Operation Hymn-Sheet: identifying points on which skeptics agree
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The restless and eternal search for objective scientific truth is of its essence skeptical, not consensual (e.g., Aristotle, Refutations of the Sophists; Popper: Logik der Forschung). While the totalitarians responsible for originating and maintaining the climate-change scam and the consequent targeted economic destruction of the hated West all parrot the same Party Line, which they rebrand as an imagined “consensus” of supposed “experts”, skeptics do not usually sing from the same hymn-sheet, for we are no less skeptical of our own arguments than of the totalitarians’ arguments.
Welcome, then, to Operation Hymn-Sheet. The purpose is to identify a series of perhaps one or two dozen powerful and irrefutable climatological, economic or pragmatic propositions on which we can all or nearly all agree, so that in our interactions with governments hitherto deceived by the totalitarians we can speak as far as possible with one voice.
The following are the suggested criteria for including a proposition in our Hymn-Sheet:
First, each proposition should be of sufficient importance that, if it were generally known about and understood, it would materially influence the climate-change debate.
Secondly, each proposition should be clear enough and simple enough to be expressed, explained and justified in not more than 100 words. Complex theories have no place here.
Thirdly, for the sake of argument each proposition should be based on mainstream, midrange data and generally-accepted methods as far as possible.
Fourthly, though each proposition should be simple and clear, it should be sufficiently rigorous to be unimpugnable by any legitimate method.
This is where you come in, gentle reader. In comments, please put forward, explain and justify each proposition that should, in your opinion, stand part of Operation Hymn-Sheet.
Once the Hymn-Sheet has been compiled, we can all draw upon it in briefing our governments, so that they will no longer hear only the hysterical, endlessly-chanted mantras of the totalitarian enemies of the West and the host of useful idiots they have fooled.
Here are some sample propositions for the Hymn-Sheet.
If it’s consensus it’s not science: if it’s science it’s not consensus
The imagined “consensus” that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic was fabricated. Police investigated and concluded that the report by Cook et al. (2013) of a 97.1% consensus constituted a “deception”. In reality, Cook had marked only 0.5% of the 12,000 papers on his list as having stated that recent warming was chiefly anthropogenic. In any event, his consensus proposition does not say global warming is dangerous. Moreover, argument from consensus conflates the two shop-worn logical fallacies of mere headcount and of appeal to the imagined authority of supposed experts. Argument from consensus has no place in science.
Wind and solar power cannot get us anywhere near net zero
Unreliables are the currently-favored method of trying to reach net zero emissions. However, weather-dependent renewables must be backed up at all times by thermal generation capable of supplying the entire demand on a grid. Wind and solar are, therefore, a deadweight capital and operating cost. They also increase thermal-generation operating cost because spinning-reserve backup is inefficient. In any event, installing nameplate capacity of wind and solar power in excess of mean hourly grid demand cannot further reduce emissions: yet most Western nations’ installed renewables’ capacity already exceeds the demand limit.
Warming since 1990 is less than half the then midrange prediction
In 1990 IPCC presented four emissions scenarios. Scenario B predicted that the effect of annual emissions would remain constant at 1990 levels until 2025. Scenarios C-D predicted the effect would decline. Instead, emissions have increased by more than half since 1990. Thus Scenario A, the business-as-usual scenario, has proven closest to reality. It predicted 0.3 C/decade midrange warming over the 21st century, but only 0.13 C/decade, or 45% of the midrange prediction, has been measured in the 33 years since 1990.
Even worldwide net zero would cut 2050 temperature by less than 0.1 C
Our influence on temperature has increased at 1/30th unit/year since 1990, with another 0.9 units by 2050 on business as usual. If all nations went straight to net zero by 2050, 0.45 units would thus be prevented. Unit warming is the ratio 0.46 C per unit of 1.8 C midrange transient 21st-century doubled-CO2 warming to 3.93 units midrange doubled-CO2 forcing. Finally, adjust for the ratio 0.45 C/C of 0.136 K/decade real-world warming to the predicted 0.3 K/decade warming since 1990. Then worldwide net zero would abate <0.463 C: that is, less than 0.1 C.
Individual nations would contribute infinitesimally to cutting warming
Since even worldwide net zero would reduce global warming by less than 1/10 C, individual regions’ or nations’ contributions to that minuscule reduction in global temperature would be infinitesimal. Chinese net zero would prevent only 1/30 C warming; Western net zero would also prevent only 1/30 C; US net zero would prevent 1/70 C; UK net zero would prevent 1/1000 C; Chilean net zero would prevent 1/10,000 C.
Each $1 billion spent would prevent one ten-millionth C warming
The UK’s grid authority estimates that net-zeroing the grid will, on its own, cost $3.6 trillion. Electricity generation accounts for only a fifth of total UK generation. On this basis, UK net zero would cost $18 trillion and global net zero would cost $1800 trillion. McKinsey Consulting reckon the capital cost of global net zero at $275 trillion. Opex, at least twice capex, would raise the total cost to $900 trillion. Using the lesser estimate, each $1 billion spent on emissions abatement would prevent future warming of only one ten-millionth C – the worst value for money in history.
Weather-related disasters are not increasing as predicted
Hurricanes, tropical cyclones, tropical storms and tornadoes show no trend in combined frequency, intensity or duration. The frequency and extent of forest fires and the frequency of record-breaking temperatures have declined since they peaked in the 1930s. The global land area under drought has decreased for several decades. Floods have not increased in frequency, intensity or duration. Global rainfall has risen beneficially: the world’s longest record (UK Met Office), shows an uptrend of just 2 inches in 250 years. Sea level is rising at only 4 to 8 inches/century.
More CO2 and warmer weather have benefits
Benefits of emitting CO2 and warming the planet include recent planetary greening by >15% and increases in global crop yields by CO2 fertilization; a 96% decline over a century in weather-related deaths; and a reduction in deaths from cold exceeding any increase in deaths from heat by an order of magnitude, both globally and in each region. In Africa, there are 40 times more deaths from cold than deaths from heat. Such benefits are widely unreported.
Exaggerated predictions arose from an error of physics
Climate feedbacks respond not only to 8 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic direct greenhouse warming but also to the dominant 260 K emission temperature. In 1850, final warming per 1 K direct warming was not 28 / 8 = 3.5 K/K but (260 + 28) / (260 + 8) < 1.1 K/K. But only a 10% increase in feedback strength since 1850 would hike 21st-century warming from 1.3 K to 3 K, since the difference between feedback strengths for 2 K and 5 K final warming is only 0.03 units per degree. Thus, feedback analysis cannot reliably predict warming.
Observational methods suggest only 1.4 C warming this century
Climate scientists had thought they could omit the 260 K emission temperature in their feedback calculations because in control theory the base signal is usually omitted because it is tiny and the feedback-response signal is orders of magnitude larger. In climate, though, it is the other way about: the 260 K base signal exceeds the feedback-response signal by orders of magnitude. That is why feedback analysis cannot reliably predict warming. Yet IPCC (2021) mentions “feedback” >2500 times. Warming since 1990 is only 1.4 C/century equivalent. The energy-budget method, not dependent on feedback analysis, shows a similar value.
Models’ predictions of global warming are purely speculative
An elementary error of statistics in the interpretation of climate models’ outputs led climatologists to assume that dangerous warming was very likely when, on correction, all predictions based on the outputs of models are proven to be no better than guesswork. Climate scientists had not realized that propagation of uncertainty in models running hourly time-steps over decades implies that any global-warming prediction falling between –12 and +12 C (as all do) is statistically insignificant and thus speculative. The paper by Dr Patrick Frank establishing this fact was published in 2019 and has not been refuted in any learned journal since.
