The Elephants in The Room

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The “climate hell” mentioned in the run-up to the latest COPout conference by the excitable Mr Guterres, Sekjen of the United Nations, is not a happening thing. As the New Pause in global warming lengthens inexorably, month by month, real-world global warming departs more and more visibly from what was and is predicted.

Yet the Thermageddonites, flogging the dead horse like a bull in a china shop even though the emperor has no clothes, are ignoring the elephants in the room.

Their latest wheeze is to point out that the real-world global-warming trend in the third of a century since IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990is greater than the trend from that year to June 2014, the month when the New Pause began. From 1990 to June 2014 the trend was 0.09 C/decade. However, despite the New Pause, the trend from 1990 to April 2023 was 50% greater, at 0.136 C/decade.

If the New Pause continues, of course, eventually the overall trend will match the trend to the beginning of the New Pause. If it continues long enough, it will fall below that prior trend, just as with the previous Long Pause.

Either way, these long Pauses are visible indicators of the elephant in the room: namely, the fact that the entire interval of predictions of global warming made by IPCC (1990), and still adhered to by IPCC (2021), has proven to be flagrantly in excess of observed reality:

Nor is gross over-prediction the only elephant in the room. Let us quickly summarize some other members of the growing herd. For instance, the approximately logarithmic forcing response to increased CO2 concentration means that each additional molecule of CO2 we add to the atmosphere causes less forcing, and hence less warming, than any of its predecessors:

Most official methods of predicting global warming rely on feedback analysis. Feedback strength implicit in the 3 [2, 5] C ECS predicted by IPCC (2021) is 0.24 [0.23, 0.26] Watts per square meter per degree of the reference temperature. The breadth of the interval is just 0.03 W m–2 K–1. Thus, adding only 0.01 W m–2 K–1 to feedback strength would increase ECS by 1 K. But feedback strength is not knowable to so tiny a precision as a hundredth of a Watt per square meter. Thus, all IPCC’s predictions are no better than mere guesswork, and provide no basis for the costly policies being pursued by imprudent Western governments.

The absence of the predicted tropical mid-troposphere “hot spot” confirms that the water-vapor feedback (the only one potentially big enough to matter: the rest self-cancel) is small:

Nor is misrepresentation of feedback the models’ only error. When Dr Pat Frank of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory first presented his finding that the general-circulation models had not accounted for propagation of error across the time-steps from here to 2100 and beyond, his audience – the World Federation of Scientists – were flabbergasted. His result, published in 2019, stands unrefuted in the learned journals to this day. His result renders all of the models’ predictions valueless. They are no better than mere guesswork:

Fortunately, there are observationally-based methods of temperature prediction that do not depend on diagnosing feedback strength from the outputs of general-circulation models, or on any other form of feedback analysis, and do not depend on the models’ failure to account for propagation of uncertainty. The energy-budget method, for instance, does not depend on knowing feedback strength. Monte Carlo distribution based on the mainstream, published uncertainties in the five listed initial conditions gives ECS as a harmless 0.13 [0.09, 0.20] K:

One may also use Monte Carlo distribution to derive the 0.1 C global warming that might be prevented in the unlikely event that the whole world attained net zero emissions by 2050:

The above graph generously assumes that global net zero emissions are possible. In reality, China, Russia, India and Pakistan are greatly increasing their coal-fired capacity so as to keep their electricity prices an order of magnitude below those of Western nations. On that assumption, each $1 billion spent on abatement would prevent less than 1/10,000,000 C:

The favored method of reaching net zero – installing wind and solar power – cannot further reduce CO2 emissions without costly static-battery or hydrogen-production backup once hourly mean demand on a national grid exceeds the installed nameplate capacity of wind and solar power – their output in ideal weather. Many Western countries are now above that limit. So the above estimates of warming prevented, of cost and of value for money are optimistic:

Finally, the lurid predictions of death by famine made by the profiteers of doom were false. Indeed, in the global warming era from the 1970s onward, deaths by famine have fallen to record lows:

Experience has shown that simple and irrefutable points such as those which are summarized in this set of diagrams exert a powerful influence on those whose minds are still open to the objective truth.

One of my projects for this summer will be to make the elephants in the room visible to all by drawing them together in a book of images such as these, with a necessary minimum of text. The graphs can then be updated for each annual edition. Not everyone will understand every point, but most people of goodwill can understand most of them. On any view, the organized hysteria reflected in Mr Guterres’ utterances is wholly misplaced.

4.9 51 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
May 4, 2023 2:07 am

All of that is the reason the Climate Crusade is going after Methane and Nitrous Oxide.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 6:47 am

New Hobgoblins are being born in the Halls of Academia, funded by the bureaucracy (read taxpayer), on an as needed basis. As they are imaginary there is an endless supply to menace the unsuspecting government groomed public school “Gradiate.”

