CAN BE”! Warmer air *can* hold more water. But it is *NOT* the temperature that determines the humidity! It is the amount of water vapor available that determines the humidity. You can’t even get this relationship correct!

Humidity ≠ C * T.

Humidity = Mass_wv/Mass_saturated-air

There is no Temperature in this equation!

Every thing I’ve seen on the subject says it is.”

You never *see* anything except your pre-determined conclusions based on no actual knowledge at all.

Yes that’s what I’m saying. But it’s important to distinguish between a general linear function, and what Monckton claims, which is one that is proportional, i.e. goes through zero zero.”

More meaningless word salad.

As usual, you just show yourself to be a troll who is unwilling to learn anything.

Bye!

Luke B
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 9:16 pm

Consider the claimed water vapour feedback. Multiple sources assert to me, with a straight face, that the total effect caused by (non-condensing) greenhouse gases has to take into account water vapour responding to the greenhouse forcing.

Somehow water vapour is supposed to amplify the back-radiation of non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide WITHOUT responding to the thermal radiation of the earth, the back radiation of the water vapour itself (or that coming in from the sun itself). Exactly how would this magical property come to be?

IF there is any feedback to the enhanced greenhouse effect, it is inconceivable that there is not ALSO some feedback to the base signal.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 11:08 am

You are making arguments with no basis in facts. Argumentum Ad Speculum. These don’t deserve any attempt to answer.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 3:31 pm

 A pot of water doesn;t need to know it has to respond differently at 272K verses 372K, and not knowing does not mean that if water boils at 372K, it must half-boil at 186K.”

Put down the bottle. This makes no sense at all.

“They a physical responses to specific temperatures.”

I’ll ask again. Exactly what in the atmosphere do you think responds differently at 272K than it does at 372K?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 4:06 pm

I know it makes no senses. That’s why the the claim that inanimate objects must behave in a proportional way to temperature makes no sense. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Exactly what in the atmosphere do you think responds differently at 272K than it does at 372K?

Water vapour, clouds, and ice coverage for a start. Maybe things like the jet stream and ocean currents. It’s irrelevant because hopefully we are not going to warm to 372K.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 4:29 pm

Water vapor responds the same at different temperatures. If it didn’t it would violate Planck and S-B.

And ice coverage? Do you think ice somehow acts differently at 0C then it does at -10C? Once the water is frozen how do you make it *more* frozen?

The jet stream is wind. Wind is a fluid. It can be analyzed as a fluid. The only difference temperature might make is in its density. At the same altitude, i.e. in the jet stream, how much do you think its density varies?

Do you *really* think ocean water acts differently at 10C than it does at 20C? Have you ever jumped in a cold swimming pool? Did the water act any differently then why you jumped in when it was warm?

You are, as usual, throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. Stop it

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 5:20 pm

Water vapor responds the same at different temperatures.

You think atmospheric water vapour increases linearly from 0K to 372K?

Do you think ice somehow acts differently at 0C then it does at -10C?

The question is if ice coverage is proportional to absolute temperature. Don’t you think it’s possible that below a certain temperature there will be 100% ice coverage, and above a certain temperature there will be 0%?

Do you *really* think ocean water acts differently at 10C than it does at 20C?

You were asking about the difference between 0°C and 100°C. And again the claim by Monckton is any feedbacks have to be proportional to the absolute temperature.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 5:30 pm

I think the response of water vapor is the same. It’s radiation is set by Planck and S-B. Are you trying to imply that that Planck and S-B are wrong?

The coverage of ice changes the albedo. Is the change in albedo directly related to the amount of ice?

And where did I talk about 0C and 100C? Do you think water boils in the ocean, on land, or in the atmosphere? You are, once again, living in a personal la-la land instead of reality.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 6:01 pm

Talk about muddying the waters. All I’m trying to get you or Monckton to explain is why you think the feedback response has to be proportional to absolute temperature. I.e. justify the assertion that feedbacks must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin. I give several examples of physical systems that are clearly not responding equally to each Kelvin, and all you can do is try to argue the toss about radiation and albedo.

It doesn’t matter. You or Monckton are the ones claiming every feedback must be proportional to the absolute temperature. If you can explain how Planck and S-B can result in the feedback from increased water vapour is proportional to the absolute temperature, or how the albedo of the planet will change proportionally to every Kelvin, then by all means do. Otherwise you are just, to use one of your cliches, throwing crap against the wall and hoping it will stick.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 12:38 pm

 All I’m trying to get you or Monckton to explain is why you think the feedback response has to be proportional to absolute temperature.”