Selectively targeting the West increases global emissions
Climate treaties are selectively targeted against the West on the specious pretext of purported “climate debt”. Therefore, manufacturing – particularly if it is energy-intensive – is being priced out to chiefly Communist-led nations that are greatly expanding inexpensive and affordable coal-fired generation. The unintended consequence of the West’s economic hara-kiri is to transfer manufacturing to nations with far higher emissions per unit of production than the West, increasing global emissions – precisely the opposite of what was intended.
.o0O0o.
Now, gentle reader, it is your turn. What are the main points that every schoolboy would know about global warming if it were not for the outright censorship now inflicted upon nearly all media by the hate-filled, totalitarian far Left?
And have courage! The very fact that the Left now find it essential to spend so much time and effort on silencing all debate on climate (their number one topic) and on a growing range of other topics shows that the Left themselves know that if free speech were once again permitted they would lose the debate, and lose it comprehensively.
Recall that the execution by Robespierre of a dozen pious, habited nuns, who chanted hymns of praise and joy as the guillotine fell and the normally noisy crowd of sans-culottes stood utterly silent, led to the execution of Robespierre himself scarcely two weeks later, ending the Reign of Terror. Perhaps, then, the climate nonsense – and, as the above instances show, it is obvious, arrant nonsense – is the last gasp of totalitarianism. Perhaps, as it dies, so will die with it the notion that free speech should be curtailed so that Communism may continue to advance, slaughter and destroy. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit!
Open ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature over 30C for a full yearly cycle..
It is easily verifiable. It is well recognised although few understand why the 30C limit exists and why atmospheric conditions provide such a sharp constraint on ocean surface temperature.
Even ChatGPT knows the ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature above 30C for a yearly cycle.
The significance of this lone fact is that runaway global warming is impossible.
And all climate models are wrong because they show open ocean exceeding 30C or, in the case of INM, they have the present temperature at 26C where it is closer to 29C so they can get their warming trend..
RickWill’s point is an intriguing one. It would be good if we were able to put together a clear explanation of why ocean surface temperature cannot exceed 30 C, and of what effect that fact has on official climatolog’s predictions.
I think Willis Eschenbach’s done some good explanations thereon.
There are two linked papers that give a comprehensive explanation:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/23/ocean-atmosphere-response-to-solar-emr-at-top-of-the-atmosphere/
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
Part 1 of the second paper has data from moored buoys that shows the surface temperature regulation in the three tropical oceans that are separated by thousands of kilometres. Same process and same temperature limit but in different oceans.
Convective potential (CAPE) is ubiquitous in the tropical oceans. Nullschool provides estimates:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/currents/overlay=cape/orthographic=-289.72,4.53,345/loc=71.909,14.379
Monsoon is about to set in in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal because the region will all be above 30C in a couple of weeks when cyclic instability sets in to regulate the surface temperature to 30C.
The satellite data does not have the detail to identify the LFC so can show convective potential where none exists – like over the Persian Gulf in August.
The only novel aspect of my work is to show that the LFC approaches the altitude of freezing when the surface temperature is at 30C causing the clouds formed by cyclic instability to become persistent to limit surface sunlight in the range 180 to 200W/m^2 to maintain zero net surface heat flux but keeping the temperature at 30C until a more powerful tower forms in adjacent water.
Anyone who understands atmospheric physics would grasp this detail once it is explained to them.
Once you understand that the ocean surface temperature can never sustain more than 30C with the current atmospheric mass you realise that the concept of “greenhouse gasses” influencing Earth’s energy balance is utter nonsense. The energy balance is controlled by the upper and lower limits of ocean temperature: 30C in the tropics and -1.7C at the sea ice interface. Both limits have powerful negative feedback that act to regulate at these limits. Both depend on the formation of ice near 273K in the tropical atmosphere and 271K on the ocean surface due to the salinity.
Wow. Need to digest and think. Thanks RW
Please a link? I must learn and understand “ocean surface cannot sustain a temperature above 30C for a yearly cycle“.
For others who would look it up: 30C = 86F.
If 86F were a global average, then…
30C is the maximum. It requires a single monthly average ToA sunlight of 420W/m^2 to achieve 30C (303K). There are very few places that have more than 420W/m^2 over an annual cycle. So very few places constantly limiting to 30C. The global average will always be cooler than 30C.
The minimum ocean water temperature is 271K. The global average surface temperature is close to the area averaged mean, which is not far off the numeric mean of 287K (14C, 57F)).
There is no magic about the constancy of Earth’s average surface temperature. In the current ice age, ocean temperature is close to the average of the extremes because the tropical oceans are limiting to 30C and both poles have sea ice forming. When the ice reforms on the land, the land surface temperature will fall due to rising altitude of ice mountains and falling sea level so the lapse rate cause the land temperature to be lower. Ocean temperature remains the same until the glaciers calf fast enough to cool the oceans.
Life on Earth is dependent on two
chemical compounds, H20 and CO2,
and one of them is in short supply
Democrats conveniently, constantly and intentionally
ignore the positive aspects of carbon dioxide.
There is a third that is indispensable for animals – O2.
And a 100% atmosphere of O2 with trace H2O and CO2 would not work well either. That makes N2 quite important.
CO2 is the fundamental building block of the vast majority of life on Earth so I get your drift.
You could start a list of all the chemistry necessary for life, and the basic importance contained in the notion that “We are a Carbon Based Life Form” would be diminished. The source of “carbon” in carbon based life form right from the primordial earth and continuing today is from carbon dioxide. It really needs to be there, and at only 400ppm more would be better.
So why list H2O?
Because photosynthesis is:
CO2 + H2O + sunlight = simple sugar
I could have just said, “Smart Ass!”
Viticulture has a toehold in the UK since the 1970’s.
This is not a emergency situation.
There is evidence of viticuture in the UK in the 11th century and also from the time of the Roman occupation.
“There is evidence of viticuture in the UK … from the time of the Roman occupation.”
A sceptic would suggest they tried to recreate Rome in London and it didn’t work. A football fan would add more (this year).
In Roman times they were growing wine in the Great Glen in Scotland. That is not possible today: it’s too cold.
Ocean acidification. Even Ken Caldiera, the inventor of the phrase, admits he made it up to “sound scary”. (it made me right-handed you know.. I got better)
A Fact is something that has been observed, measured, recorded… Hence, Facts necessarily relate only to the Past.
All statements about the Future are, to some extent, Conjecture.
A theory about the Future fails if its Conjectures do not, in the fullness of time, turn into Facts.
All plans are based on understanding that certain things are bound to happen. So current facts are frequently used to plan outcomes that rely on history repeating. Press the starter button and my car starts – it is an expected outcome. Over the past 15 years it has never failed my expectation.
Wow. You must have bought a REALLY high quality battery if it’s still working reliably after 15 years.
By your logic, since Shergar once won the Derby, he will win again when next he runs…
Christopher
Here is our contribution from a meteorological perspective:
The back-radiation feedback loop in the standard climate model is in fact the convection feedback loop of the overturning tropical Hadley Cell that is disguised and hidden in plain sight.
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s Semi-Opaque Troposphere
Not quite sure that Mr Mulholland’s account of the feedback processes in the climate is complete. The largest of all the feedbacks is the water-vapor feedback, by which air can hold more water vapor as it warms. All other feedback processes broadly self-cancel at midrange.
However, it is certainly true that official climatology takes far less notice of non-radiative transports than it should.
Christopher,
I hope that we can both agree that Climate Science is based on a study of Opacity.
I agree that the role of thermal radiant opacity is important as a throttle to outgoing radiation flux density, and that energy recycling is important in Earth’s dense troposphere, however this component of opacity is only part of the story.
Standard climate science includes in its analysis the absorption of insolation by the atmosphere. Given that we can agree that atmosphere is transparent to insolation it therefore follows that this energy absorption must be due to solid particulates and consequently there is a role for dust opacity in the climatic energy budget.