This is why they stopped teaching reading, writing and math and replaced it with social science and gender reassignment pseudo-zoology in grade school. The better to fool you with and make you submissive.

What the world needs is for these moral relativist agents of change to test their Postmodern theory on gravity. I suggest by stepping off the highest building on their nearest college campus. What a great test of this no objective truth secular religion. If we don’t stop these evil maniacs soon they will be throwing people into volcanoes.

Reply to  Bill Powers
May 4, 2023 10:16 pm

I’m told New York State bought a couple of hundred guillotines a while back, ostensibly for the re-education of right-wing religious fanatics.
This week I’m told they “found 20 000 volcanoes”.
They are preparing for the Final Solution?
Just kidding, of course. They replaced all the rounding up and putting down manpower, with a little prick…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 8:00 am

And, I have recently demonstrated here that the attempt to curtail warming from anthropogenic methane is a fool’s errand.

Richard M
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 8:09 am

Once boundary layer feedback is applied these other gases cannot induce any warming either. The absorption bands for these gases are also saturated low in the atmospheric boundary layer (due to overlap with water vapor). This eliminates any warming from downwelling IR and instead, induces evaporative cooling. This is the same negative feedback induced by CO2.

The bottom line is no well mixed greenhouse gas with its absorption band saturated can cause any warming.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 9:58 am

Via Nitrous Oxide they can target modern farming and the oil and gas industry and reach their dual goals of population reduction and medieval living conditions (ironic in a way)

Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 12:01 pm


The Climate Crusade doesn’t care about reality, proof, evidence, cost-benefit analysis, even the basic idea of value for money, or the plight of the poor dealing with high energy and transportation costs, especially those buried in the prices of everything we buy.

May 4, 2023 2:36 am


Before you spend time and money on this project, consider this.

Probably fewer than 10% of the planet have an academic qualification, many fewer have a science or mathematics qualification.

Most MP’s in the UK don’t have a scientific or mathematics qualification.

Most people simply can’t understand what a single graph, far less a series of them means. Add to that even simple algebraic equations and they simply shut down. They have no clue what they are looking at.

If we are to communicate with these people and the general public I’m afraid we must simplify our messages – actually, dumb them down – to memorable soundbites that can be repeated consistently.

That’s what the alarmist’s did with “97% consensus”, “SLR”, indeed CO2 itself “It warms the planet”.

Give people the ammunition to sound intelligent in the pub and it becomes infectious.

Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 3:11 am

I spent 15 years lecturing adult high school graduates various courses and it was worse than I thought.
I estimate a third had not the slightest comprehension what an XY graph was about.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Chasmsteed
May 4, 2023 4:14 am

And yet when I present slides such as these to general audiences, including school audiences, the students have no difficulty in following the argument, and most of them change their view after they have seen the presentation. Indeed, even at Oxfort University, woke though the student body is, I recently gave a talk after which half of those who had originally said they were concerned about global warming voted at the end that they were no longer concerned.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 4:27 am

Graphs can easily be tweaked to give false impressions.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  strativarius
May 4, 2023 8:16 am

But all the graphs in the head posting are easily replicable. Just plot the mainstream data and that’s what you get.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Chasmsteed
May 4, 2023 10:16 am

UK MPs and degree qualifications December 2019

  1. Politics – 20%
  2. History – 13%
  3. Law -12%
  4. Economics – 10%
  5. Philosophy – 6%
  6. English – 4%

No degree qualification 15%.
There won’t be much change as there have only been a few by-elections since then. But it does mean that the remaining 20% have degrees but specific science and maths graduates are less than 4% of MPs. I know my current MP has a degree in Metalurgy

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 4, 2023 12:07 pm

Degrees aren’t a guarantee of brains, or heart, for that matter. Think of all the climate PhDs who should know better but hopped on the Green bandwagon and don’t give a monkey’s bum for the damage they are causing.

Martin Brumby
Reply to  PCman999
May 4, 2023 7:42 pm

Very true.
And I bet most bigger local Councils with responsibilities for roads will be paying for a Chartered Engineer on their staff, potholes notwithstanding.

Reply to  Chasmsteed
May 4, 2023 3:36 pm

Ditto. My experience with senior undergraduates.

Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 3:30 am

Most MPs have variants of PPE. That’s probably why they are spads first and then MPs later

Steve Case
Reply to  strativarius
May 4, 2023 3:50 am

The most common meaning for PPE is Personal Protective Equipment. I have no idea why people insist on using them without definition. I guess they think it makes them look smart. Well OK, that was a snarky dig, but I tell you what, Hot Scot is right on the money that people’s eyes glaze over when presented with equations and graphs. They also stop listening when undefined acronyms are used, especially when said acronym is the important term in the sentence. I suppose PPE is well known in the UK and I was able to look up spads. ( Ha ha spads come up not a word on this side of the pond.) Well anyway the internet said it’s a UK term for Special Advisor.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 3:59 am

PPE – at least in Oxbridge and other UK neo-kindergartens – is Philosophy, Politics and Economics

“About the course… “

A spad is indeed a political advisor and they are very much political appointees.

Examples: David Cameron, Ed Miliband (and the best part of the other 648 snouts in the trough). 

Last edited 29 days ago by strativarius
Steve Case
Reply to  strativarius
May 4, 2023 4:20 am

Thanks (-:

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 5:35 am

“people’s eyes glaze over when presented with equations and graphs”

Right on! Which is why even the most brilliant presentations, complex or simplified, won’t get desired results. It’s going to take down and dirty politics. It wasn’t the presentations of Mann and others that pushed the climate crusade along- it was protests and whining by the likes of Greta Thunberg that seemed to thrill light weight politicians who want a legacy of being “progressive”. I think climate realists need to also get in the streets with protests and yelling out that “we aren’t going to take this any more”. Superior thinking isn’t going to win- aggressive behavior will. Time to get Machiavellian.

Steve Case
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 4, 2023 7:05 am

I think climate realists need to also get in the streets with protests and yelling out that “we aren’t going to take this any more”. 

What climate realists need is a platform. An ad campaign of short sound bites. Harry & Louise who destroyed Hillary’s health plan.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 8:07 am

Yes, when I see the acronym PPE, I think of Personal Protective Equipment. When making comments to an international audience it is probably best to either not use an acronym by itself, or to define it first before using it several times.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 4:12 am

In response to HotScot, this is a website viewed by people most of whom have quite a bit more knowledge of climatology and economics than the general population. The commenters here do not want me to make unsupported assertions, so the slides actually contain evidence. Get over it.

But if one wants to translate the slides into simple terms, here goes:

1.     They screwed up. For a third of a century climate scientists have predicted more than twice as much warming as is happening in the real world.

2.     Diminishing returns. The more we emit, the less the effect of new emissions on temperature.

3.     They forgot the Sun was shining and blamed greenhouse gases for the warming it causes.

4.     They screwed up again. They thought the upper air in the tropics would warm at twice the surface rate. It didn’t.

5.     Models’ predictions are guesswork. They thought models could predict warming correctly, but they got their math wrong, so models’ predictions are speculative.

6.     Real-world warming is proving to be less than half what climate scientists predicted.

7.     We can’t stop warming. Even if the whole world went to net zero emissions by 2050, less than a tenth of a degree of warming would be prevented by then.

8.     Mitigation is lousy value for money. Each $1 billion we squander on aiming for net zero would prevent less than a ten-millionth of a degree of future warming.

9.     Windmills don’t cut CO2 emissions. We already have too many of them: any more would hike electricity prices still further without cutting CO2 emissions at all.

10.  CO2 is plant food. That is one reason why deaths from famine are now at record lows.

Steve Case
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 4:24 am

Excellent headlines, and people do read headlines.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 4:50 am

Thanks very much for the summary. Less is more.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 4:51 am

One of my biggest concerns is the continuing use of the term “Climate Crisis”…..

That’s what the man on the Clapham
Omnibus hears…

Reply to  Hysteria
May 4, 2023 4:59 am

Have you been to Clapham lately?

It really has gone down hill.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 5:38 am

good, now all you need to do is get billions of people to read that

or some thousands out in the street with banners with those phrases

Joe Born
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 5:46 am

This will serve as another reminder that no, they didn’t forget that the sun is shining.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Joe Born
May 4, 2023 11:07 am

Yes, they did.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 3:07 pm

Once one realizes that the feedback processes extant at a given moment must perforce respond equally to each degree of the entire reference temperature, including the dominant emission or sunshine temperature whose influence on feedback climatology neglects, it becomes apparent that, as shown in the head posting, a change of only 0.01 unit in the total feedback strength will change equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity by 1 degree. However, feedback strength is not and cannot be known to anything like that precision: therefore, feedback analysis cannot reliably constrain predictions of global warming, and other methods must be used instead.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 5:49 am

The commenters here do not want me to make unsupported assertions, so the slides actually contain evidence. Get over it.”

Keep your hair on. HotScot made an entirely valid and important point. It isn’t the commenters here that you have to convince. If you don’t appreciate that then you won’t get very far trying to spread the message. You’ve just shown that you can express your points in simple terms – for a wider audience that is what you are going to have to do.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  DavsS
May 4, 2023 8:14 am

Well, I’m not the Messiah, so it’s not my job to spread messages. I do research, with my team, and we publish the results from time to time. For the present audience, a necessary minimum of science must be presented.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 9:48 am

Monckton of Brenchley: “Well, I’m not the Messiah, so it’s not my job to spread messages. I do research, with my team, and we publish the results from time to time. For the present audience, a necessary minimum of science must be presented.”