You won’t listen, no matter how many times you are told. See the attached image ONE MORE TIME!



Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 12:48 pm

All I’m trying to get you or Monckton to explain is why you think the feedback response has to be proportional to absolute temperature. I.e. justify the assertion that feedbacks must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin.”

You’ve been shown this and told this multiple times. Yet you just keep on refusing to learn. See the attached image. Once B1 and R1 enter the summing node HOW DOES THE SYSTEM SEPARATE THEM OUT? The “Kelvin’s” associated with each are not tagged somehow with their origination source! So to the system a Kelvin from one is just like the Kelvin from the other.

” I give several examples of physical systems that are clearly not responding equally to each Kelvin, and all you can do is try to argue the toss about radiation and albedo.”

You’ve given examples that do *NOT* depend on temperature while trying to get everyone to believe they do. Relative humidity does *NOT* depend on temperature. If it did then the air over the Mojave Desert would be more humid than the air over Milwaukee because the air over the Mojave Desert has a higher temperature. Somehow you can’t seem to figure that one out at all!

You have demonstrated over and over again that you have no understanding of the physical world at all. Stop trying to prove you do. You just confirm that you don’t with every claim you make.

feedback_image.PNG
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 2:32 pm

See the attached image. Once B1 and R1 enter the summing node HOW DOES THE SYSTEM SEPARATE THEM OUT? The “Kelvin’s” associated with each are not tagged somehow with their origination source!

It doesn’t have to. It just has to respond differently at different temperatures.

Relative humidity does *NOT* depend on temperature.

Another feeble attempt at a distraction. I said nothing about relative humidity. It’s absolute humidity that matters – how many water molecules there are in the atmosphere.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 4:26 pm

It doesn’t have to. It just has to respond differently at different temperatures.”

Exactly WHAT has to respond differently? Water vapor? CO2? Do you have any links that show that either operate differently at different temperatures? Does their absorption frequency change? Does their emission frequency change?

Another feeble attempt at a distraction. I said nothing about relative humidity. It’s absolute humidity that matters – how many water molecules there are in the atmosphere.”

Do you love making a fool out of yourself?

Absolute Humidity: The absolute value of Humidity value gives us the total weight of water vapor per volume of air without considering the temperature. It can be calculated by dividing the total amount of water vapor mw by the given volume V of air. (bolding mine, tg)

Go away troll. No more replies from me.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 4, 2022 6:03 pm

And where did I talk about 0C and 100C?

Your exact words

I’ll ask again. Exactly what in the atmosphere do you think responds differently at 272K than it does at 372K?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 12:50 pm

Actually, 372K is *NOT* 100C. Go look it up!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 2:00 pm

OK nitpicker. It’s 373.15K. Happy now, or do you want to bring up any more distractions?

Derg
Reply to  Bellman
October 5, 2022 1:04 am

You have gone off your rocker.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 4, 2022 10:03 am

You would be taken more seriously if you responded to Bellman politely and spent less time insulting him.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 4, 2022 3:36 pm

When you make specious arguments what should you expect in return as a reply?

Do *you* know what in the atmosphere gives a feedback response like kt^2 or ke^t?

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 6, 2022 10:24 am

When someone furtively anonymous is paid to talk nonsense and to divert attention from the objective truth, I shall not be polite to him. Precisely because he is anonymous, I can call him all the names I like without doing him any harm. That is the price he pays for his poltroonish anonymity.

John_C
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 10, 2022 12:57 pm

Regrettably, you would less than wise to respond to Bellman politely, as Bellman has proven to be aggressively mendacious ( or is that mendaciously aggressive) in his postings. Polite response may be mistaken for respect for the poster and his arguments, neither of which deserves any.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 7:49 am

Stand aside, the expert has arrived!

Reply to  Bellman
October 4, 2022 10:00 am

 “You simply cannot assume that the ratio of feedback response to the entire reference temperature will be the same for any additional warming.”

The positive feedback of a warmer troposphere holding more water vapor obviously has a limiting factor, otherwise there would have been runaway global warming in the past. We know that CO2 levels have been up to 10x higher than today. We also know that fact did not lead to runaway warming. The obvious conclusion is that something limits the water vapor positive feedback — and the CAGW that Climate Howlers fear. My guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds, which reduce incoming solar energy. Your guess is as good as mine.