In addition to this there is the key issue of surface shortwave absorptivity and its relationship to long-wave surface emissivity. In our current study of the atmosphere of Mars we show that the role of adiabatic convection is critical to explaining the 2 Kelvin atmospheric thermal effect in the troposphere of Mars in its low-pressure carbon dioxide rich atmosphere.
Because adiabatic convection explains the development and maintenance of the Martian atmospheric energy reservoir it necessarily follows that adiabatic convection is a key component of the atmospheric thermal effect in Earth’s high pressure troposphere.
The Dust Planet Clarified: Modelling Martian MY29 Atmospheric Data using the Dynamic-Atmosphere Energy-Transport (DAET) Climate Model.
Philip
Mr Mulholland’s argument is an attractive one, but it would be easy for the usual suspects to say that the effects of the various processes he describes has not been rigorously quantified. I am not sure that arguments to the effect that the system is complex and hence inherently unpredictable will carry much weight unless we can specify, as Pat Frank brilliantly does in his paper of 2019, the specific nature of the error that has been made and the quantitative effect of the error.
Christopher,
I am not trying to make an argument, I am trying to do applied mathematics.
Philip
It continues to astonish me how many people have so little familiarity with mathematics that they do not realize that a mathematical analysis constitutes ex definitione a logical argument, in which certain premises validly entail a conclusion. If the premises are true and validly entail the conclusion, then the argument is sound and the conclusion true.
And it is no good hand-waving to the effect that one is “trying to do applied mathematics” when the mathematical reasoning is not outlined and virtually no quantities are mentioned. Governments will not be impressed by that.
Chrisptopher, Sir
Stephen Wilde and I approach the study of climate from the perspective of meteorology.
When I look at the standard cartoon of Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 Figure 7, I note the following three parameters relating to high frequency insolation. These are the post-albedo intensity of 235 W/m^2; The atmospheric absorption of 67 W/m^2 and the surface illumination of 168 W/m^2
I note too that in this diagram the surface absorptance α has a value of 1. The reason for this is value of α is that all the post-albedo insolation energy is captured by the climate system and so the surface is assumed to have zero reflectance ρ to post albedo insolation.
What I want to establish is the balance between the downwelling atmospheric absorption A and the upwelling backlighting of the surface boundary layer B where A + B = 67 W/m^2 for the real-world surface absorptance of insolation with a value α <1
If we know the Global Average Surface Absorptance (GSA) for planet Earth then process of determining the values of A and B is simple algebra where 235-A = 168/ α : Equation 1.
Using some scoping numbers of ocean surface absorptance =1 and a global ocean surface area of 70% added to land surface absorptance of 0.5 for the remaining 30% of the planet then GSA = 1*0.7 + 0.25*0.3 = 0.85
So, the solution for Equation 1 becomes A = 235-168/0.85 = 37.35 W/m^2
And therefore B = 67-37.35 = 29.65 W/m^2
Is this important? Well frankly yes, because we are studying the atmospheric absorption of sunlight energy none of this energy is being absorbed by gases it is all being absorbed by dust particles. Clearly the greatest concentration of dust particles will be over the land surface and in the near-surface boundary layer (because dust particles are dense and concentrate near the ground).
You will perhaps take the view that this calculation is too abstruse for your purposes, however I want to show that the esoteric science of radiation physics is too limited in its scope when applied to the study of climate.
Philip, Mr.
An issue about these energy balance diagrams/calculations, typically ignored, is that the measurement uncertainty of radiometric quantities made with thermopile instruments is at best about ±3-4%. For a 200 W/m2 irradiance, this is about ±6 W/m2. Making calculations down to the hundredths of a W/m2 cannot be justified when the uncertainty is two orders of magnitude larger.
I agree with karlomonte that one cannot realistically carry out energy balance calculations to a precision of less than 5 Watts per square meter. However, one can, ad argumentum, accept the mainstream, midrange values of the parameters informing the energy-budget equation and show that, based on those values, the midrange 21st-century warming, which is approximately equal to midrange equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity, is of order 1.3 C, which is so small and slow as to be harmless and even net-beneficial.
Indeed, quite so.
Chris, this calculation, uses only factual data, internationally recognised by, amongst others, the IPCC and therefore by the alleged 97% of scientist’s who believe human induced climate change is a threat to mankind.
It’s a rule of thumb so easy enough for dim witted politicians to grasp.
Assuming human increased atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm how long will it be before global temperatures become unacceptable?
We first need to understand how much CO2 mankind has emitted which is easy enough:
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (According to the Vostok Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (According to the Mauna Loa observatory, and others.)
Subtract one from the other then divide that by the number of years to get an average:
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm total annual increase of atmospheric CO2, not just mankind’s contribution.
Mankind is responsible for ~3% of that = ~0.02ppm annually.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average.
We are assured that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 at the beginning of the industrial revolution would see a global temperature rise of 2ºC. (280ppm x 2 = 560ppm).
To understand how long mankind’s CO2 contributions alone (ignoring all natural sources of atmospheric CO2) would take to raise CO2 levels by 280ppm we must divide 280ppm by 0.02ppm from the earlier calculation.
280ppm ÷ 0.02ppm = 14,000.
It would take 14,000 YEARS for mankind’s CO2 emissions to raise global temperatures by 2ºC according to the IPCC’s own figures.
Assuming my schoolboy arithmetic is correct.
In response to HotScot, we cannot get away with saying that our influence has increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by only 3%. How is so low a value justifiable?
Lord, his faulty reasoning has been debunked previously. Virtually all of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations come from Man’s activities. Nature has not added appreciable extra CO2, no matter Man’s percentage contribution.
Mr Fair reflects my own understanding. Though the exchanges between the atmosphere, the biosphere, the hydrosphere and the cryosphere are substantial, over time they self-cancel, whereas the monotonic increase in anthropogenic emissions is a net addition to the system.
That is why we accept ad argumentum that all of the growth in emissions over the past century or so is anthropogenic. Even if that is the case, we can show that the resultant warming is very likely to be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial.
I have no problem if people want to believe that more CO2 in the air causes warming. But I have calculated that it is not true, and so have a number of other people….
It appears that cause and effect have been changed around.
More warmth + more CO2 as supplied by both man and the warmer waters, causes more greening and this has an effect on albedo as earth becomes more black. In addition, the reaction in the night when the extra leaves, the wood, our fruit and all our extra food grows, is exothermic. This means that in the night and during growth seasons the minimum temperature rises. Both issues (that do cause warming) were already picked up back in 2006 in this report:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/4/jcli3627.1.xml
Be sure to read at least the abstract and the conclusion.
My own results of a statistical analysis of daily results of 57 weather stations confirm the findings of this report. For example, in Tandil, they cut the trees and the minimum temperature dropped sharply. In Las Vegas they brought water from afar and they changed a desert into an oasis. Note how the minimum temperature sharply rises.
Adobe Acrobat
Monckton of Brenchley, this effort is interesting and hopefully will prove helpful.
Here is a point I would like to nominate:
The static warming effect of greenhouse gases experienced at the surface does not control the end result of infrared emission to space from the circulating atmosphere.
The satellite observation of longwave emission from Earth shows that the concept of the atmosphere as a passive radiative “trap” is misleading and incomplete. The visualizations of radiance data from the geostationary satellites provide direct evidence of how the motion changes the result. For example, the images for NOAA GOES East Band 16, which NOAA calls the CO2 Longwave IR band, show the planet to be a huge array of highly variable, highly active emitters. The radiance (i.e. the strength of the longwave emission) at 30C (yellow) on the brightness temperature scale is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white.) The formation and dissipation of clouds, driven by the overturning circulations, plainly has a lot to do with this. It is all highly self-regulating as the motion delivers mass and energy from the tropics to the poles and from the surface to high altitude for just enough longwave energy to be emitted back to space. The models used by the IPCC do not even come close to realistically representing clouds or the motion involved in producing them.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
Mr Dibbell’s point is a good one, but very technical and not easy to quantify. How would he encapsulate it in not more than 100 words?