Your list of ten simple terms is the appropriate starting point for influencing public policy decision makers. However, those decision makers who have an open mind will want more scientific substance to back each of your points.

I presume that your backup scientific arguments and your backup analysis material can be organized and presented in a form which supports each argument individually as needed, and all arguments collectively as a whole when integrated into a larger scientific context.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 4, 2023 3:04 pm

That is what the book will do.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 2:08 pm

He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy. /sarc tag as humour needs to explained to lefties.

Last edited 28 days ago by simonsays
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 6:28 am

One of these is too dumbed down. It reads as an assertion, not an argument.
No 5 – They got it wrong, isn’t summarised as to how they got it wrong.

It should read a little like, “They got the errors wrong. It was fine to begin with but they missed how the errors add up and up as the model runs further ahead in time”

Anothe of these is too ‘math-y’. There is no way to explain it uncontroversially without being far beyond the understanding of the man in the street.
That’s No 3, the Sun is shining. Better to leave it out and present it to select, interested, knowledgable audiences only.

Oxford University students are not typical of the electorate or the political class (who come form a small suset of those students).

Pat Frank
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 6:55 am

In short, “climate crisis” a fraud, the science is a crock, and they’re stealing your money.

That should play at the pub.

(Thanks for the kind words, Christopher.)

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 4, 2023 8:13 am

It’s a pleasure, Pat! Yours remains the most important paper in the climate debate. It demolishes all the IPCC reports.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 10:15 pm

Your consideration honors me, Christopher. Thank-you.

I’ve completed a manuscript on the integrity of the global air temperature record. The level of incompetence it reveals will amaze you.

Though, with your experience, you won’t be surprised.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 9:35 am

Excellent summary.
Now, how do we get the MSM to publish it?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 10:14 pm

Thank you for the summary, M of B.

I’d add: 11. Extreme weather events are not getting worse. The frequency, intensity and duration of hurricanes, other storms, floods, tornadoes, heatwaves, droughts and wildfires have not increased in over 100 years of recordkeeping.

Steve Case
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 4:18 am

“…we must simplify our messages – actually, dumb them down – to memorable soundbites…”

The polar bears are still here – We’ve always had hurricanes and tornados – Sea level has been rising ever since records have been kept in 1807 – More CO2 makes our world greener – Wind is free, but windmills cost millions – Solar panels don’t work at night. The ocean isn’t becoming acid – It’s not happening.

David Dibbell
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 4:23 am

Good points here. One must carefully consider the target audience for persuasion.

Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 4:37 am

“Most people simply can’t understand what a single graph”

Their eyes are drawn to the curve and where it’s headed, the scale on X and Y is very secondary.

I recall a graph produced by the Conservative party in the early 80s which showed a rise in numbers of nurses recruited over 4 years with a slope from yr1 to yr4 continuous. The reality was the increase in numbers occurred in yr1 alone and then flatlined.

Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 5:16 am

“Most MP’s in the UK don’t have a scientific or mathematics qualification”

Correction HotScot, Most of them don’t even have a brain!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bobpjones
May 4, 2023 8:14 am

“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, become teachers. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers. Those who can’t do any of the aforementioned, go into politics.”

Reply to  bobpjones
May 4, 2023 3:45 pm

Must be a “well mixed” problem. Australian MP ‘s present the same mental challenge.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 7:08 am

It’s a sad fact that arguments for liberty and limited government fill volumes, while arguments for tyranny fit on t-shirts and bumper stickers.

Lee Riffee
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 7:54 am

Yes, that’s definitely a good idea. Another thing I wish I’d see more of with regards to slaying the CAGW dragon are ad campaigns telling people exactly how “mitigation” will affect them personally.
Here in Maryland our louse of a governor just signed a law to ban ICE cars by 2035, just like the moron in CA did earlier. But yet hardly a peep about it on the local news, and nothing in the once vaunted Baltimore sun and its local papers. I bet if someone went out into the streets and stopped a hundred or more people and asked them if they knew about this upcoming ban, I bet just a tiny fraction (maybe 1 or 2%) even know about it at all. And I bet the same situation would occur in California….I bet only a precious few residents have any idea that they won’t be able to purchase a new car (unless it’s an EV) in a few years time. And further, I bet many NY residents have no clue about the recent gas ban in new construction.
What needs to be done is to have organizations (I’m just one person, but I’d gladly donate funds as I’m able) run ads in these states telling people exactly what is going on to try and “do something” about the climate. I bet if they did, people would blast the state houses and overload their phone banks, and flood their mail rooms. There might even be protests at the state houses. But, because the heat is being turned up slowly and out of site, the frogs have no idea that one day the water will reach the boiling point. And then they will freak out and try to jump out, but by then it could well be too late.