Thank you for your reply. Let’s try something like this. 97 words.
The radiative warming effect of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases is real, but the atmosphere is not just a motionless insulating layer.
The active circulation of the atmosphere changes where this incremental energy ends up. It does not accumulate down here to harmful effect. One can “watch” in high resolution from the infrared sensors on the geostationary satellites. The formation and dissipation of clouds, and the overturning circulations from the equator to the poles and from the surface to high altitude, show that just enough of the absorbed energy is escaping back to space as infrared radiation.
******
I realize there is no quantification expressed here. It is conceptual and visual (when one views the images.)
Here is another option.
The radiative warming effect of GHGs experienced at the surface does not control the emission of infrared radiation to space.
The geostationary satellites show us at high resolution (2 km) how the overturning motion of the atmosphere and the effects of clouds determine the end result. The IPCC models must use a coarse resolution (50 km at best) to crudely approximate the motion, the clouds, and the outgoing infrared radiation. The modeled climate response to GHGs is therefore unrealistic and unreliable for policy.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G18&band=16&length=12
I am not sure that Mr Dibbell’s point that greenhouse warming does not control the emission of infrared radiation to space is correct.
Increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes the altitude of the characteristic-emission level at which incoming and outgoing radiation are in balance to increase. Since the lapse-rate of temperature with altitude remains broadly constant, the effect of the increase in altitude is to increase temperature at all altitudes up to the former characteristic emission level, and, therefore, to increase temperature at the surface.
With great respect for your efforts, thank you for this reply.
I understand your objection and your explanation to be in line with the thinking of many skeptics of catastrophic warming who nevertheless believe that SOME warming from increasing CO2 MUST occur to a detectable extent. I invite your attention to the visualizations at the link I shared. What is the altitude of the characteristic-emission level in those images? Please keep thinking about this. In essence, these images and animations help to show visually what Pat Frank has shown formally and has restated in comments here at WUWT – that the climate system response to increasing concentrations of the non-condensing GHGs cannot be reliably distinguished from zero by any means we have available to us (my paraphrase.)
Don’t get me wrong – I do not dispute the theoretical point you make about the emission altitude. But this theoretical response of warming down low depends on the assumption that there is no other physical solution to the delivery of just enough mass and energy to higher altitude for conversion to outgoing longwave radiation. I do not see how that assumption holds true with all the motion to extremely high altitude plainly evident in the infrared images from space.
All the best to you in your tenacious opposition to the insanity of CAGW and “net-zero” we are all facing.
In response to Mr Dibbell, I say for the thousandth time that I do not “believe” anything in the scientific realm. It is, however, expedient, in accordance with the norms of logical discourse, to accept ad argumentum those points in an interlocutor’s argument which – whether or not they are true – cannot be definitively proven to be untrue.
The extent of CO2’s direct influence on global temperature comes into that category. Given how small the warming of the past couple of centuries has proven to be, it remains possible that CO2 has little or no direct effect on global temperature (and, therefore, still less indirect effect by way of feedback response). But I cannot prove that CO2 has little or no effect. Therefore, my team accepts ad argumentum that the reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 may be of order 1 to 1.2 K.
My bad for using the word “believe.” I should have substituted “hold.”
I have understood your ad argumentum approach for quite some time now.
I also understand your point, “But I cannot prove that CO2 has little or no effect.”
Even so, the visualized evidence from space, in the same band of wavelengths for which a significant portion of the direct warming effect of incremental CO2 is claimed, demonstrates why it is also reasonable to hold that the direct effect in the real atmosphere cannot be isolated for reliable attribution by any means presently available to us. In other words, it is the null hypothesis that may be reasonably held until and unless falsified.
I “get” that you do not wish to adopt that position.
All the best to you.
Mr Dibbell rightly concludes that we do not want to stand pat on the null hypothesis. The reason is that, if that argument were sufficient to stop the climate Communists, it would already have stopped them.
That is why we have been researching the error of physics for so many years. That error, once it is recognized for what it is, will have a devastating effect on the climate Communists. Not only will they no longer be able to argue that they are speaking from a scientific standpoint; they will also have to accept that their entire argument is predicated on what is, at root, a strikingly elementary error. There will be nowhere for them to hide.
And we propose to make sure that Governments recognize that and a carefully-selected handful of other errors for what they are by getting them to consult their own advisors, who will be unable to provide credible answers to the errors.
For it is true that even global net zero would prevent only 0.1 C global warming. It is true that adding more wind and solar to a grid that is already saturated with wind and solar capacity in excess of mean hourly demand will not reduce CO2 emissions one iota and that, therefore, it will not be possible to reach net zero by the currently-favored method – more and more unreliables.
And it is true that the Sun is shining and that, therefore, nearly all feedback response in the climate system is feedback response to the sunshine temperature that would obtain even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, and that, therefore, it is not at all likely that the predicted rate of warming will come to pass.
“The static warming effect of greenhouse gases experienced at the surface does not control the end result of infrared emission to space from the circulating atmosphere.” Huh? Too science-ish.
You could be right, for the purpose of this effort.
As we know, future projections on global temperatures are based on computer models, not fact based evidence.
Therefore, it is essential, that the fundamental weakness of the models must be highlighted.
There are certain criteria that must be satisfied, for a programme/model to work correctly. These are:
When it comes to the climate models, they fail the first criteria, before they even get to the three others!
Additionally, when drawing on scientific evidence, I think, we should cite, well known professors, such as Happer, Lindzen, Koonin, Michael Kelly, of course this illustrious author 🙂 and any others who are eminent if their field of expertise.
Mr Jones rightly points out that we should demonstrate the failure of the models. The head posting does this in at least three ways: showing the discrepancy between modeled and observed global warming since 1990; showing the error of feedback analysis by which climate scientists diagnosing feedback strengths from models’ outputs forgot that the Sun was shining and is thus responsible for very nearly all of the feedback response that they currently attribute solely to greenhouse-gas warming; and Professor Frank’s proof that uncertainty in just one of the initial conditions informing the models renders all their predictions no better than mere guesswork, statistically speaking.
I suppose we could also use another facet.
How do the zealots intend to build their net-zero empire, without using oil, gas or coal? Turbines, solar panels, tide and hydro power are not von Neumann machines.
This is my quick “Baker’s Dozen” of some of my technical reasons to be sceptical. These would need working up somewhat, but I thought they might be of interest.
1. Glacial retreat and sea level rise commence around 1830-1850 but IPCC temps and models have no trend until 1910 and anthropogenic climate forcings are negligible until 1910. So what melted the glaciers and caused sea level rise before 1910?
2. Sea level rise and glacial retreat exhibit linear trends 1840 – 2000 plus a quasi-periodic signal with period approximately 60 years. Why is this not reproduced in climate models?
3. There are two notable 35 yr periods of warming in the temp record: 1910-1945 & 1975-2010. IPCC GHG forcing’s for the period 1975-2010 are > 3x larger than for the period 1910-1945. But temperature, sea level rise and glacial retreat data only exhibit a ratio of 1.4x or less. Why is there an over 2x discrepancy in rates between (Tmodel – Tobs) and why is it structured and periodic (approximately 60 yr cycle) if climate models have no missing natural processes?
4. The “hotspot” of tropospheric tropical warming is the distinctive signature of GHG warming in climate models. Why is the average rate of warming in this region of climate models 2.5x larger than observed in satellite data?
5. Why is the average rate of total global warming from the ensemble of climate models > 2x faster than the average rate of warming of the satellite observations?
6. The range of ECS for CMIP6 climate models is 1.8 – 5.6 degC per doubling with a central estimate about 3.0. Empirical estimates are in the range 1.0 – 2.3 with a central estimate about 1.6. Why is there a factor > 2x difference in these estimates?
7. If CO2 controls temperature why does CO2 lag temperature in the Vostok ice core data?
8. If CO2 controls temperature why is the half-height width of Temperature rises/falls in the Vostok ice core data much less than the equivalent calculation for CO2? This implies cause and effect is that temperature influences CO2, not the other way round.
9. Why are there no decadel to multi-decadel or century scale causes of significant natural warming in climate models?
10. Climate models release 1.4 W per 1.0 degC temperature increase to space. Satellite observations show the earth releases 2.4 W per 1.0 degC. Explain the difference.
11. CMIP6 climate models have 4x the variance of observations despite the fact observations include rapid El Nino events and models cannot reproduce this. Why?
12. If climate models are “just physics” why do we need 40 of them when only 1 is required? If its “just physics” why don’t all 40 climate models give the same answer from the same inputs?
13. Why does a climate model run for the Holocene give a temperature prediction opposite to the observed temperatures? The Holocene shows cooling while CO2 and Methane are rising.
There are some very worthwhile points in Mr Pool’s list. Which of them does he consider would have a major effect on the debate if they were more widely known?
In response to pertinent point number 12.
Although we don’t require 40 different models, the reason why there are some many, is simply, if the IPCC discarded the exaggerated models, the people involved in their development would no longer receive funding. This would be a blow, to the CAGW army, and at the same time would weaken the influence of the IPCC “scientific community”.
Wow, nice list, which means it would mostly match my own list . The problem I run into is my lack of trust that data before WW2-ish. Consistent? Yes. Accurate? Ummmmm. I don’t know for sure whether any of it, from any era, is accurate.
I think it is important to mention that the warming is not even 1 K, as reported by NASA
Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
and most other official data
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
I’ve just 4 things to say, first is that the ‘eco solutions’ on the whole are a disaster and often cause more harm than good. Think dead eagles, dead desalination plants and the recycling nightmare that Windmills, Photovoltaic panels and E.V’s are likely leading toward. etc. etc.
Secondly, when OCO2 was launched and deployed successfully it was game over for the scam. China, which is ground zero for man made CO2 emissions clearly isn’t a significant source compared to natural sources.
Thirdly, the propaganda is out of control and damaging kids tremendously, we’ve just had a suicide by AI and it’s just a matter of time before the eco-terror mob do something terrifyingly stupid with dire consequences.
Fourthly, include some photos of the rare earth mines at Baotou China or Congolese kids mining Cobalt with their bare hands.
Mr Spence has identified some major pragmatic consequences of the unduly naive belief in the global warming narrative by scientifically-illiterate Western governments. These points should certainly be incorporated into our master list.
AGW, did not stop Mt. St Helens from glowing glaciers back. It is not if this interglacial will end, it is when.
Lord M is better versed in logic than I, but I remember Necessary and Sufficient as a logic check for a reason or cause. The ice cores show a lag time of temperature versus CO2. The temperature goes up or down prior to CO2. This to me shows CO2 is neither necessary nor sufficient to drive temperature.
Specific heat tables only have one value for air and CO2 at each temperature. We are told CO2 alone can account for 4-8 C of greenhouse’s 33 C effect due to IR. If 4-8 is true then there should be two columns for energy value one for with IR and one without.
When last I looked the NIST data sheet for CO2 does not list the ability to cause warming as a capability.
Thermodynamics says that it is energy and not the type of energy that causes warming.
Geologic history shows us that there is no control of climate by CO2.
“If it’s consensus it’s not science: if it’s science it’s not consensus
The imagined “consensus” that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic was fabricated. Police investigated and concluded that the report by Cook et al. (2013) of a 97.1% consensus constituted a “deception”. In reality, Cook had marked only 0.5% of the 12,000 papers on his list as having stated that recent warming was chiefly anthropogenic. In any event, his consensus proposition does not say global warming is dangerous. Moreover, argument from consensus conflates the two shop-worn logical fallacies of mere headcount and of appeal to the imagined authority of supposed experts. Argument from consensus has no place in science.”
Dear Lord,
Regarding the first sample on your hym sheet, can you provide evidence for the 0.5% figure? When I search on the internet for the details of Cook’s study in 2013, I find that there was a 97.1% consensus, that global warming was mainly caused by humans, expressed in only 33.6% of the 11,944 abstracts of the climate related papers, from 1991-2011, that were selected.
In 66.4% of the abstracts which were read, there was no mention of the anthropogenic effect on climate.
The 97.1% consensus refers only to the 33.6% of papers in which AGW was mentioned, which is much more than 0.5%.
Considering the complex and chaotic nature of climate, I can understand that most scientists, being aware of the great uncertainty involved, would not want to express an opinion.
Here’s an article which provides this information.
“We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
If Vincent will read the head posting, he will find Legates et al. (2013) mentioned. It was I who obtained Cook’s list of all 11,944 papers. Then I simply counted how many of those papers Cook had himself marked as having explicitly stated in their abstracts that recent warming was chiefly manmade, or words to that effect. There were 64 such papers, or 0.5% of the 11,944 papers in Cook’s list.
If one is seeking to assert that there is a 97.1% consensus, and one starts with only a 0.5% consensus, then a deception has arisen. That, at any rate, was the opinion of Queensland police. Interpol will shortly be looking at this among other deceptions perpetrated by the profiteers of doom in various nations.
What did the Queensland police do about it?
By the time they had concluded their investigation, Cook had left Australia.
Oh! I see! It was Cook himself who found 64 out of 11,944 papers, that endorsed the AGW alarm. I assume this project to find a consensus was a co-operative effort with several people reading the abstracts. 11,944 abstracts require a lot of reading. It would be equivalent to about 12 books, each containing 1,000 pages or more.
Just as I believe Cook’s claim of a 97% is very misleading, I think your claim of Cook’s 0.5% consensus is also misleading.
Sorry to be so critical, your Lordship.
Vincent is perhaps unaware of how elementary arithmetic works. Cook et al. produced a list of all 11,944 papers on which they had relied in asserting their claim of “97.1% consensus”. That list contained indicators showing how Cook et al. had ranked each of the 11,944 papers. As a matter of undeniable fact – for we and the police have copies of that list – Cook et al. had marked only 64 papers, or 0.5% of the entire sample, as having stated explicitly in their abstracts the “consensus” proposition defined by Cook et al., which was to the effect that recent global warming was chiefly anthropogenic.
Vincent ought to learn that science is not done by what he or anyone “believes”: it is done by hard evidence. And the hard evidence is to the effect that Cook et al. had themselves marked only 0.5% of all 11,944 papers as having explicitly stated that recent warming was chiefly anthropogenic. If Vincent wished to doubt that conclusion, it would be necessary for him to obtain Cook’s list, count the number of papers marked by Cook et al. as having explicitly endorsed the “consensus” proposition as Cook et al. had themselves defined it, and then publish a paper showing what the true number of papers marked by Cook et al. as endorsing their definition of “consensus” actually was.
Vincent, therefore, is not being “critical”, as he calls it, for he has not conducted the elementary research on the basis of which any such attempt to be “critical” could credibly be founded.
In speaking to the government I would stress the point that the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is essentually saturated at current concentrations. Regardless of future increases in concentration there is less than 1K direct heating possible from CO2 GHE.
I once discussed the alleged CO2 saturation with Professor Chris Essex. He concluded that up to 1000 ppmv the approximately logarithmic formula for growth in future CO2-driven radiative forcing would continue to hold. Therefore, doubling from today’s 420 to 840 ppmv would increase direct global warming by 1.2 K, with approximately another 0.1 K feedback response, total 1.3 K.
Well that is about 1K. And at the current rate it will take 150 years to experience that minor temperature change.
… as the head posting explains.