I guarantee that most everyone would freak and exercise their constitutional rights.

Reply to  Lee Riffee
May 4, 2023 11:55 am

“They” are already ahead of you on that idea

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 3:09 pm

No, Chris, It is not education. The people who are pushing the ideology of AGW are mostly highly educated. It is the silence of the highly educated in the oil industry and the auto industry, along with all the Tesla stock buyers signaling their virtue that are allowing us to be led down this road to disaster. I agree that it is crazily stupid but the college-educated are leading this parade. How do we stop them? I hear no answers here. We must have an answer before it is too late. That is the true existential crisis of our times!

John in Oz
Reply to  HotScot
May 4, 2023 4:07 pm

That’s what the alarmist’s did with “97% consensus”, “SLR”, indeed CO2 itself “It warms the planet”.

Was this their deliberate ploy or is this all they could get their minds around due to not understanding any deeper analysis?

Even Obama used the ‘97% consensus’ argument and he is supposedly educated (although in law and arts, not science, according to wiki)

Reply to  John in Oz
May 5, 2023 7:33 am

is this all they could get their minds around due to not understanding any deeper analysis?

I think they just accept it without question and don’t bother to look any deeper. Seems to be the norm for most people.

May 4, 2023 3:17 am

For some, probably many, pauses don’t matter, no matter how long they are. Tim Wirth: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom.1
May 4, 2023 3:56 am

To which my response has always been “How can economically AND environmentally destructive policies constitute “doing the right thing?!”

Last edited 29 days ago by AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 4, 2023 5:43 am

Of course, the followup question is “right thing for whom?”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 4, 2023 8:16 am

If one gives greater priority to ideology than practical results.

Reply to  Tom.1
May 4, 2023 9:56 am

For statist do-gooders, climate change is the greatest opportunity they’ve ever had to fulfill the dirigiste fantasies. They will never let go of it.

Ron Long
May 4, 2023 3:18 am

Good presentation of data and facts by Christopher MB. The two compelling ones for me are the logarithmic decline of additional CO2 in the atmosphere and the staggering cost of chasing after the mitigation of an unproven theory. Unfortunately, the closing comments “people of goodwill” and “Mr. Guterres’ utterances” show the real problem, too many career politicians are allied with shysters and hustlers and don’t care a whit about the reality. The “follow the money” theme is exactly what our parents told us, it explains most bad behavior.

Steve Case
Reply to  Ron Long
May 4, 2023 3:53 am

See HotScot’s comment.

Ron Long
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2023 5:52 am

Steve, I read HotScot’s comment, and thought about the conflicting ideas of “simplify our message” versus “sound intelligent in the pub.” and my belief that dishonest persons willing to lie to idiots, to get votes and/or their money, and it is working for them, continues unabated.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
May 4, 2023 8:22 am

“Good presentation of data and facts by Christopher MB. The two compelling ones for me are the logarithmic decline of additional CO2 in the atmosphere”

Yes, I liked that one.

He should show the upward curve of the CO2 concentration in the air along with it.

CO2 concentration goes up, but the temperature effects go down.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Ron Long
May 4, 2023 8:30 am

“…too many career politicians are allied with shysters and hustlers and don’t care a whit about the reality.” Yep… best government money can buy.

Bob B.
May 4, 2023 3:24 am

Oh my! So many elephants emitting so much methane. We’re all going to cook.

Reply to  Bob B.
May 4, 2023 4:06 am

Try to make sure you grab hold of the trunk end….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bob B.
May 4, 2023 8:17 am

Or, suffocate!

May 4, 2023 3:33 am

Time is of the essence, which is why lunatic outfits like XR want it done by 2025, not 2050. By 2050 I suspect the wheels will have well and truly come off of the wagon and they will be claiming despite the trials and tribulations (Sri Lanka, Dutch farmers etc) it was the right thing to do (h/t T. Bliar)

How do you get famines? The EU doesn’t just want to close down farms and ‘rewild’ them, it wants to ensure the newly redundant farmers can no longer work in farming – anywhere on the planet. And that means they’ll be turfed out without a penny piece if they want to continue farming.

As the Rt. Reverend Moonbat Monbiot observed:

“‘All types of animal farming needs to stop’”

Shutting down animal farming altogether because that has massively disproportional impacts on the living plant.”

Being eaten by an herbivore has disproportional impacts on the living plant.” But that’s nature.