Late to this but no-one has mentioned the costs. One of the best arguments for Climate Action is that is costs so little that no-one needs to mention the costs…
But that’s untrue.
So:
1) The Covid lockdowns were acted on all round the world and yet they had no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 (see Mauna Loa). So, Climate action must be tougher than Covid was and for year after year – not just one. Are you willing to do that forever?
2) The weather happens even without climate change. Regardless of what we spend reducing CO2 there will still be storms. Weather is not climate. So, we need to build flood defences. Where is the saving in mitigating climate change over adapting to climate change? Unless you are letting the weather kill us anyway.
3) Developing countries need more time to respond to climate change than rich countries. So the additional costs will be paid by us before the developing countries like China and India. If businesses are looking for the cheapest places to invest, will they choose the West or the rest? Can you really prioritise climate change over providing for your own family?
4) Do you trust China and India keep their word and fight climate change – eventually – anyway? Because if they don’t, all the mitigation we have done is pointless. Do you trust China?
If Mr Courtney will read the head posting he will see that the question of the high cost and poor value for money inherent in climate action is indeed discussed, and will form an important element in the document for governments.
Thank you for takng time to respond. But I did not see the 4 points I listed being addressed above the line.
Particularly Point 2. The point that adaptation costs cannot be avoided, regardless of mitigation expenditure. But the reverse is not true.
This is a persuasive practical imbalance between the two policies. In the end, cost savings must come from Mitigation.
The opening words of Mr Courtney’s posting were: “Late to this but no one has mentioned the costs.” In reality, the head posting had mentioned the costs and had shown two methods of calculating them, and had also performed a value-for-money calculation.
As to Mr Courtney’s additional points, it is certainly desirable to point out that in the absence of any progress towards nut zero in the Communist-led countries nothing the West can do would make any difference. That point is, however, implicit in the calculation showing that even if the whole world went to nut zero the difference in global temperature by 2050 would be infinitesimal.
Hymn-sheets or individual hymns do not seem to have much effect when trying to de-program a ClimateCult™ member.
Just this week someone posted a video of a hearing where 4 or 5 educated people over-estimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 200-times [ 8% versus 0.04 ].
Washington State — the Great Left Coast State — is having a multiple-month cold wave; yet the concern is about global warming.
Give me a hymn of 5 years of cooling and then, maybe-just maybe, de-programming can begin.
The hymn-sheet approach has not been tried before among climate skeptics. Each of us has been hoeing his own row and ganging his own road. And this is not, repeat not, a public relations exercise. With the media almost entirely controlled by climate Communists, that would not get us far. But if governments ask their own advisors whether the main points in our document are correct and find that their advisors cannot refute our arguments, they will themselves realize that the game is up.
The theory that CO2 is responsible for global warming unequivocally predicts that there should be a distinct Tropospheric ‘hot -spot’.
This has been looked for, and not found.
Ergo, the theory is false.
The absence of the “hot spot” is most certainly a point that should be included.
The land-based temperature databases are diverging greatly from the satellite-based ones.
When they are examined, they are found to have extensive ‘adjustments’ which invariably have the effect of chilling the 1970s and heating the 1990s.
If this were better known, it would undercut the common media meme: “Record Hottest Day since…….”.
Wind and solar power cannot get us anywhere near net zero
Even worldwide net zero would cut 2050 temperature by less than 0.1 C
Individual nations would contribute infinitesimally to cutting warming
Each $1 billion spent would prevent one ten-millionth C warming
Selectively targeting the West increases global emissions
are really the same point reiterated. As are:
Weather-related disasters are not increasing as predicted
Observational methods suggest only 1.4 C warming this century
Models’ predictions of global warming are purely speculative
Personally I would like to see a reference to R. McKirtick´s work that attribution is currently done incorrectly.
Exaggerated predictions arose from an error of physics
Observational methods suggest only 1.4 C warming this century
A very basic error of physics is there!
Unless you are saying that the proposed alarmist feedback mechanism influences parameters like the incoming sun radiation, amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere or the earth rotation speed, than your 260K will not change during that feedback process.
Are you saying that one of those 3 parameters is changing significantly in the alarmist models? Or your version of it?
Does the average temperature of the moon or any other planet change in your understanding of the alarmist model due to that feedback?
Morfu03 says five of the points in the head posting are in effect the same point. In effect allthe points in the head posting make the same point. But it is helpful to politicians to be given numerous mutually-reinforcing and simple arguments, each of which is irrefutable. In combination, the effect is powerful.
As to climatology’s error of control-theoretic physics, the matter is as simple as in the head posting. By definition, feedback processes do not change a given reference temperature: instead, they respond to the entire reference temperature. As they do so, a feedback response arises. That feedback response is engendered by, dependent upon and accordingly proportional to the reference temperature to which it is a response.
The sum of the reference temperature and the feedback response thereto is the equilibrium temperature.
Since the 260 K emission temperature constitutes nearly all of the reference temperature, nearly all of the feedback response in the climate at a given moment must perforce be feedback response to emission temperature.
Throughout the process, the emission temperature remains unaltered: for it is, by definition, the temperature that would obtain on Earth in the absence of any greenhouse gases and in the absence of any feedback response.
>> By definition
various definitions which are wrong.
>> feedback processes [..] respond to the entire reference temperature.
That is wrong, the feedback process describes an amplification of a perturbation, here the assumed warming from anthropogenic CO2.
>> That feedback response is engendered by, dependent upon and accordingly proportional to the reference temperature to which it is a response.
That is clearly wrong and non-physical nonsense!
Since your process influences the whole temperature, it must act on the main parametes causing that warming, so you talk about a change of the sun irradiation, earth rotation and nitrogen content in the atmosphere, which is so far not observed, your idea is therefore contradicted by observation.
As I said two sentences earlier, it is also not how feedback mechanisms work, you misunderstood something fundamental about them.
Think about a Ponzi scheme, which is a good example of a positive-feedback system.
A good schemer can increase money exponentially, yet the affected parameter is only the money in the game not his total money or any other total amount.
The total amoutn of money is irrelevant here, just like the warming cause by the sun in your wrong example.
>>The sum of the reference temperature and the feedback response thereto is the equilibrium temperature.
That is correct, just like the schemers total money, whatever he had otherwise, plus the Ponzi.
>> Since the 260 K emission temperature constitutes nearly all of the reference temperature,
it is.
>> nearly all of the feedback response in the climate at a given moment must perforce be feedback response to emission temperature.
Sure, if your idea changes the sun, the earth rotation speed or the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, which is does not, so you are still wrong.
How long are you working on this now?
It is really not very complicated.
>> Throughout the process, the emission temperature remains unaltered: for it is, by definition, the temperature that would obtain on Earth in the absence of any greenhouse gases and in the absence of any feedback response.
It that the Earth´s emission temperature? Is that parameter linked to the measured and changing Earth´s emission spectrum?
It almost sounds like you are one of those doubting that a blanket would have an effect on a warm body in a bed? Or are you just trying to say that if there were no atmosphere the CO2 would have no effect? This last sentence is very cryptic and seems entirely out of context for your feedback process.
morfu03 does not understand either elementary control theory or elementary logic.
First, the control theory. There is no differencer in the climate system to permit the feedback processes extant at a given moment to respond differently to different components in the total reference temperature at that moment. Therefore, the feedback processes respond to the entire reference temperature, and not to some arbitrarily chosen and very small fraction of it.
Secondly, the logic. Feedback processes in the climate are inanimate. They cannot distinguish between a Kelvin of emission temperature and a Kelvin of natural greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity and a Kelvin of anthropogenic reference sensitivity. They cannot, therefore act not at all in response to emission temperature and then act very, very vigorously in response to reference sensitivity.
We realized early in our researches that this error is so serious that those who wished to uphold the Party Line would attempt to confuse the issue by pretending that there is no feedback response to emission temperature. Therefore, we did two things. First, we recruited a Professor of control theory, who kindly kept us straight, and secondly, we built a test apparatus and then got a national laboratory of physics to do the same.
There is, therefore, no doubt about our result. And, as I have already explained, the emission temperature may without significant error be taken as constant in the industrial era. Thus, the reference temperature following a forcing equivalent to doubling CO2 compared with 1850 comprises 260 K emission temperature, 8 K reference sensitivity to naturally-occurring greenhouse gases and 1 K doubled-CO2 anthropogenic reference sensitivity to doubled CO2: total 269 K.
Precisely because reference temperature is so large, the feedback strength – correctly denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of that reference temperature – has a very small value – 0.22 to 0.26 W/m^2/K in the industrial era, covering predicted doubled-CO2 equilibrium sensitivity (ECS) of 1 to 5 K. Because just 0.01 W/m^2/K of additional feedback response is enough to increase the predicted ECS by 1 K, and because no feedback strength can be constrained to so great a precision by any observational or theoretical method, feedback analysis cannot be used to predict global warming: the results of any such analysis would be no better than guesswork. Sorry, but that’s how it is.
>> Feedback processes in the climate are inanimate. They cannot distinguish between a Kelvin of emission temperature and a Kelvin of natural greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity and a Kelvin of anthropogenic reference sensitivity.
That seems the gist of your longer post, which seems mostly not relevant.
A feedback process which works on the
was never observed!
The first inicator would be that what you call “reference temperature” of other planets and the moon would change as well.
If it doesnt, that temperature on the Earth is likewise not influenced your feedback process.
Just like the other money of the schemer in Ponzi scheme is generally not affected by the scheme, but only the money in the game!
Can we agree that in a Ponzi scheme it does not matter how much money the schemer has outside the scheme?
From there it is only a very small jump for you to concede, that the sun does not change in a measuable way by adding CO2 to the amtosphere and as a result the main contribution of the reference temperature is not part of your feedback process.
Morfu03 is out of his depth and should perhaps stop digging. Of course feedback response is observed in the climate system. In 1850, for instance the 268 K reference temperature was the sum of the 260 K emission temperature and the 8 K direct warming by (known as reference sensitivity to) pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases. The observed equilibrium temperature that year was 288 K. The 20 K difference – like it or not – is wholly attributable to feedback response.
And the problem with analogies, particularly analogies put forward by those insufficiently versed in the underlying science, is that all analogies break down some point ex definitione. The Ponzi scheme analogy breaks down at first base, because – like it or not – emission temperature is not extraneous to but integral to and dominant in the climate system and, therefore, must be (but is not) explicitly taken into account in any correct appraisal of feedback strength.
For 1850, the system-gain factor (the ratio of the equilibrium to the reference signal) was thought to be (288 – 260) / 8, or 3.5, the term in brackets being the 28 K natural greenhouse effect, the sum of 8 K reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases and 20 K total feedback response. Sure enough, Hansen et al. (1984) and countless others thereafter thought the system-gain factor was 3-4.
In reality, the correct system-gain factor for 1850, after allowing for the surely observable fact that the Sun is shining, was 288 / 268, or less than 1.1. Therefore, on the basis of the data for that year the direct warming of 1.2 K from doubled CO2 before accounting for feedback response is not 3-4 K, as climatologists continue to imagine in the teeth of the evidence, but only of order 1.3 K, which is too small to be harmful.
However, the other side of the coin is that a very small change in the feedback regime compared with 1850 could produce a far larger system-gain factor, and hence a larger warming, than the values for 1850 suggest.
In fact, only 0.01 Watts per square meter per Kelvin has to be added to the feedback strength to push up final doubled-CO2 warming by 1 K, and there is just 0.03 W/m^2/K difference between the feedback strengths implicit in IPCC’s 2 K to 5 K estimates of doubled-CO2 equilibrium sensitivity.
However, there is no observational or theoretical or other method of determining feedback strength (which cannot in any event be directly measured) to anything like a precision of only 0.01 W/m^2/K. Therefore, all methods of predicting future warming that depend on feedback analysis, including the diagnosis of feedback strength from the outputs of general-circulations models (which do not in themselves use feedback analysis internally), cannot tell us anything about how much future global warming there will be. They are pure guesswork. IPCC, for instance, mentions “feedback” >2500 times in its Sixth ASSessment Report of 2021; but in doing so it is in effect admitting that its methodology for predicting global warming is purely speculative and its predictions wholly unmeritorious.
Therefore, one must use methods of appraisal that do not depend at all upon feedback analysis. Of these, the simplest is to observe that the rate of global warming is not 0.3 K/decade, as originally predicted by IPCC in 1990 and still predicted today: instead, it is 0.13 K/decade, implying 1.3 K/century warming, or 1.3 K equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity. And that rate of warming is far too slow and far too small to constitute a problem.
Another method is the energy-budget method. Here, too, using mainstream data for the relevant parameters, a billion-trial Monte Carlo simulation shows the peak of the Gaussian distribution to be at 1.3 [0.9, 2.0] K final doubled-CO2 warming, and not the currently-imagined 3 [2, 5] K.
Therefore, the method at present principally relied upon for official global-warming predictions is unfit for that purpose. Observationally-based methods, therefore, take on a greater importance. But those methods cohere in showing that midrange warming by the end of this century will be little more than 1 K above today’s temperature, even if the whole world continues to increase its emissions as it has over the past third of a century.
>> Morfu03 is..
Personal attacks are a measure of the weak and you seem to resort to them, when you are out of arguments.
Your texts get longer and still lack any argument.
>> all analogies break down some point
Is true, but so far the Ponzi scheme holds
You yet have to address my point that if the sun, the earth rotation speed and the nitrogen amount is unaffected by your feedback procedure, a very big contribution of the temperature is not part of your feedback process.
>> The observed equilibrium temperature that year was 288 K. The 20 K difference – like it or not – is wholly attributable to feedback response.
Here you point to a fundamental problem of your feedback process as at that time anthropogenic contribution to warming generally assumned to be very small!
Is your feedback process simply not describing the anthropogenic influence?
Don’t whine. If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen. Those who cravenly post anonymously can expect to be dealt with as firmly as their half-witted contributions deserve.
I have correctly stated that Morfu03 is out of its depth and should stop digging. That took less than 1 line out of a detailed, 58-line scientific response which Morfu03 plainly has not understood, clearly though it was expressed.
The emission temperature is indeed “not part of the feedback at all”. It represents 97% of the entire 268-269 K reference temperature to which, at any given moment, such feedback processes as then obtain must perforce respond.
Given that reference temperature has increased by less than one two-hundred-and-fiftieth since 1850, it is not possible to say for certain that feedback response will increase exponentially. What can be said for certain is that the rate of global warming since 1850 is consistent with linear growth in feedback response with the growth in reference temperature.
I shall explain again that the equilibrium temperature at a particular moment of temperature equilibrium, such as 1850 [there was no global warming trend thereafter for 80 years], is the sum of the reference temperature and the feedback response thereto. Reference temperature is the sum of emission temperature and the reference sensitivity directly forced by greenhouse gases.
Feedbacks in the climate are called “temperature feedbacks” for a reason. Feedback strength is denominated in Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the reference signal to which the feedback processes in the climate system respond.
Morfu03 seems to have more than a little difficulty in understanding that emission temperature remains broadly constant in the industrial era, but nevertheless contributes nearly all feedback response in the climate system.
One suspects that Morfu03 labors under the misapprehension that the Sun can only drive a feedback response if emission temperature changes, and that only the change (if any) should be responded to by feedback processes.
However, as I have previously explained, feedback processes are inanimate. They cannot pick and chose between the Kelvins of the different contributions to reference temperature. Therefore, nearly all feedback response is feedback response to emission temperature, because emission temperature constitutes nearly all of reference temperature.