It’s a proxy war – via Carbon dioxide etc – against humanity. I can well imagine moonbat telling our distant ancestors that the new fangled idea of agriculture is the kiss of death to the planet. 

Reply to  strativarius
May 4, 2023 12:01 pm

If agriculture hadn’t come along, none of these other arguments would have arisen.

D Boss
May 4, 2023 5:03 am

Mr. Monckton: I love the set of sayings or axioms: “Yet the Thermageddonites, flogging the dead horse like a bull in a china shop even though the emperor has no clothes, are ignoring the elephants in the room.”

However “bull in a china shop” is a myth that has been busted, as you have herein busted the Thermageddonites multiple myths. (MythBusters – Bull in a China Shop)
You might want to consider how successful this empirically based TV show was, by presenting a myth or hypothesis and then actually testing it’s plausibility in your attempts to show the utter fallacy of the cult of thermageddon * . Watch this for the more scientific 2 of the mythbusters: (Mythbusters: Are elephants afraid of mice?)
*(in other words a bunch of charts and maths and high brow arguing means nothing to the simpleton masses, but show them actual experiments that are relatable and viscerally meaningful and you get a bigger audience and acceptance)

Lead Balloon anyone? (Mythbusters lead balloon)

Reply to  D Boss
May 4, 2023 5:53 am


Treat a religion as a religion… and that’s exactly what it is.

Last edited 28 days ago by strativarius
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  strativarius
May 4, 2023 8:11 am

… and treat a superstition as a superstition. A religion can neither be proven true nor false. A superstition is provably false, but its adherents adhere to it anyway. Global warming extremism is a superstition, not a religion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  D Boss
May 4, 2023 8:20 am

A masterpiece of manipulated mixed metaphors.

May 4, 2023 5:52 am

Wow! Thank you.
Thoroughly enjoy your scientific skills, narratives, efforts, and humor/humour.
Keep it up!
And do follow through with summer effort to simplify graphs…and add, as suggested in comments, a list of short, catchy, easy to grasp headline statements.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  nyeevknoit
May 4, 2023 8:09 am

Most grateful to nyeevknoit for the kind comments. The book will be an easy read, but there will be a necessary minimum of hard science to establish that the conclusions, which will surprise many because the debate has been so stifled, are well founded.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyeevknoit
May 4, 2023 8:32 am

Here’s a catchy phrase: Climate Alarmists don’t have any evidence to back up their claims of a CO2-caused climate crisis.

Beta Blocker
May 4, 2023 7:02 am

The argument is being made that because the United States was responsible for the bulk of the world’s past carbon emissions in the 20th Century, and because per capita energy consumption in the US remains higher than in most other nations, climate justice demands that the United States has a duty to move farther and faster than any other nation in pursuing Net Zero.

This argument spawns a related scientific question: How much of the carbon dioxide and the methane emitted by the United States in the hundred years of the 20th Century between 1901 and the year 2000 still remains in the atmosphere?

Richard M
May 4, 2023 7:22 am

The biggest elephant is the claimed water vapor feedback. As noted, there is no hot spot and therefore we know this feedback is incorrect. However, not only is it wrong, it is the wrong sign. The true feedback from what has long been known as evaporative cooling, is a cooling influence. This cooling influence increases as the warming effect increases.

“A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C” – Dr. William Gray

Interestingly, it appears even this estimate is too high. Turns out the effects of the boundary layer eliminate even this small amount of warming which is why Miskoloczi 2014 finds no changes in the overall greenhouse effect in 60+ years of NOAA radiosonde data.

May 4, 2023 7:37 am

Loved the elephant herd, but you lost me in the third paragraph with the quote of a “trend” of “0.136C/decade”. Accurate to within one one-thousandth of a degree per decade? Really? LOL

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  hiskorr
May 4, 2023 8:07 am

No, not “accurate”, but to 3-digit precision. As a general rule, one states values to a precision of 3 decimal places. That precision also allows month-to-month comparisons. So small is the rate of global warming that results to any lesser precision would not show the small changes at all.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 12:06 pm

The uncertainty being much greater than the presented precision means that such precision is really meaningless.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  AndyHce
May 4, 2023 3:02 pm

No: the precision has value in showing small changes month to month. Specifying variables to three significant digits is common: its limitations are well understood, as are its advantages.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 4, 2023 7:28 pm

However, you aren’t consistent. You typically present the Earth albedo with one significant digit. Three digits are common from the days of the slide rule when that was the maximum that could be depended on.