As I have previously explained, we knew that those who wished to uphold the Party Line would seek to deny that feedbacks in a dynamical system not possessing any differencer must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, regardless of that unit’s origin. Therefore, we engaged the assistance of a Professor of control theory, and also of several control engineers, and we built and operated our own circuit to simulate the behavior of feedback in the climate, and engaged a national laboratory of physics to build its own circuit and then replicate our result, and then to confirm that feedback processes must indeed respond to the entire reference temperature and not just to any perturbations thereof driven by greenhouse gases.
In any event, the elementary equations of the classical feedback amplifier require that the feedback block must respond to the entire signal received by it, which specifically includes the base or originating signal, which in climate is the 260 K emission temperature.
When our Government sends our paper on the feedback question to its own advisers, they will not be able to get away with pretending to assert, as Morfu03 pretends to assert, that feedback processes do not respond to the entire emission temperature, even where that emission temperature itself remains invariant. For they do. And that is why his Ponzi scheme analogy is inapposite, as has already been explained to him.
We are also working with other governments, who will also be consulting their advisors and feeding the results back to us. Their advisors will have to provide a proper, scientific response, and we are confident that they will be visibly and embarrassingly unable to do so convincingly.
So disrupting these threads will not make the slightest difference to the outcome. Before too long, one government somewhere or another will break ranks, on realizing that the whole climate caper arose from an elementary error of physics. And when one government breaks ranks, others will rapidly follow.
Slur and insults just show what man you are and how little you are interested in a meaningful discussion.
>> the feedback block must respond to the entire signal received
What is your expected feedback to anthropogenic CO2 at preindustural times?
You stated “The 20 K difference – like it or not – is wholly attributable to feedback response.”, we probably can agree that the anthropogenic contribution was very small at that time, so did you just develop a mechanism which does not describe the feedback response to anthropogenic CO2? That seems very useless in the current discussion.
The correct number to feed into your feedback block for the discussion of anthropogenic CO2 is about 1K, the expected “entire signal” for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 280 to 560ppm, well documented by HITRAN simulations and lab experiments.
Don’t whine. Those who are furtively anonymous cannot suffer any loss of reputation. If Morfu03 had made the slightest attempt at a serious and informed criticism it would have been courteously treated. However, since it is behaving in a childishly vexatious fashion it can expect to be called out as the troll it is.
In 1850 the 288 K global mean surface temperature comprised 268 K reference temperature (i.e., temperature before taking any account of feedback response) and 20 K feedback response to that 268 K. The 268 K reference temperature comprised 260 K emission temperature, derived via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, plus 8 K reference sensitivity to preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.
Since 1850 there has been a greenhouse-gas forcing a little less than that from a doubling of CO2 concentration. Therefore, there has been about 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivity, bringing up the reference temperature to about 269 K at present. Assuming no change in the feedback regime since 1850 (and that is the implicit assumption in climatology), there has been less than 0.1 K feedback response to the 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivity.
IPCC, however, expects that the entire signal from a doubling of CO2 is not 1 K, as Morfu03 states, but 3 [2, 5] K. And the midrange in the CMIP6 models is 3.9 K.
After correction for climatologists’ elementary error of control theory, reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity (RCS) is about 1.2 K and equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) is about 1.3 K. Thus, the feedback response to the 1.2 K direct warming caused by doubled CO2 is approximately 0.1 K.
However, these calculations assume no change in the feedback regime since 1850. If there were no more than a 10% increase in feedback strength compared with 1850, i.e., from 0.22 to 0.24 Watts per square meter per Kelvin of the 269 K reference temperature, then ECS would increase by 160%, from the 1.3 K calculated on the basis of the feedback regime as it stood in 1850 to the 3 K that IPCC predicts at midrange.
But it is not possible to constrain feedback strength to within 0.01-0.02 Watts per square meter per Kelvin. Therefore, feedback analysis cannot be used to make predictions of global warming. For all estimates based on feedback analysis are no better than guesswork, as climatologists would have realized if they had not misunderstood how control theory works.
Observation, reinforced by the energy-budget method, suggests ECS of about 1.3 K, also suggesting that there has not in fact been a change in the feedback strength since 1850 – not a surprising conclusion, given that global temperature today exceeds that of 1850 by only 0.3%.
It actually can get “more wrong” after wrong..
>> 20 K feedback response to that 268 K
well you seem to state most clearly here that whatever feedback process you are considering, it is NOT related to anthropogenic CO2 which is zero at that time.
Please make sure that from now on to mark that better, as this “ Monckton of Brenchley climate feedback” is just a plain wrong, because as I mentioned several times some factors like the sun are just not affected by a change of CO2, whereas others are.
>> IPCC, however, expects that the entire signal from a doubling of CO2 is not 1 K, as Morfu03 states, but 3 [2, 5] K
That is also wrong, you are confusing the “entire signal” of the direct CO2-effect of about 1K per dpubling
https://www.acs.org/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html
The assumed output after the feedback multiplies the initial CO2-effect by the climate sensitivity, the feedback factor to it.. well within the norms of a stabilized feedback process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
It seems that your main problem is your redefinition of well established terms.
Climate change is evidenced by a change in the ‘global average temperature’, which is not sensible to any living thing, and exists merely as a mathematical construct.
While the ‘global average temperature’ may change, the global range of sensible temperatures on this planet has not changed in recorded human history. The planet has no ‘fever’.
While I have only discussed this subject with laymen, among the CAGW believers I have been unable to get agreement on any of the above, with the exception of the amount of warming, and even that isn’t always agreed on.
I usually can’t even get agreement on “if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
Tony, that’s one of the reasons I believe hammering on the 100+ year records of extreme weather. Very simple, cartoon-like graphics should be produced and disseminated widely.
Tony G is right that the true-believers will not admit they are wrong, even where the evidence is overwhelming. That demonstrates the fact that we are dealing with a political problem, not a scientific one. But we can meet that political problem by demonstrating scientifically that there is no problem.
But we can meet that political problem by demonstrating scientifically that there is no problem.
I’m not quite sure how A follows B, but I would agree that it is absolutely vital to have a sound scientific position. I think the best we can do is to try to convince the middle, those who accept AGW simply because talk about it is pervasive, without being deep believers or fanatics. That’s still quite a battle due to how much people are inundated with it – I read magazines about homesteading and farming, woodworking, and homebuilding, and it’s a constant refrain even there.
Your proposition here might affect that middle crowd, at least to the point of getting them to simply not just accept what they’re told.
This is not, repeat not, a public relations exercise. We are looking for points that governments can refer to their own climate advisers, so that the governments can see that their advisers cannot answer them.
I’m much more skeptical than you, then, regarding governments’ willingness to even consider these questions. They have no interest in doing so as climate alarm provides them an excuse to exercise more power over the people. My opinion, with which it appears you disagree, is that we need to convince the people first, so that the people will pressure the government to consider alternate viewpoints.
Perhaps approaching it on both fronts would be more effective than approaching it on only one or the other.
Merely because getting governments to check the math is difficult, one should not give in, give over and give up. Governments have an interest in being re-elected, and the first government to ditch the climate nonsense will romp home at the polls.
If we can get governments to send the short scientific document to their experts, and if the experts cannot satisfactorily reply, governments will get the point and will realize that if they ditch the climate claptrap they will not destroy The Planet.
I would like to submit a political question to our governments, in my case Ireland.
The UN says we all have to do our bit to stop the Climate Emergency. Why then, do they not put China and India at the top of the list of those that need to act? Here is the data, which for me is the ‘elephant in the room’. It is clear to all that what we do in Europe and the USA makes no impact. The planet doesn’t recognise the nationality of CO2.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?time=1970..latest&facet=none&country=CHN~IND~European+Union+%2827%29~USA~GBR&Gas=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+country&Relative+to+world+total=false