AndyHce is correct and the small month to month changes may be invalid, just being the result of measurement and round-off errors. The rules of error propagation should be followed when the results matter. Showing more digits than is warranted is something that the alarmists commonly do, apparently to impress the innumerate, and they rarely show the uncertainty range, apparently out of concern that someone will call them on the meaningless digits.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 5, 2023 7:51 am

There is no harm in presenting results to three significant figures, if one wants to show how the trend changes a little from month to month.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 5, 2023 11:44 am

Since the uncertainty of the measurements allows only one decimal point, the uncertainty even over a year’s+ worth of trend calculations is still much larger than the trend. The real trend, if it exists, could be going either way.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  AndyHce
May 5, 2023 3:16 pm

If AndyHce does not like three significant figures, he should address his complaint to IPCC, which often uses three-digit precision. It is harmless and simply not worth fussing about. Try to concentrate on the elephants in the room, and don’t pick nits.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  hiskorr
May 4, 2023 8:24 am

Yes, the uncertainty associated with the individual measurements should have been taken into account when presenting the derivative slope of the trend.

May 4, 2023 8:17 am

The existence of heat near the surface requires the equality of the radiation temperature of the surface and the thermodynamic temperature of the atmosphere in contact with the surface (measured with a thermometer).

For this reason, the atmospheric radiation field cannot impose a forcing upon the surface. The virtual atmospheric forcing of surface is matched at the same rate as virtual surface forcing of atmosphere. The net is nil.

With the presence of heat in the ambient exchange medium (air) there can be no radiative discontinuity between a virtual object A (surface) and virtual object B (atmosphere). The net radiative flux is zero.

Reply to  JCM
May 4, 2023 8:47 am

as a consequence, the only mechanism of change as far as thermodynamics is concerned can be a change in partitioning of turbulent flux of heat, and its association to cloud condensation.

A variable (or forced) change to the partitioning of latent and sensible heat fluxes will inevitably influence the radiation budget by cloud condensation.

Internal IR “force” cannot accomplish this in the already turbulent atmosphere. Once the atmosphere is sufficiently instable, such that a turbulent boundary layer exists, the limiting factor becomes the turbulent flux mechanisms, not optical depth.

The internal IR active trace gas only serves to generate a lapse rate sufficiently steep as to induce turbulent instability. This was accomplished eons ago.

The threshold for instability and therefore the minimum IR active trace gas concentration necessary to induce turbulent flux is determined by atmospheric mass and available irradiance. More mass, more IR active gases required to induce instability under constant solar.

The only internal mechanism that can conceivably create a “forced” response over the past century or two is natural or unnatural changes to surface properties such as moisture availability and vegetation.

This necessarily influences the partitioning of turbulent heat flux via sensible or latent heat terms, and therefore the total dissipation. A greater proportion of latent flux is more amenable to higher rates of dissipation and the associated cloud condensation in the turbulent atmosphere.

It is easy to understand that humanity could have imparted profound changes to soils and biosystems in recent history, and therefore the partitioning of heat flux with increasing tendency towards the sensible flux, and decreasing tendency of latent flux.

This cascades broadly into cloud condensation, radiation budgets, and even global circulation.

Last edited 28 days ago by JCM
Richard M
Reply to  JCM
May 4, 2023 9:15 am

The only internal mechanism that can conceivably create a “forced” response over the past century or two is natural or unnatural changes to surface properties such as moisture availability and vegetation.

Here’s a list I have thought about:

– Agriculture (land use change)
– Urban growth (land use change)
– Plastic ocean pollution
– Salinity changes

The first 3 are all man made. The last one may be the most important. If the natural ocean currents produce varying levels of salinity, the effect would be to reduce the amount of evaporative cooling when the more saline water is at the surface. This would induce a long term (millennial) warming/cooling cycle such as we have seen since the end of the Holocene Optimum.

Reply to  Richard M
May 4, 2023 9:31 am

You are on the right track that the thermoregulatory dissipation mechanisms of atmosphere are dominated by evaporation and condensation, and by association the power of global circulation.

While change salinity may impact upon evaporation, variable hygroscopic salt abundance flung into atmosphere impacts upon cloud condensation. Additionally, variable biologically sourced condensation nuclei also impact upon cloud condensation.

A world covered by ice-sheets necessarily reduces biochemical condensation process, in addition to evaporation, thereby allowing more solar irradiance to penetrate deep into the atmosphere.

Conversely, a naturally biologically rich environment in optimum warm climate conditions induces increased cloud condensation by direct hygroscopic biota. Climate optimums also induce greater soil pedogenesis and increases the extent of surface moisture available for latent flux.

It only takes a century or two of fossil fueled earthworks machine and 8-fold increase of population to massively alter such bio-hydrological process, creating confounding relationships among variables deemed important to climates.

Last edited 28 days ago by JCM
Richard M
Reply to  JCM
May 4, 2023 8:49 am

Exactly. This is one aspect of what I call boundary layer feedback. Downwelling IR coming from the boundary layer cannot cause any warming due to the “equality of the radiation temperature”. That is, the 2LOT in action.

The other aspect is enhanced evaporative cooling. The one thing the increased radiation can do is cause an increase in evaporation which actually removes energy from the surface skin, boundary layer combo. A percentage of that energy (latent heat) get transported high in the atmosphere where it is more easily radiated to space.

This cooling counters the warming from the increasing absorption of surface IR caused by the widening of the near 15 micrometer absorption band. MoB needs to add this to his charts. The total effect of increasing CO2 is effectively zero.

Reply to  Richard M
May 4, 2023 8:59 am

Yes, the turbulent flux of heat serves to equalize the LW radiation budget at the surface. There can be no discontinuity. The only degree of freedom is irradiance, and the partitioning of turbulent fluxes between evaporative flux and sensible flux.

Reply to  JCM
May 4, 2023 9:12 am

As far as debates go, climatology has not studied surface budgets in sufficient detail due to the preoccupation with TOA radiation balances and mensuration via radiometer.

It should be widely broadcasted that the surface energy budgets denoted by the terms irradiance, transmittance, and total turbulent fluxes have not been closed to better than 20 Wm-2. This is an order of magnitude larger than the imagined LW radiative “force”.

During debate, advocates of human caused climate changes appear unable to engage intelligently in discussion of surface budgets. It creates a conundrum where there requires no disagreement among parties of the existence of climate change nor of human influences. Critically, the only disagreement becomes about the nature of the mechanisms involved. Due to inadequate study of the nature of turbulent fluxes, and convenient dismissal sub-grid scale process, they will return only a word-salad and personal attacks.

May 4, 2023 8:41 am

You left out the planner professionals’ enforcement of parking lot surface area with dark asphalt. That is not a trivial component as any Brit visiting American cities and looking down from a high building would realize. Of course, it would be better to view with a webcam since these cities are too dangerous to actually visit in person. Remember, guns, CO2, and corporations cause all the trouble–not models, regulators, or thugs.

Krishna Gans
May 4, 2023 9:20 am

Climate scientists home
Elephant house Zoological Garden Berlin West

Last edited 28 days ago by Krishna Gans
May 4, 2023 10:58 am

I’m confused. I thought NASA was claiming an imbalance of 0.8 Wm-2, which I think is about the energy needed to grow the plants we have. It doesn’t look like there is enough energy retention to do much of anything. Where did the 9 Wm-2 come from?
Good work, by the way.

May 4, 2023 11:13 am

deaths by famine have fallen to record lows:

The EU, Canada, and a few others are working hard on that discrepancy, soon no doubt to be followed by the rest of western culture.

Larry Logan
May 4, 2023 12:32 pm

Recently retired, my professional career was built on public presentations to wide audiences, from industry technical working groups to Rotary Clubs and everything in between.

I find such graphs extremely helpful in winning the tide and encourage Christopher forward. An example is the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2. Al Gore’s film scared audiences with CO2 levels going higher and higher (using a cherry picker). The California Academy of Sciences museum in Golden Gate Park similarly misleads with a wall graph implying 1:1 effect a with linear line and impending doom.

Yes, formulas are a put-off, even in the service of trying to show ‘this is real.’ But charts, such as showing no increase in tornadoes, force people into an uncomfortable position of ‘why are they lying to me?’ Definitely beats the media knee-jerk of “tornadoes getting more powerful.”

Bryan A
May 4, 2023 1:29 pm

So…all we need to do to lower the temp by 1°C is spend a kool $10 Quintillion. Wait a minute … Let me check my other pants.

Hey, Obama, What did you do with my other pants???

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 4, 2023 1:37 pm

Oh I know, where is that letter I got from that nice Nigerian Prince?

May 4, 2023 1:45 pm

Yet the Thermageddonites, flogging the dead horse like a bull in a china shop even though the emperor has no clothes, are ignoring the elephants in the room.

Now that is Olympic class mixing of metaphors.

Hurrah, sir.

Steve Richards
May 5, 2023 12:23 am

You need to commission a series of short videos for fb, tiktok et al.
Picture a young couple on a sofa, holding a child. All wearing warm coats.

Woman to man: its so cold, when is the electricity coming back on.

Man to woman: I dunno.

Man turns his head to look out of windows.
Camera shows outside view with man’s voice over.
It looks like the wind is coming back. We’ll be okay soon.

Camera looking at the sofa.
Head shot of woman with baby in arms just showing in shot.

Woman to man: I thought that with all of the windmills we would have lots of electricity.

Woman shakes her head and looks down at baby then looks directly to the camera and says

You just can’t trust these politicians.

Cut to black.

You can film these things with a high end phone or a gopro camera.

Flood tiktok and get the heart strings going.

If I had a couple of “faces” I would do it tomorrow.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights