Lord Monckton Responds to Spencer’s Critique

October 5th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Yesterday I posted a critique of Lord Christopher Monckton’s latest explanation of why he believes climate sensitivity is low. At issue is his claim that researchers have somehow neglected that the feedback response to a climate perturbation (e.g. how much warming occurs from adding CO2 to the atmosphere) needs to include the feedback response to the total emission temperature of the system, which he claims then greatly reduces the system “gain factor” and thus calculated climate sensitivity. I maintain that this is not how climate sensitivity in climate models is determined — only actual physical processes are modeled — and I used clouds as an example of why the system response to small perturbations cannot be determined by including the response of a cold (e.g. 2.7 Kelvin) Earth to solar heating (this is what I claim his argument amounts to when he includes the total system temperature in his system gain calculation). While he and I agree sensitivity to increasing CO2 is likely to be low, I laid out my explanation of why his reasoning is faulty. I invited him to respond, and I present that response, below, without comment. At a minimum this exchange might help us better understand exactly what Christopher is saying from a physical process standpoint, rather than a “system gain” standpoint.

I am most grateful to my friend Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the world’s foremost and most expert meteorological researchers and commentators, for the attention he has kindly devoted to our conclusion that official climatology has an insufficient understanding of control theory and has, therefore, led itself into a persistent and grave error.

I am still more grateful to him for this opportunity to reply to his latest posting on this topic, so as to set the record straight. Roy talks of my “feedback arguments suggesting a very low climate sensitivity”. Let me begin my response to that posting by clearing up the misconceptions that are evident in that thought. First, the arguments we make are not my arguments alone. My team includes many experts more than usually competent in both theoretical and applied control theory.

Secondly, our arguments do not “suggest a very low climate sensitivity”. Consider the position at the temperature equilibrium in 1850. The reference temperature that year was the 267.1 K sum of the 259.6 K sunshine or emission temperature and the 7.5 K directly-forced warming by, or reference sensitivity to, preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases; and the observed HadCRUT equilibrium global mean surface temperature was the 287.5 K sum of 259.6 K and the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect, which itself comprises the 7.5 K reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity and 20.4 K total feedback response.

Early papers on equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) based on explicitly quantifying feedback response, from Hansen (1984) onwards, show that the original reason why climatology imagined ECS to be of order 4 K was that the system-gain factor (the ratio of equilibrium sensitivity after feedback response and reference sensitivity before accounting for feedback response) was 27.9 / 7.5, or 3.7 (or, using the round numbers in vogue at the time, 32 / 8, or 4). Since midrange reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity (RCS) is 1.05 K, it was thus imagined that midrange ECS was 3.7 times 1.05, or about 4 K.

Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate often enough, it became impossible for the climatological community to move away from it. They were stuck with it. The whole shoddy house of cards would collapse if they revised it significantly.

The correct system-gain factor for 1850 was not 27.9 / 7.5, or 3.7. It was (259.6 + 27.9) / (259.6 + 7.5), or 1.08. In effect, climatologists had forgotten the Sun was shining and had, therefore, forgotten that there is a feedback response to emission temperature. They had overlooked that large emission-temperature feedback response, and had added all of it to the actually small feedback response to preindustrial greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity. They had thus reached their high midrange ECS of about 4 K by imagining, incorrectly, that the feedback response to emission temperature was zero, which is nonsense.

In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.

Roy says that the underlined words are not true. [“Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.”] When I first realized that climatologists — on both sides of the debate — simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was a friend of one of my distinguished co-authors did not realize they were true either. But he had his own lab. So he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are correct.

Another control theorist, also a co-author, suggested that we should consult a national laboratory of physical engineering to put the point beyond doubt. So we did, and the lab came to exactly the same conclusion, after months of delay because the operator’s body temperature again interfered with the readings, and he had not thought to run wires into an adjacent room. So the matter is not in doubt.

Next, Roy incorrectly assumes that we maintain that “the climate system’s response to a small perturbation from its current state might be discerned from its response to the presence of solar heating assuming an initial cold Earth”.

In reality, we start not with “an initial cold Earth” but with the climate of 1850. We do not need to know what might have happened at 2.73 K ambient temperature. In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor — the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature — was 287.5 / 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08. All we say, therefore, in relation to 1850 (we go back no further than that) is that ECS based on climatology’s original method adjusted to take account of the fact that in 1850 the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.

We then demonstrate via a detailed energy-budget calculation that using mainstream midrange initial conditions it is perfectly possible that the system-gain factor following a CO2 doubling compared with 1850 remains somewhat below 1.08 and that, therefore, ECS is about 1.1 K.

However, we also draw explicit attention to the fact that, precisely because feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature, and precisely because the base signal, emission temperature, is 30 times larger than the perturbation signal, reference sensitivity to natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases, even a very small change in the feedback regime compared with the equilibrium in 1850 would exert a disproportionately large influence on ECS. In fact, a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor at a new moment of equilibrium compared with 1850 would push ECS up by 300% to the 4 K that is the CMIP6 models’ current midrange projection. Therefore, our method does not prove that ECS is low: instead, it shows that it may be low, but proves that ECS is not reliably constrainable.

We draw the conclusion, applying standard feedback analysis, that it is simply not possible to derive ECS as climatologists now do, by diagnosing feedback strengths from the outputs of the general-circulation models and then deriving ECS therefrom. Or, to put it another way, the interval of system-gain factors implicit in IPCC’s current 3 [2, 5] K ECS interval is only 1.10 [1.09, 1.13], an interval so tiny as to fall well within the published uncertainty envelope of feedback strengths, rendering any attempt to predict ECS no better than guesswork.

Albeit by an entirely different method, we reach the same conclusion as Pat Frank in his important paper of 2019, in which he demonstrated that the envelope of uncertainty in ECS arising from propagation of the published uncertainty in a single climatic variable — the low-cloud fraction — was so large that all projections of ECS that have ever made fall within that envelope and are, therefore, mere guesswork. They have no predictive validity at all.

Roy devotes much of his article to the question of clouds. However, in the entire posting by my to which his piece is a response, the word “clouds” occurs only once, and in a context peripheral to the central argument. We point out, in common with Professor Lindzen, that at emission temperature, when by definition there are no greenhouse gases in the air, there would be no clouds either, wherefore, by the Professor’s calculation, emission temperature would not be 259.6 K but more like 271 K, which would of course reduce ECS still further. However, we explicitly point out that we take no account of that fact at all. Our analysis does not depend on the value of the cloud or any individual feedback. Roy says our analysis implies that further warming will not be mitigated by an increase in cloud cover. But our method carries no such implication, for it takes no view on ECS, other than to point out that on the basis of mainstream, midrange data it is possible that ECS may be as little as 1.1 K.

Roy then says climate sensitivity does not depend upon feedback analysis. Indeed, models do not implement feedback formulism directly. Instead, feedback strengths are diagnosed from the models’ outputs (see e.g. Soden & Held 2006 or Vial et al. 2013 for the method). However, the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Therefore, feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to it and we may, as we have done, apply feedback formulism to the published ECS interval. We may, as we have done, show that in this as in any system where the base signal exceeds the perturbation signal by orders of magnitude it is not possible reliably to predict the output signal in response to a given small perturbation in the total input signal where, as in the climate, the envelope of uncertainty in feedback strength grossly exceeds the interval of uncertainty in the absolute system-gain factor.

It is for this reason that it matters that climatologists had, in effect, forgotten that the Sun is shining and that, therefore, at any time in the industrial era, in the presence of the greenhouse gases, some 29/30ths of total feedback response is feedback response to the emission temperature — i.e., to the surprising fact that the Sun is shining.

It is simple to deduce, again from mainstream, midrange data, that each $1 billion spent on attempting to reach global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would abate between one five-millionth and one millionth of a Kelvin of future global warming, at a total cost potentially exceeding total global corporate profits over the next 30 years (and indefinitely thereafter). Even if there were a real “climate emergency”, the expenditure would not be justifiable, because it would purchase an abatement amounting to only 3/8 K (if you believe IPCC’s midrange ECS estimate) or 1/7 K (if instead we note that since 1990 the world has warmed at little more than a third of the originally-predicted rate). In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age — the decision that the UK Government under the unlamented Boris Johnson had in effect taken.

But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions, because, as Pat Frank has already demonstrated in his way and as we have demonstrated in ours, all predictions of global warming are mere guesswork. Would you trash the Western economies, and continue the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events? We wouldn’t. I do hope that this has cleared up some misconceptions about our result.

— Christopher Monckton (4 October 2022)


5,176 Responses to “Lord Monckton Responds to Spencer’s Critique”

Toggle Trackbacks

    • Ken says:

      Willard is clearly in favor of ‘trashing the Western economies, and continuing the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events’.

      What else to expect from a boring troll?

      • Willard says:

        Kennui needs to vent from time to time.

        Here’s what I stand for:

        – naming collaborators;
        – citing manuscripts with proper URLs;
        – providing data and code;
        – addressing arguments.

        Roy said that Christopher’s feedback arguments were wrong. He explained why. That criticism has yet to be met. It stands.

        Figure skating while whinging makes for bad Climateball stunts.

    • Frank from NoVA says:

      From Willard’s link back to the mother ship:

      ‘As in CFD, GCMs solve the Navier-Stokes equations.’

      Really? At the level required to resolve clouds?

      • Willard says:

        Do you often JAQ off like that, Frank?

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          Willard is ignorant. It is accepted in climatology that clouds are one of the most significant sources of uncertainty in the general-circulation models, which are indeed incapable of resolving the behavior of clouds. Even the sign of their influence on global temperature is in doubt. One has only to look at the Navier-Stokes equations to realize their limitations, not the least of which is that no closed-form solutions are known.

          • Willard says:

            If our UKIP frontman fears incompleteness like he fears God, he should stop using arithmetic.

            A cursory glance at an encyclopedic entry would save him the embarrassment of not realizing that there are plenty of solutions to the NS equations. That is, if he can be embarrassed, a conjecture that may not be warranted considering his persiflage.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” cannot resist inserting snide and inaccurate irrelevancies. When Britain left the EU, UKIP’s job was done, and I rejoined the Conservative Party.

            See elsewhere in this thread for a discussion of the difference – of which, like much else, “Willard” is blissfully unaware, of the difference between the “solution” to an equation or system of equations and the “closed-form solution”.

          • Willard says:

            A solution is a solution is a solution. No true Scotsman will change that. Neither will fake ones.

            Meanwhile, he should edit his own Wiki entry to correct the mistakes therein.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” continues to be woefully ignorant of the underlying mathematics. Precisely because temperature is so sensitive to small changes over time in feedback strength, ECS (which was indubitably 1.1 K based on the 1850 data) could have any value from there to 10 or even 20 K. In short, outputs from the models, however much they purport to “solve” the Navier-Stokes equations”, are no better than guesswork; and it is elementary control theory that tells us that.

          • Willard says:

            Our titled peacock is on fire, displaying the profoundity of his grasp of one of the Millenium Prize problems while failing to recognize my close paraphrase of Roy’s points.

            Like, very close paraphrase.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

        • Nate says:

          Interestingly the very same cloud issues are found in numerical weather models. The must develop cloud parameterization models to predict the weather.

          Even so, I think we can agree that weather models have been very successful at predicting the weather.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            Willard is no doubt expert in Marxism-Leninism, but he is certainly no mathematician. If he were, he would know that finding “solutions” to an equation or system of equations is possible where the data are sufficiently well-resolved and the system of equations is sound (which in climate they are not), but that finding “closed-form solutions” has a particular and distinct mathematical meaning.

            For instance, consider an infinite series of powers of H, the fraction of equilibrium temperature represented by feedback response. Under the convergence criterion H < 1, the closed-form solution to the series is 1 / (1 – H). Therefore, one does not need to go to the labor of summing the series: one merely takes advantage of the closed-form expression.

            No such handy shortcut has yet been found for the Navier-Stokes equations. If "Willard" were able to find closed-form solutions, he would make himself a million dollars the richer. See Clay Institute millennium prizes.

            He should cease to advertise his hate-filled ignorance here.

          • Willard says:

            Christopher has undoubtedly misplaced his comment.

            The fact of the matter is that climate models routinely solve the NS equations. As Nick said, and as he mocked. That he ignores that fact reveals more about his self-inflating proficiency than it prevents scientists from working with them.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            The furtively pseudonymous “Willard” continues to parade his ignorance and hatred. He says that the climate models “routinely solve the Navier-Stokes equations” but does not deal with the argument presented here, which is that because a very small perturbation in feedback strength has a disproportionately large impact on ECS, ECS is not realistically constrainable by the models. Therefore, for all that they purport to have “solved” the Navier-Stokes equations, their estimates of ECS are no better than guesswork. Therefore, given the staggering cost and negligible benefit of attempting to mitigate global warming, the West is squandering its cash to no useful purpose, harming itself and advantaging the Communist dictatorships with which “Willard” aligns himself.

          • Willard says:

            There is nothing to counter, Derelict Dude, for your point is utterly irrelevant. Here is Nick’s post again, this time with the quote that started this furious armwaving:

            As in CFD, GCMs solve the Navier-Stokes equations.

            https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-errors-really-propagate-in.html

            Wave your arms faster, perhaps it will change that fact.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            The poisonous “Willard”, having been caught out not knowing what closed-form solutions are, and having been caught out again not realizing that the models, though they purport to “solve” the equations, are for several reasons incapable of doing so to a sufficient resolution properly to constrain ECS, resorts to mere Communist bluster. Not an adult approach. He is out of his depth and gasping.

          • Willard says:

            Everybody knows about the Millenium prize problems, merry-andrew.

            It does not prevent climate models to solve these equations routinely.

            How the hell do you think they would preserve momentum and mass otherwise?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

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

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Williard’s a leftist Chihuahua (yap, yap, yap, yap). As you know, leftists are Narcissists who respect no one, especially those who disagree with their agenda.

      • Willard says:

        The Third fails to click on links, and thus fails to realize that I am not the one who wasted time on correcting Pat on that matter.

        By the logic he defends, estimating GDPs through history would be a Herculean task.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          Willard again distracts from the main point of the head posting by wittering on about matters of which he understands little or nothing. The problem of estimating past events is paucity of data. Propagation of uncertainty concerns models where data are available but uncertain. The two are clean different things.

          • Willard says:

            Christopher again arfully dodges the fact that Patrick, AT, and Nick are more than competent enough to judge a rudimentary blunder. He also fails to appreciate that GDP ain’t random.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” is incapable of identifying any blunder, elementary or other, in the head posting. Therefore, he perpetrates yet another logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. And GDP is not the topic of the head posting.

          • Willard says:

            The guy Richie Tol once called a “swivel-eyed loon” in a version of a draft I asked him to change is starting to ask for room service.

            Base state error. Response error. Even he should be able to grasp the difference.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” is now reduced to open gibberish. He fails to produce any coherent objection to the head posting.

          • Willard says:

            Our Pompous Pontiff requests something, but what?

            Richie Tol, that guy:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            Modeerators: The pseudonymous “Willard” has perpetrated disability discrimination by describing me as “swivel-eyed”. Please ban him from the site and let me have his email address so that I can report his crime to the police.

          • Willard says:

            Stop whining, Christopher.

            I told you I asked Richie to change his formulism.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Nick Stokes says:

        “Pat Franks paper remains unrefuted in the peer-reviewed journals.”

        It also remains basically unreferenced in the peer-reviewed journals. People know how to filter out nonsense.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          Mr Stokes is merely spiteful. Pat Frank’s paper stands unrefuted. The fact that it is also not often referenced is a depressing indication of the lamentable state to which climate “science” has sunk.

          • Willard says:

            Our Guy-Who-Only-Identifies-Himself-with-His-Family-Name simply repeats himself instead of acknowledging the fact that Pat’s paper has yet to be cited.

            Customers vote with their feet, and scientists with their citations.

            No amount of multisyllabic latinism will change that fact.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            It is difficult discussing these matters with those who are ignorant of logic and unconcerned for the objective truth. “Willard” yet again perpetrates an argumentum ad verecundiam.

          • Willard says:

            You’re not here to discuss at all, charlie.

            And now you’re playing the ref, which is a form of whining.

            Please stop whining. It gives you a bleak tone.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” has still made no discernible scientific point.

          • Willard says:

            That scientists vote with their cites is a scientific fact, glorious harlequin:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        And you LORD MONCKTON cannot refute what I have explained …

        How we can calculate expected global mean surface temperatures for any planet with an atmosphere is summarised in this comment above:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251

        Applicants for the AU$10,000 reward need to read that first and post their attempt at refutation on the scientific website for Researchgate having studied my 2013 paper or my book.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          The head posting concerns itself with control theory as it is applied to climatology’s attempts to constrain ECS. If “D’ug Cott’n” wishes to advertise his wares, this is not the place.

          Perhaps, however, he would inform me of the firm of lawyers to which he has transferred into escrow the $10,000 he promises, and of the court which, at an independent hearing, will judge the application of anyone claiming the escrow fund.

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            Your control theory MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY is based on the false assumption that radiation from the IR-active gases in the cool troposphere can have any significant effect on the already-warmer surface temperature either by causing heat into that surface (in violation of the Second Law) or slowing the overall surface cooling which is by both radiation and non-radiative processes. The latter cooling will accelerate if back radiation has any significant effect on the rate of radiative cooling. Back radiation cannot slow non-radiative surface cooling and that will increase so as to compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling.

            When you Sir can explain (as I have) why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface (and how the necessary thermal energy gets down there to support such temperatures) then, and only then, will you be onto the correct, relevant physics for all planets – namely that in my papers and book.

            When the multi-billion dollar class action by major companies against the CSIRO in Australia commences by late next year you will hear plenty about the law firms involved through news channels worldwide I suspect.

            Regarding the reward, whether or not you believe it would be paid, you are welcome to try to post a refutation of my 2013 paper on Researchgate or here in an article I’m sure Roy would publish. I’m sure saving face for you would be more important than such money. So I throw down the gauntlet to you, Lord Monckton.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            If the furtively pseudonymous “D’ug Cott’n” believes the drivel of those who prefer to imagine there is no greenhouse effect, he should read the calculations for 1850 in the head posting and explain what the 20.4 K feedback response is if it is not a feedback response, and what the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect is if it is not a natural greenhouse effect. But he should not explain these things to us – he should explain them to official climatology.

            We accept, ad argumentum, all the tenets of official climatology except those we can disprove. Therefore, it is to official climatology that “Cott’n” must address his whingeing, and not to us. Ours is an argument within the framework of the scientific method. If he has reason to doubt those of official climatology’s premises upon which ad argumentum we rely, then let him badger IPCC, not us.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            The IPCC, NASA, various academies of science, head physicists in about 30 universities and the CSIRO in Australia have all been challenged and, in particular, the CEO of the CSIRO (Dr Larry Marshall) who is qualified in physics is currently having to respond to my fourth FOI which will give me the last piece of evidence needed for court action by numerous companies who are adversely affected financially by legislation based on information provided by the CSIRO and their failure to check what is fictitious, fiddled physics emanating from climatology circles. It’s a pity you have been fooled by such. Read what this physicist wrote:

            http://climate-change-theory.com/physicist.jpg

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Bart says:

      Congratulations! You’ve discovered (rediscovered) the square root dependence on time of the uncertainty in a random walk. Since random walks occur in systems with no feedback, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    • Nate says:

      Ultimately, climate sensitivity is determined from observations. There are experiments, like response to volcanic eruptions, and the response to the sun dimming during the Maunder minimum, and CO2 changes.

      It is difficult to reconcile Monckton’s proposed value of 1.08 with observations.

      The cold period during the LIA in response to the Maunder Minimum is particularly problematic.

    • Ned Nikolov says:

      Please see this comment regarding the REAL climate sensitivities:

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377415

    • juliya says:

      I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. (aid-30) Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
      After reading this article:>>>> https://jobopportunity22.blogspot.com

    • juliya says:

      I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to Haa start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
      .
      EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> http://Www.Topnet8.com

  1. Nabil Swedan says:

    As a chemical engineer with over 30 years of process work experience, the climate system can have no feedbacks. Climate change occurs infinitesimaaly with time, that is equilibrium states differentially apart. When there are states of equilibrium, there can be no feedbacks. ECS is just a concept, which does not necessarily exist in the real world.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Swedan is no expert on climate, or on the mathematics of feedback. The relevant function is the sum of an infinite series – the first such function for which a closed-form solution was derived, more than 200 years ago. Where the feedback fraction (the fraction of the output signal represented by feedback response) is less than unity, it is perfectly possible for feedback response to have formed part of an equilibrium state in a dynamical system.

      Our research shows that, because uncertainties in feedback strength are far larger than the envelope of uncertainty in the system-gain factor inherent in IPCC’s ECS interval, it is impossible to constrain ECS, and all predictions thereof based on the diagnosis of feedback strengths from the outputs of GCMs are no better than guesswork.

      That does not mean ECS does not exist. It does.

      • Swenson says:

        M,

        There is no equilibrium climate sensitivity. Pure nonsense.

        The atmosphere is chaotic, and hence any future states can only be guessed at, not meaningfully predicted. Chaos does not need any external input at all.

        If you don’t want to accept that, you arrive at precisely the same practical result based on the uncertainty principle, and quantum electrodynamics.

        If you don’t want to accept that the most rigorously tested theory in the history of the world is credible, that is your right.

        Climate is the average of historical weather observations. Nothing more, nothing less.

        No GHE. No equilibrium.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          If “Swenson” is ignorant enough to imagine that there is no such thing as equilibrium sensitivity, his complaint lies not with me but with official climatology. Our approach is that of formal logic: For the sake of argument, we accept all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            So do you Lord Monckton, accept the false Climatology claims that

            (1) the troposphere without IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases would have been isothermal (or tended towards that state) rather than tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient, as first explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s and proven to be correct with valid physics supported by experiments and data throughout the Solar System.

            (2) that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the correct temperature that could be achieved by two or more sources of radiation using the arithmetic sum of the relevant fluxes, despite the obvious fact that the combination of the two Planck functions would not have the required peak wavelength as would a single source in accord with Wien’s Displacement Law and the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is derived from the integral of a single Planck function and only ever applies for a single source, as simple experiments confirm.

          • Swenson says:

            M,

            There is no such thing as “equilibrium sensitivity”.

            There is no such thing as “official climatology”, so you are making the most bizarre oblique appeal to authority I have seen for some time.

            Logic, formal or otherwise, fails in the face of fact.

            The fact is that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so – your pretentious and patronising “logic” notwithstanding.

            Argue away, see how much good it does you. If you believe you can predict the future better than a 12 year old, you are more stupid than you think you are. When you can demonstrate that you have accepted reality, you might find rational people prepared to value your opinions.

            Carry on.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          “Retired physicist” is off topic. The head posting is not about the crackpot theories of the “Dragon-slayers”: it is about mainstream climatology and mainstream control theory, and the incompatibility between the two.

          • Swenson says:

            M,

            “Mainstream climatology”?

            You jest, surely! Climate is the average of historical weather observations, and as the IPCC has stated, it is not possible to predict future climate states.

            Duh – predicting the future based on the average of the past is the province of fools – and self styled “climatologists”.

            Keep dreaming.

          • PhilJ says:

            ‘mainstream climatology’ is fantasy land based upon a fundamentally flawed paradigm. For example this:

            “of 259.6 K and the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect, which itself comprises the 7.5 K reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity and 20.4 K total feedback response.”

            is ludicrous.

            the Earth isnt some cold blackbody warmed by the sun and some atmospheric feedback effect.. the Earth is rather a hot ball of rotating gases, metals and other matter that has been cooling over 4 billion+ years as entropy demands.. it will continue to cool until all its atmosphere is lost and its just a cold dead hulk like Mercury or the Moon..

    • JamesD says:

      A system with a recycle is at equilibrium. If it is a fixed orifice, increasing the feed flow will increase the recycle, and yet it will return to a new higher equilibrium due to the conservation of mass.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        JamesD is right. Provided that the fraction of equilibrium temperature represented by feedback is less than unity, there will be no “runaway warming” and, after a perturbation such as a greenhouse-gas forcing, feedback will respond and the climate will settle to a new equilibrium. Indeed, after eight years with no warming at all, it is evidently not that far from equilibrium already.

        • skeptikal says:

          “Indeed, after eight years with no warming at all, it is evidently not that far from equilibrium already.”

          You could have said the same thing with the previous pause… and you would have been just as wrong then as you are now.

          You have to remember that in any dynamic system, equilibrium is only momentary.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Skeptikal” is incorrect. The climate is indeed very close to equilibrium, which is why the world is warming so very slowly (and, in the past eight or nine years, not at all).

          • Willard says:

            Perhaps you do not know, Christopher, but the Monckton pause is a monthly source of amusement on this website.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Nate says:

            Even though the atmosphere, containing 90% of the system heat, continues to warm.

            This shows that ‘pauses’ cannot stop the atmosphere from continuing to warm once ENSO and PDO return to positive values.

            https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/

          • Nate says:

            Arrgh “Even though the atmosphere, containing 90%”

            should have been ‘containing < 10%'

          • Nate says:

            All messed up…

            The point is the ocean, containing > 90% of the system heat, has continued to warm during the last 7 y, even though the atmosphere has not.

    • Bart says:

      This suggests Mr. Swedan has no idea what a feedback is. He appears to be applying Zeno’s Paradox (a famously fallacious argument) to the evolution of systems.

      • Nabil Swedan says:

        Of course I do. But when the incoming energy fluxes are exactly equal to outgoing ones, then why a controller is needed?

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          Nabil Swedan appears ignorant of the concept of radiative imbalance in the climate.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            What imbalance? At equilibrium every year it is in balance. Outgoing radiation is decreasing, which is observed. What makes you think that the energy absorbed by the earth is not decreasing equally?

  2. CAD says:

    “In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age”.

    Careful here. The feedback analysis does not rule out direct anthropogenic impact to surface emission temperature. A direct perturbation to the land-biosphere-hydrologic systems by human hands. It has not been attempted to parse out this variable. It is merely assumed such changes are consequent feedbacks to GHG forcing only. I differ there. The base reference temperature may well have changed.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      CAD seems to have missed the point of the head posting completely. It is there carefully explained that direct forcing of temperature by greenhouse gases exists. It is quantifiable, and is quantified, and is taken explicitly into account in the analysis.

      As to CAD’s assertion that the “base reference temperature may well have changed”, the base signal – the 259.6 K emission temperature – does not change. Reference temperature is the sum of the base temperature and the reference sensitivities to natural and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings. As the forcings increase, so the reference temperature increases.

      • Swenson says:

        M,

        You wrote –

        “It is there carefully explained that direct forcing of temperature by greenhouse gases exists. It is quantifiable, and is quantified, and is taken explicitly into account in the analysis.”

        Only in your fantasy.

        The Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of all your “greenhouse gas” “forcing”.

        Dream on, or produce something to support your contention that the Earth has actually warmed over the last four and a half billion years or so, due to measurable and quantified forcing by greenhouse gases.

        Good luck with that.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          “Swenson” continues to parade his ignorance. We are not concerned with states of the climate before 1850. Since 1850, the world has warmed. If “Swenson” disagrees, it is not to us that he should whine. Let him approach the keepers of the temperature datasets and tell them they do not know their business.

      • CAD says:

        I have been having trouble getting a reply to come through.

        The analysis presented does not rule out anything to do with the myriad of factors that might impact the virtual reference temperature. It only deals with the feedback response of the virtual emission temperature + forcings imposed by non-condensing GHG. There is nothing there to support the contention that “there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming”. The only conclusion is that it’s possible the feedback response to the summed reference temperature is small.

        • CAD says:

          … or more precisely, the feedback response to a perturbation on the summed virtual reference temperature may be small.

          In this framework, the feedback response to additional non condensing GHG could even go negative, I suppose. I’m not sure if the framework of the analysis rules this out.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            In response to the CAD, the reason why we can do nothing to abate global warming is, as explained in the head posting, that even if one did not correct climatology’s silly control-theoretic error, and even if the whole world went to net zero emissions (which it will not, for 70% of recent new emissions come from nations wholly exempt from any obligations under the Paris and related treaties), only 3/8 degree of global warming would be abated by 2050. But the cost of that abatement would be $400-800 trillion.

            Since our result shows that there is no basis for the current error-based belief that there will be large and dangerous rather than moderate and net-beneficial warming, there is no point in squandering a sum equivalent to more than all global corporate profits over the next three decades to achieve nothing beneficial at all.

          • Your calculation is wrong Monckton of Brenchley because it is based on an incorrect application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law when you add separate fluxes from separate sources, because that law applies only for a single and hotter source.

            Real world data shows water vapour cooling. The proof and the study are referred to at http://climate-change-theory.com and I suggest it is time you joined over 150,000 others who have viewed my correct physics without a single person proving me wrong. Where’s your attempt? You haven’t a clue what is in my papers. Show the hundred or so silent readers that you are prepared to debate my physics openly right here. I throw down the gauntlet. Let’s see what you know and understand about maximum entropy production just for starters.

  3. Nabil Swedan says:

    Please see my partial published work on earth science and climate (11 papers)under ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516

  4. Nabil Swedan says:

    I agree. The impact of green matter, deforestation, and population growth have been completely neglected. These have been the center of my climate research and focus. ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516

  5. Nate says:

    Lots to correct in there.

    Firstly,
    “3.7 times 1.05, or about 4 K.

    Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate often enough, it became ”

    Well before Hansen in 1984, the Charney report in 79, had estimated the sensitivity range that has persisted for decades after.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Nate is incorrect. The Charney report, which preceded the Hansen paper by only five years, gave 2.6 K as its midrange ECS estimate, which was then rounded up to 3 K. Hansen’s paper gives 4 K, based on his error. Charney did not provide any workings to show how his estimates were arrived at. But it is quite possible that he made much the same mistake as Hansen.

      • Willard says:

        Perhaps our persistent peer might profit from quoting and citing properly:

        our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3C

        https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/charney.1979.report.pdf

        A best estimate amounts to more than mere rounding.

        How he talks of the Hansen paper also deserves due diligence.

        • John Tillman says:

          Charney had two GCMs in 1979. There are now 38 and counting, with little to no narrowing of the estimate range.

          Manabe derived ECS of 2 degrees C. Hansen found 4 degrees. Charney added an arbitrary margin of error of 0.5 degree, for a range of 1.5 to 4.5, with a central value of 3.0.

          That estimate range has not improved since 1979. Actual observation rather than computer gaming shows the range more like 1 to 2 degrees, if not in fact 0 to 1, in the plausible case of net negative feedbacks. The no feedback ECS figure is around 1.1 degrees C.

          • Willard says:

            > Actual observations

            I doubt you can actually observe the future, John. Even direct evidence is in some true sense from the past.

            What you actually call actual observations is often mere extrapolation from energy balance models. Only one recent paper diverged from this luckwarm tradition. But then its author does not pretend it is observation-based anymore. He is more into objectivity these days.

            The actual limits of justified disingenuousness gives a central estimate above 2C. To reduce the usual rsnge, information had to be thrown away. Less information, less uncertainty – luckwarm objectivity is an addictive drug.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” again shows elementary ignorance of the scientific method. It is necessary to study what has happened so as to estimate what may happen. On the basis of the data for 1850, as John Tillman has correctly pointed out, ECS is 1.1 K (and, for 1850, that included feedback response). However, as our paper correctly points out, even a small perturbation in the feedback regime compared with 1850 leads to a very large perturbation in ECS, because any change in feedback strength acts not only upon reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases but also upon the emission temperature, which is 30 times larger. It is for that reason that models’ outputs cannot reliably tell us anything about ECS.

          • Willard says:

            I was not talking about your paper, twat.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” seems unwilling to grasp the simple concept that a “best estimate” that is expressed as “of order 3 K” is a ballpark best estimate, and that that ballpark encompasses the rounded-up 2.6 K that was the actual midrange estimate.

          • Willard says:

            Christopher insists, he really insists to interject in an exchange he has not read.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          “Willard” should try getting his kindergarten mistress or Komsomol commissar to read him the Charney report, which is not very long. I had correctly stated that the midrange ECS estimate in the report was 2.6 K, which was rounded up to 3 K.

          If “Willard” knew any mathematics, he would know that “of the order of 3 C” does not mean “3 C”: it means 3 C is a ballpark. The actual estimate made by the committee, which was 2.6 C, falls in that ballpark.

          • Willard says:

            *Our best estimate* refers to a central estimate, Precious Plum.

            It comes with margins of uncertainty.

            You blatantly misrepresented Charney 1979 and Hansen & al 1984.

            Stop whining, and suck it up.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            The problem with trying to argue with Communist non-mathematicians is that they are wilfully, invincibly ignorant of the nomenclature used by mathematicians. The use of the term “of order” to qualify a midrange estimate indicates that the midrange estimate is a ballpark estimate.

            “Willard” seems no more aware of the meaning of “of order” than he has shown himself to be aware of the meaning of “closed-form” with respect to the solutions of equations or systems thereof.

            He is out of his depth here, and should perhaps stop digging.

          • Willard says:

            Christopher clearly has no idea what an estimate is.

            So we can forgive him if he misunderstands best estimates.

            Perhaps he should return to formulism.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  6. Nate says:

    It is perfectly satisfactory to analyze electronic amplifiers by IGNORING the biasing required to achieve a quasi linear state. One in which the small input is a perturbation on that state and feedback is applied to that perturbation to obtain the gain.

    Why is that ok for electronics which are based on nonlinear devices, and NOT ok for Earth’s climate which is based on nonlinear properties?

    This seems to be much ado about nothing.

    • Joe Born says:

      “Why is that ok for electronics which are based on nonlinear devices, and NOT ok for Earths climate which is based on nonlinear properties?”

      Indeed. The post at https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/power-of-obscure-language depicts an electronic circuit that illustrates the point.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        Mr Born persists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in setting up a mendacious and invented straw man by saying we insist the system response to forcings must be linear. Yet the head posting here, as well as several other head postings that Mr Born has inexpertly and mendaciously commented upon, makes it explicit that we do not treat the climate system as linear.

        • Joe Born says:

          Lord Moncktons premise: In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature was 287.5 / 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08.

          His conclusion: ECS . . . is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.

          That is a non sequitur: he conclusion does not follow from the premiseunless the intervening verbiage, the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin is interpreted to mean that equilibrium temperature has to be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.

          So there are only two choices. First, Lord Monckton requires linear proportionality, which feedback theory does not. Second, his conclusion is a non sequitur. In both cases his proof fails.

          • Joe Born says:

            It appears that not all the punctuation showed up in that last comment. I’ll try it again:

            Lord Monckton’s premise: “In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature was 287.5 / 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08.”

            His conclusion: “ECS . . . is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.”

            That is a non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise–unless the intervening verbiage, “the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin,” is interpreted to mean that the equilibrium temperature must be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.

            So there are only two possibilities. First, Lord Monckton requires linear proportionality, which feedback theory does not. Second, his conclusion is a non sequitur.

            In both cases, his proof fails.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            The wilfully ignorant and mendacious Mr Born, a retired shyster with no knowledge or experience of control theory, has been told many times that the fact that at any given moment (such as 1850) the feedback processes then subsisting must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature does not imply that at some subsequent date the unit feedback response would be identical to that of 1850.

            In 1850 the temperatsure was in (or near enough to) equilibrium. Therefore, the system-gain factor 1.08 was an equilibrium system-gain factor. And it applied equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Therefore, the equilibrium sensitivity based on 1850 data was indeed the product of the system-gain factor 1.08 and the reference sensitivity of 1.045 K.

            However, as the head posting explains, even a very small perturbation in the feedback strength between 1850 and the present – say, a 1% increase – would entail a 300% increase in ECS from 1.1 K to 4 K, because any increase in feedback strength applies at any moment, such as today, not only to reference sensitivity but to the entire reference signal, which is 30 times larger.

            It is for this reason that we are able to say that, on the basis of the data for 1850, and with remarkably little uncertainty, ECS was 1.1 K; but that any estimates of ECS today, when we are not at equilibrium, are mere guesswork because of the extreme sensitivity of global temperature to very small changes in feedback strength.

            Therefore, the official 3 [2, 5] K interval of ECS in IPCC (2021) is not “very likely”: it is merely a region, and not a particularly likely region, of a broad spectrum of possibilities.

            For this reason, there is not, after all, any certainty, or even particular likelihood, of global warming large enough to be dangerous. Therefore, squandering $400-800 bn to bring about net zero emissions globally by 1850, which would consume all corporate profits for the next 30 years, is not at all likely to be necessary. And, even if it were necessary, and even if no correction were made for climatology’s control-theoretic error, the most that we could purchase by the ending of capitalism worldwide and the general bankruptcy that would follow is an abatement of 3/8 C.

            Do try to be honest for once, and open-minded enough to see the wood for the trees.

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            It’s a spanner in the works that real-world data shows water vapour cooling, as can be explained with the valid physics in my 2013 paper and book. The CSIRO could produce no counter study and nor can you.

            http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            GOOD LORD MONCKTON

            We are both in unison fighting the actions taken by foolish politicians (especially now the Labor Party in Australia) because they are so ignorant of basic physics that they are fooled by the IPCC and the media focus on climate activists.

            But can’t you see that you are scoring own goals?

            You need to attack their false physics, not endorse it. If you ignore my correct refutations of their fictitious, fiddled physics you are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

            One last try – read and digest:

            Nearly 1,500 have downloaded this:
            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148

            Over 1440 have read this:
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False

            Over 2,780 have read this:
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Cot’n” is off topic. The head posting is not about the nonsense peddle by the “Dragon-slayers” to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect. The elementary mathematics of the climate at the 1850 shows that there is a greenhouse effect. Besides, our approach is to accept ad argumentum whatever official climatology proposes except where it can be proven wrong. Climatology was wrong about its implementation of control theory as it applies to feedback response in the climate. It is that subject that is the topic of the head posting. Stick to that topic or go elsewhere.

    • Nate says:

      But this just ad hominin and doesn’t address the issue.

      Why is it ok to apply feedback to the perturbation (small input) to obtain gain in an electronic amplifier (which you agree is an analog to climate) but NOT OK to do so for climate?

      This is simply not clear.

    • Bart says:

      This isn’t a very good analogy because electronic amplifiers use components which are designed specifically to provide a nearly linear response at a particular bias set point.

      You do have a point that if you are dealing with a linear response in a particular region, you can do this. However, there is no basis to presume this system is linear or nearly so. In fact, if we take the data and suppositions at face value, it appears the gain was increasing with CO2 concentration.

      But, we cannot take the data and suppositions at face value. There are confounding influences on the temperature measure. The entire exercise falters on the fallacy of a single cause.

      • Nate says:

        “it appears the gain was increasing with CO2 concentration.”

        Where do you see that?

        To use the perturbation to T, and find sensitivity from that doesnt mean the system is linear.

        It just assumes that for small perturbations, a linear response is a good approximation.

        Of course, as the perturbation in T grows larger, linear response may no longer be a good approximation.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        “Bart” should perhaps try to get some to read the head posting to him before he attempts to comment on it. It is precisely because global temperature is extremely sensitive to very small changes in feedback strength (i.e., temperature response is very nonlinear with respect to changes in feedback strength) that the present method of attempting to diagnose ECS from models is doomed to fail. The uncertainties in the feedback strengths are far too large to allow such constraint. It only appears possible to constrain ECS if one continues, as some commenters here seek to do, to rely upon the erroneous notion that feedbacks do not respond to emission temperature. In objective fact, they do; and, at any moment, they respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature, including emission temperature.

  7. Bellman says:

    Once again it seems the only argument is that all feedbacks must be proportional to the entire reference temperature, because that’s what Control Theory dictates.

    So I’ll again ask for a reference for Control Theory saying that all feedbacks must behave linearly, regardless of whether they are caused by an electrical circuit or atmospheric water vapour.

    Then I’ll ask why anyone thinks that just because a mathematical model describes all feedbacks in a particular way, that means that nature must follow the model? All models are wrong, as the saying goes.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      The furtively pseudonymous “Bellman” is out of its depth here. It is readily demonstrable either from the equations governing feedback in dynamical systems, whether linear or nonlinear, that at any given moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, comprising the base signal (in climate the 259.6 K emission temperature) and the perturbation signal (the 7.5 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivities).

      That fact – and it is a fact – does not in any way imply that the dynamical system in question must respond linearly to a forcing.

      Finally, climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system and feedback formulism is no less applicable thereto than to any such system.

      • Bellman says:

        “that at any given moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, comprising the base signal (in climate the 259.6 K emission temperature) and the perturbation signal (the 7.5 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivities).”

        But it doesn’t have to do it equally for all temperatures. Monckton’s entire claim is based on the assumption that if you divide the feedback response by the base temperature, you will get a value that can be used to predict future feedback response. But you cannot do that if the feedback response is not proportional to the absolute temperature.

        Monckton calculates the gain in 1850 by dividing 287.5 / 267.1, to get 1.0764 (ignoring all uncertainties). The assumption here is that because there was 20.4K of feedbacks on the back of 267.1K base temperature every 1K rise in the base temperature added an extra 0.0764K from feedbacks.

        But if the feedbacks are not increasing linearly, you cannot simply assume that the 0.0764K will apply to the next K rise in temperature. If, say the feedback response was close to zero up to 250K and only then started increasing linearly once the earth had warmed up enough for feedbacks to have an effect – all of the 20.4K feedback response was happening due to the rise from 250 – 267.1, and if it continues linearly the feedback response to the next 1K rise would be 20.4 / 17.1 = 1.2K.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          The furtively pseudonymous “Bellman” should read the head posting rather than making up a straw man and then tearing it to pieces. That misconduct is known to logicians as the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, the most fundamental of all the logical fallacies.

          The head posting makes it explicit that one cannot extrapolate from the 1.1 K ECS that is readily and reliably derivable from the data for 1850. As the feedback regime stood in that year of temperature equilibrium, ECS was 1.1 K.

          However, as the head posting (and numerous previous postings at WattsUpWithThat) makes explicit, once climatology’s error of control theory is corrected it becomes visible that the global temperature is far more sensitive to small perturbations in feedback strength over time than climatology (which implicitly assumes a linear feedback response over time in the industrial era) had hitherto realized.

          The head posting explains that a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender a 300% increase in ECS compared with 1850. Anyone even half educated would realize that that calculation is not describing a linear system response.

          Precisely because any feedbacks present at any given moment must at that moment respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference or pre-feedback temperature then obtaining, any increase in feedback strength and hence in the system-gain factor applies not only to the perturbation signal (reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases) but also to emission temperature.

          For that reason, all attempts to constrain ECS by diagnosis of feedback strengths from the models are no better than guesswork. The reason is that we simply do not know the total feedback strength to a sufficient precision to derive a well-resolved current ECS therefrom.

          We shall only be able to determine the current system-gain factor when the climate has settled to equilibrium – i.e., 30 years with no global warming trend. It may then be derived as we have derived it for 1850.

          Because the climate, though close to equilibrium, is not at present at equilibrium, we cannot know what the system-gain factor is. Therefore ECS is unconstrainable. Therefore the large warming predicted by the usual suspects has no legitimate basis in science. It is merely a guess, and not a particularly likely one.

          • Bellman says:

            “The head posting makes it explicit that one cannot extrapolate from the 1.1 K ECS that is readily and reliably derivable from the data for 1850. As the feedback regime stood in that year of temperature equilibrium, ECS was 1.1 K.”

            You are correct – I missed that important change. My apologies.

            So to be clear – you are now no longer claiming you know that the ECS is 1.1 to a high level of precision, but are saying you have no idea what the true ECS is, and it could be as large or larger than IPCC estimates?

            “The head posting explains that a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender a 300% increase in ECS compared with 1850.”

            Which seems a good argument for your method being wrong. I also think you are getting this the wrong way round. The ECS shouldn’t be changing like that. What you are really seeing is that whatever the actual ECS you will see very little difference in the system gain based on the entire temperature.

    • JamesD says:

      I really can’t see how people aren’t getting this. It has nothing to do with linear or non linear. The argument is simple: feedback is based on the entire signal, not the perturbation. Period.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        James D has summed up the matter admirably. But it is not that the Forces of Darkness don’t get it: it’s that they are paid not to get it, or they are ideologically committed to not getting it, or both. They had even misled Roy Spencer as to what we were actually asserting. For instance, he had been told (of all people, by a retired shyster of no moral standing or scientific competence) that we were asserting or implying that the temperature response to forcings was perforce linear over time, when on just about every occasion on which we have written about our result we have made it explicit, and sometimes repeatedly explicit, that this is not, repeat not, the case.

        He had also been misled by third parties into believing that we imagined the models incorporated feedback formulism directly. They do not: instead, they unsuccessfully attempt to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for several million individual atmospheric cells over multiple time-steps, and from the messy outputs of the models attempts are made to diagnose the feedbacks implicit in those outputs.

        • Willard says:

          Not JamesD, darling.

          The furtively anonymous JamesD.

        • Swenson says:

          M,

          You wrote –

          “the temperature response to forcings was . . . ” – precisely less than nothing, literally.

          It may have escaped your notice that the Earth has actually cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, no doubt due to “the temperature response to forcings”.

          No GHE. No ECS, no TCS.

          Climate is just the average of historical weather, whether it suits you or not.

          You don’t need to write a paper explaining the role of “forcings” in cooling. The physics are well known.

          But feel free to humour me, and others.

          If you feel that you can predict the future better than I, go your hardest. You predict first. Ill tell you if I agree. You have to be lucky every time, I only have to be lucky once.

          Maybe you could go away and preach to the converted – better for your self esteem, I woukdnt guess.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            Swenson is not only discourteous but also off topic. It has been explained to him that we accept, for the sake of argument, all of official climatology except what we can disprove. He is entitled to his uninformed opinion that there is no greenhouse effect, for he has no understanding of mathematics or science and is therefore in a state of childlike, invincible ignorance.

            One despairs of rectifying invincible ignorance, and in Judaeo-Christian theology we are taught that it very seldom works. However, if Swenson were to spend less time shouting discourteously and more time getting someone slowly to read the head posting to him, he might care to explain what the 27.9 K difference between the measured temperature of 287.5 K in 1850 and the emission temperature of 259.6 K is if it is not a natural greenhouse effect.

            Fairy-dust, perhaps?

        • Nate says:

          Monckton.

          “They do not: instead, they unsuccessfully attempt to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for several million individual atmospheric cells over multiple time-steps, and from the messy outputs of the models attempts are made to diagnose the feedbacks implicit in those outputs.”

          You think this is too complicated and cannot possibly work?

          Yet, again, this is exactly what weather models do, rather successfully. It works to solve the very hard problem of predicting the intrinsically chaotic weather.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            In response to Nate, it is all too clear that the models’ approach is not working. All of them, except the Russian model (whose chief modeler I briefed on climatology’s error some years ago when I visited Moscow at the invitation of the city government), are running hot, as Roy Spencer has brilliantly and repeatedly demonstrated in his column. In fact, there has been little more than a third of the warming originally predicted by IPCC in 1990.

            It was that large and growing discrepancy between prediction and reality that led us to investigate what had gone wrong. We focused on feedback strength for two reasons. First, in the official understanding feedback response contributes between three-quarters and nine-tenths of all warming. Secondly, climatology says direct forcings are well constrained, and, since we cannot prove otherwise, we accept that contention ad argumentum.

            It is very plain from reading paper after paper on climate sensitivity that climatologists simply do not understand control theory. Thanks to our work, they are slowly beginning to understand it. It is now far more widely realized than it was that any feedbacks that exist at a given moment respond not only to the perturbation signal, reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases, but also to the base signal, emission temperature.

            It will take a little longer to get them to understand that at any given moment feedbacks must respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference signal then obtaining, and still longer again to get them to understand that that fact does not necessarily entail linearity of system response over time. But, by little and little, we are getting there.

          • Willard says:

            > All of them, except the Russian model

            Please leave true Scotsman fallacy to true Scotsmen, Christopher.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Joe Born says:

        Actually, we all get his contention that feedback is based on the entire signal. But those of us who know feedback recognize that low feedback doesn’t necessarily follow from that contention as he says it does. To get it to follow requires a further, invalid assumption, which is that the output has to be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.

        Lord Monckton repeatedly denies that this is his assumption, but his conclusion follows only if he makes that assumption–which he imposes in all his numerical examples. To see that graphically, see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/12/refutation-of-the-forgotten-sunshine-theory/ or https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/power-of-obscure-language.

        • Bart says:

          It is a mistake people often do make. E.g., I have seen many people try to model the CO2 cycle as though our additions had completely separate dynamics from the natural inflows. You can’t do that because nature has no way of separating and treating natural flows differently from anthropogenic ones.

          Here, however, we do have a regime change – two separate potential influences. So, you can indeed treat them as though they have different sensitivities.

          The problem with the entire exercise, however, is the fallacy of single cause. CO2 concentration is not even remotely the only thing that influences global temperatures.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          Mr Born continues wilfully and mendaciously to misrepresent our result. It is self-evidently true, now that Mr Born has at last accepted that feedback processes must at any moment respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature then obtaining, that as matters stood in 1850 ECS was indeed low. It was 1.1 K.

          Likewise, he now understands that official climatology, having derived its original 4 K midrange estimate of ECS from its erroneous application of control theory to the data for 1850, continues to maintain that ECS today is 4 K, implying a near-perfectly linear system response throughout the industrial era. It is to official climatology, then, not to us, that Mr Born should be addressing his notion that the system-response may prove to be nonlinear.

          In reality, though, climatology is reasonable in its implicit assumption that the system response is linear: for, as we have shown, one may adopt midrange values for the relevant climatic data for the industrial era and show that ECS today may still be 1.1 K, just as it was in 1850.

          However, since the head posting contains an explicit, written warning that an increase of only 1% in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would lead to an increase of 300% in ECS, from 1.1 K to 4 K, even he, ignorant of elementary mathematics and physics though he has shown himself to be, must surely understand that he is making himself look even sillier than before, if that be possible, by continuing to pretend that we insist the system response is linear.

          It is quite likely to be linear, but, precisely because ECS might adopt just about any value if it is not linear, the current method of attempting to constrain ECS by diagnosis of feedback strengths from the outputs of the models is doomed to fail. It is mere guesswork. And once that fact has been accepted, there subsists no rational or logical basis for squandering hundreds of trillions to purchase practically no abatement of global warming.

          Perhaps an argument with so many stages as this is beyond Mr Born. If so, he should ask a logician to explain it to him.

  8. Nate says:

    “lab came to exactly the same conclusion, after months of delay because the operators body temperature again interfered with the readings, and he had not thought to run wires into an adjacent room. So the matter is not in doubt.”

    This sounds made up. It makes little sense to this experimentalist.

    Maybe you can provide details.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Nate will have to wait for our paper to be published. The details of the experiments are set out therein.

      • Bellman says:

        Wouldn’t it have been better not to mention it until the paper was published then?

        I can just imagine the response if someone had spent 5 years claiming they had proven using an electrical circuit that ECS was really 8K, but that they couldn’t give any details until the paper was published.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          One understands that “Bellman”, a paid totalitarian, does not understand or enjoy the concept of free speech. But we are fully entitled to give an outline of our research, including an outline of the experimentation that confirmed one of the steps in the argument. He can read and whine about that research when it is peer-reviewed and published.

          And, when he has learned to read, he will realize that we have not spent 5 years claiming that ECS has any particular value. The head posting, and several postings before that, makes it explicit that we do not consider ECS to be constrainable by current methods, precisely because any change in feedback strength must be applied to the entire reference signal, including emission temperature.

          • Willard says:

            So, hearsay.

            Is there an old name for that kind of fallacy?

          • Bellman says:

            As a believer in free speech, I have never said you should not be allowed to publish whatever you like, just as I’m free to point out when your are being disingenuous, or using a strawman argument, or lying about me.

            “And, when he has learned to read, he will realize that we have not spent 5 years claiming that ECS has any particular value.”

            From the 19th of March 2018.

            “Therefore, I am at last free to reveal what we have discovered. There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 0.15 K. We say we can prove it.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Joe Born says:

      “Maybe you can provide details.”

      As you can see, Lord Monckton’s modus operandi is evasion. But I really don’t think we need details. The circuit probably differs little from the one in his draft paper at https://cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/sen.pdf.

      And a critical perusal of that draft’s results shows that the experiment he touts actually refutes the basis of his proof.

      In his slide at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-10-months/ the “corrected” calculation is an extrapolation through the origin: it imposes the requirement that the equilibrium temperature be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback. But the measurements set forth in the draft paper show that linear proportionality is not a feedback requirement.

      Sure, that circuit is set up for linear operation. But consider the first two rows in row set 3 of Table A.2. They show that the experimenter simulated nonlinear operation by so adjusting a potentiometer when he changed the input E_0, which in Lord Monckton’s work represents what the equilibrium temperature would be without feedback, as to make beta (the feedback coefficient) vary with the input E_0 and thus with the with-feedback-temperature-representing output E_R. Since beta is not independent of input (or, for that matter, of output), the simulated system is nonlinear.

      Not surprisingly, the ratio that the output with-feedback-temperature representing output E_R bears to the no-feedback-representing input E_0 changes: the equilibrium temperature doesn’t have to be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.

      Using a nonlinear element in the feedback network, I illustrated the same thing at https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/power-of-obscure-language.

      • Nate says:

        Indeed, Joe. You make clear that his argument is looney-tunes.

        Monckton says:

        “In logic, climatologists position cannot be correct. For the feedback processes that subsist at any given moment in a dynamical system such as the climate are inanimate. They have no freedom to decide that they will not respond at all to the first 29/30 of the 263.5 K total reference temperature in 2020, but that they will respond only, and suddenly, and very vigorously, to the final 1/30. Where is the sense in that?”

        Where is the sense in that?

        Its just what a highly nonlinear system does! As you point out it’s just what a diode does, or transistors do.

        And it’s what the Earth does. When it is very cold, there will be NO water vapor feedback and NO ice-albedo feedback.

        But he oddly insists:

        “Therefore, at any specified moment, such as the present, the feedback processes subsisting in the dynamical system of interest, the climate, must perforce respond equally to each degree of the 263.5 K total reference temperature.”

        So this makes absolutely no sense. For the real Earth, NO Feedback need apply for the first 250 of the Earth’s degrees K.

      • Bindidon says:

        Joe Born

        Thanks for

        The Power of Obscure Language
        You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time

        I have been a simple software engineer, lacking any math skills to adequately reply to the Third Viscount’s often superficial and discrediting prose, as have done many scientists since years.

        Your reply was the best I read until now, not only because you wrote it in a manner understandable, but also because you managed to follow his ‘theory’ through many of posts.

        Today, as usual, I have more and more the impression that his ‘publications’ do not reflect his own knowledge but rather that of those people in his background Frogs love to name ‘petites mains’.

        Merci beaucoup / Vielen Dank

        • Joe Born says:

          “I have more and more the impression that his publications do not reflect his own knowledge but rather that of those people in his background Frogs love to name petites mains.”

          Maybe; I can’t see into his mind.

          But here’s the hypothesis I favor. I think what he writes mostly reflects theories he concocts himself, and he is able to dupe people into embracing them by using ambiguities to mask the fact that he deals mostly in non sequiturs.

          Lord Monckton seems to have a flypaper mind: his memory seems to be excellent, and he seems able to call up all manner of facts effortlessly. But so far as I’ve seen he’s hopelessly unable to reason from those facts. He knows all the puzzle pieces, but he has no concept of how they fit together. He’s absolutely certain that round peg fits into that square hole. People are impressed (or at least entertained) by his command of facts and as a result erroneously assume that the inferences he draws from them must be correct.

          They rarely are.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        Mr Born continues wilfully, mendaciously and malevolently to misrepresent what we have said and done.

        He continues deliberately to pretend that our correct assertion that at any moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature necessarily implies that system response must be linear.

        The head posting, and several others before it, has made it explicitly clear that linearity is not only not implicit in our result: our result shows just how potentially (though probably not actually) nonlinear the system may be.

        The chief purpose of the experiment at the lab was to verify that feedback processes extant at any moment must respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal.

        If Mr Born were to wait until our paper is published, or if he were at least to read the current head posting, he would be disabused of his self-deluding nonsense.

  9. Bellman says:

    “Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate [4K] often enough, it became impossible for the climatological community to move away from it.”

    Yet every IPCC report has suggested ECS is probably lower than 4C. Latest report gives a best estimate of 3C, with a high confidence that it’s between 2.5C and 4C.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      The furtively pseudonymous “Bellman” is, as so often, in nit-picking mode. ECS based on the data for 1850 is not the 4 K imagined by Hansen and so many others on the basis of the data for that year: it is 1.1 K. But official climatology, having made its error, cannot admit that ECS may be that low. Therefore, it continues to maintain that ECS is of order 4 K. For instance, the midrange ECS in the CMIP6 models is 3.9 K (Zelinka et al. 2020, supplementary matter).

  10. bdgwx says:

    > “we reach the same conclusion as Pat Frank”

    Frank’s method of dealing with uncertainty is not consistent with established methods defined in JCGM 100:2008 (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) or even his own citation from Frank 2010 of Bevington 2003 (Data Reduction and Error Analysis). For example, using the Frank 2010 method the UAH uncertainty would be evaluated as approximately +/- 2.40 C (95% CI) based on the data in Christy et al. 2003. Note that you assessed the uncertainty as +/- 0.20 C in that publication. The Frank 2010 method 1) uses a formula for the propagation of uncertainty of unknown origin (it is no where to be found in Bevington 2003 which Frank listed as the source) and which is inconsistent with established methods and procedures including Bevington 2003 and 2) ignores the propagation of uncertainty through the gridding and averaging step. My point is that given the disagreement between your and his approaches to dealing with uncertainty that go back at least 12 years you should probably be more critical of Frank 2019 as well.

    It may be worth mentioning that you were critical of Frank 2019 back in 2019. What changed?

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/critique-of-propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/additional-comments-on-the-frank-2019-propagation-of-error-paper/

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      bdgwx, as usual, makes stuff up. I was and remain supportive of Pat Frank, a good friend, and of his result. I was present in 2016 at the annual planetary-emergencies conference of the World Federation of Scientists in Sicily when Pat first presented his results to a bitterly hostile audience. i spoke for him then, and have continued to do so since.

      bdgws, as usual, is confused. In particular, Frank (2019) concerns itself not with uncertainties in the temperature record but with uncertainties in the derivation of equilibrium temperature sensitivities in the general-circulation models.

      • Gloria says:

        I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px150~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
        the given stats system. https://fixjob11.blogspot.com

      • Willard says:

        > In particular, Frank (2019) concerns itself not with uncertainties in the temperature record

        Hence why the example is prefaced with “for example.” It is a simple “by your logic” argument. Simulation or measurement uncertainties, it should not matter. One can be the extension of the other.

        What goes for the goose goes for the gentile, more so when they share the same properties.

    • Nick Stokes says:

      “What changed?”

      The author. The quoted text is written by Lord M. Purveyors of nonsense flock together. I don’t think Dr Spencer has changed his view.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.

        • Bindidon says:

          Pseudomod

          When are you going to stop your stupid, nonsensical “please stop trolling”, which, by the way, you only address to people whose comments don’t suit you?

          You behave like a stubborn child.

  11. Steven M Mosher says:

    “When I first realized that climatologists on both sides of the debate simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was a friend of one of my distinguished co-authors did not realize they were true either. But he had his own lab. So he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are correct.”

    hearsay. this is all lord has.

    “When I first realized that climatologists on both sides of the debate simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was an employee of mine who had his own lab. So he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are false.

    then, I gave the problem to my chip designer friends. they also confirmed
    the words are false.

    then i published a open invitation with a million dollar prize to prove the words true.

    every spice specialist in my linkedIn list applied
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE

    guys at cadence, synopsis, SMIC, TSMC,
    samsung.

    none could prove the lords false words true.

    the good lord is welcome to post instructions for his friends Experiement.

    100 million dollar prize if he’s right

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Mosher does not possess $1 million, still less $100 million. Once he has placed the relevant sum in escrow I shall submit our argument to a suitable court of law, where both sides can scrutinize it, and the court will then decide to award me the amount held in escrow, plus costs.

      If Mr Mosher does not in fact possess either $1 million or $100 million, then in offering to pay it he is perpetrating a fraud, in which case the public authorities, who are already investigating various scams by believers in the Party Line on climate, will be informed. He would, therefore, be wiser either to place the money in excrow or admit that he does not have it.

      • Willard says:

        Do you even leverage, bro?

        Mosh was into crypto before it was cool, which means he most prolly holds a few hundred if not thousand baggers. And that is after his previous gigs, like at Creative Labs.

        In contrast to you, he means business, not burlesque braggadocio.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Steven Mosher, Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Bindidon says:

        The arrogant and rude Monckton from Brenchley is acting a lot more like a troll in this thread than all those you accuse of it.

        When will you finally stop to exclusively address your stupid, nonsensical “please stop trolling” to people whose comments don’t suit you?

  12. Steven M Mosher says:

    the climate is not a circuit.

    repeat after me. the climate is not a circuit.
    and can’t be modelled as a circuit.

    this is a category error. full stop

    • E. Swanson says:

      Agreed.

      Modeling climate as an electrical circuit with a linear amplifier and linear feedback ignores the fact that there are multiple processes involved, many of which are highly non-linear, particularly the atmospheric radiation (T^4) and the phase changes of water, which result in the Arctic Amplification thru changes in snow and ice albedo.

      Also, there are known time constants which make it difficult to compare present data with historical data, such as the long term circulation in the world’s oceans, such as the THC in the high latitude North Atlantic. It’s been claimed that the flow of sinking waters around the Antarctic require some 600 years to flow to the Equator.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Mosher, whose prejudice is exceeded only by his ignorance, is blissfully (or perhaps deliberately) unaware that feedback formulism is applicable to any dynamical system on which feedback processes act, whether or not that system is a circuit.

      A circuit is an analogy that may be applied to any feedback-moderated dynamical system. Mr Mosher should look up the word “analogy” and, in future, think before he shouts.

      • Willard says:

        > formulism

        Good grief.

        Formalism.

        Formulism is pejorative.

        You are not supposed to rain on your own parade, even if vain.

        • Nick Stokes says:

          “You are not supposed to rain on your own parade”

          A lord may surely reign on his own parade.
          Even if he can’t rein in his own parade.

          Ugh, homophones. “Piss” is clearer.

          • Gloria says:

            I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px270~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
            the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Steven Mosher, Little Willy, Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          “Willard” continues to display his ignorance, this time of the use of language. The pejorative meaning of “formulism” is metonymic. That does not prevent me from using it in its original meaning. To anyone capable of reading rather than shouting Communist slogans, the distinction between the original and the metonymic meaning is readily discernible from the context.

    • Ken says:

      The problem is that of all the climate models using feedbacks to project their scenarios of impending doom.

      As I understand it, Lord Monckton is saying is the feedback value used in the climate models is much too large and may in fact be negative.

      The matter of whether there are feedbacks in climate isn’t the question. There certainly are valid comparisons to electronic circuits as well as any other process where feedback is inherent.

  13. gbaikie says:

    “In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age”
    That a cute idea, but it’s not possible, rather all we doing is increasing the chance of wars. And no chance of the side trying to revert to Stone Age of winning that fight.
    The Left is at war with reality. The Left has caused wars, and will always want more wars. It’s what they do- cause wars.
    Or rather than say the Left, let’s just say, politicians.
    If allow politicians to do what want to do, they are Lefties or lets say, mad totalitarian freaks- power corrupts.
    Give them emergency powers, and they will show their true colors.

    But back to dull topic of global climate, I had hoped we would be able measure the effect increased CO2 levels, but other than 1 C,
    it seems that was just wishing thinking.
    But why we even worried about 5 C increase in global temperature is yet another mystery.
    It seems a near certainty that if global average temperature were to increase by 5 C, the Sahara Desert would become grasslands and forests. And it seems a green sahara would cause more global warming than any CO2 levels.
    Or we in an Ice Age, we can’t escape it. We in coldest time of this 33.9 million year Ice Age which called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
    So adding 5 C is impossible- though we still would, perhaps, be in the cooler part of this 33.9 million year Ice Age.
    One thing about 5 C warmer world, is it is warmer, but it isn’t hotter.

    So, NASA and NOAA say that, more than 90% of all warming global in modern era, has warming the entire ocean.
    And assume warming 3.5 C average ocean is important in terms of global air temperature.
    Anytime the ocean has been 4 C or warmer, it been the warmest the world has been in the last couple million years- and always has green
    Sahara desert.
    So, if warm, get green Sahara, and it seems a green Sahara increases
    global air temperature.
    Also ocean which is 4 C or warmer, has ice free arctic sea ice, and greatest forest in the world, gets greater.

    The only downside seems to be, is could might make the Russians happier. Though we can’t say there is downside to making the Africans happier.

    • gbaikie says:

      Or maybe I will give argument to Lord Monckton.
      NASA and NOAA have different argument these days,
      they say increased CO2 level have caused the 3.5 C
      to warm.
      And I would say a warmer ocean is the amplifier.
      In terms of PR, the unseen CO2 gas could scare the
      uneducated, and PR is all about moving the stupid.
      But an Ocean warming from about 3.5 C to about 3.6 C
      is understandable to even the dumbest- and quite correctly
      they don’t see it as a problem.
      They might even ask why don’t measure the ocean more precisely
      and we didn’t you do it sooner.
      And people don’t like trying explain why they have been so stupid.

      But since NASA and NOAA have changed the argument, isn’t Lord Monckton giving a strawman argument.
      Or we have moved on.
      After wasting a vast amount of time and trillion dollars of the people’s money.

  14. CHRISTOPHER GAME says:

    Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton do not understand the concept of feedback as it applies to such a complicated ‘system’ as the earth receiving energy from the sun and discharging it to outer space, in both by electromagnetic radiation.

    I hardly need say that I esteem Roy as knowing perhaps 1,000 or perhaps 100,000 times as much as I do about meteorology. (Do I hear you say he knows 1,000,000 times as much about meteorology? I won’t contest that.) But the present topic is primarily mathematical, and I think I can contribute there.

    The error that Roy and Monckton share is that they let the discussion go on in the nonsensical single feedback loop terms dictated by the arch warmists Hansen and his henchman Michael Schlesinger, who cite the oversimplified Bode model, also known as the asymptotic feedback model. Monckton takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker; Roy crab-walks around it by saying ‘Oh, the forcing and feedback formalism is just a rhetorical or diagnostic device, not used in the AOGCMs themselves. But it’s a handy way of explaining the AOGCMs to people who don’t understand the situation.’ Both are losing strategies, conceptually inadequate for a system with many interlocking feedbacks. And, yes, it’s an inadequate diagnostic device.

    Not even a simple physical electronic amplifier can be fully and accurately described by the HansenSchlesinger 19841985 scalar scenario. A real physical electronic amplifier needs a formulation explicitly in terms of both voltage and current for every branch of the circuit. The transmission of the signal is to be described by a matrix, not a scalar such as Roy and Monckton cripple their accounts with, bluffed by the aura of the warmistas. Yes, of course, the Bode model that Hansen and Schlesinger cite is excellent for the restricted purpose that Bode advertised it for. But he didn’t advertise it for the earths energy flow problem.

    The proper matrix of rate coefficients for the earths energy flows is of higher rank than the rank two matrix that covers simple real amplifier circuits. For the earths energy flow problem, the stability is to be examined in terms of the eigenvalues of the matrix of rate coefficients, not in terms of the single loop gain formulation of Hansen and Schlesinger following Bode.

    There are many things about the HansenSchlesinger forcing and feedback formulation that are nonsensical, too many to expound here and now.

    A summary of the situation is that man-made added CO2 should be treated primarily as a catalyst of transduction of energy between radiative and material forms, not primarily as a substantial energy flow in itself. A catalyst manifests itself directly in the matrix of rate coefficients, and only indirectly in the list of energy flows. I have tried and tried to get Roy to see this, but at least till now I have failed, as far as I can work out. Monckton dismissed me in a flash.

    Once one understands the need to use a higher rank matrix of rate coefficients to express the many interacting feedbacks of the earths energy flow process, the many failings and nonsenses of the scalar single feedback loop ‘forcing-and-feedback’ model become obvious.

    Dear Roy and Lord Monckton, the lesson here is ‘Don’t let your opponents dictate the terms of the debate.’

    • Willard says:

      > a real amplifier

      Richard, now is your time to shine!

    • CHRISTOPHER GAME says:

      By the way, a point. “feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to it”. No, it isn’t. Control theory usually assumes unilateral circuit elements. The present problem is about a dissipative system, devoid of unilateral circuit elements. That’s just one point. There are many more.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Game is, as usual, more than somewhat confused. If he were aware of the norms of logic, he would know that to convince an opponent of his error it is advisable to adopt as much of the opponent’s case as may reasonably be held to be comsistent with objective truth, and to dissent only from those points that cannot legitimately be held to be consistent with objective truth.

      It is objectively true that the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. The calculations for 1850 set out in the head posting make this explicit. It is objectively true, therefore, that feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to the climate.

      It is also objectively true that because the interval of system-gain factors falls well within the interval of uncertainties in feedback strength, any predictions of ECS based on diagnoses of feedback strengths from the outputs of general-circulation models are no better than guesswork.

      It is precisely because the uncertainties in feedback strength are so large that our argument has force.

      • CHRISTOPHER GAME says:

        Thank you, Lord Monckton for your reply. I interpret it as your trying to lure me into making the same strategic error as the one I warned you and Roy not to make: letting one’s opponents dictate the terms of the debate.

        When one is responding to nonsense such as that of the HansenSchlesinger forcing and feedback formalism (please let me abbreviate it as the FFF), it is practically impossible to reasonably follow the admirable mediaeval tradition of setting out one’s opponent’s case before answering it.

        Yes, the earths energy flow system is moderated by many interlocking feedbacks. But, as I just pointed out, and you just ignored, control systems theory is not the right kind of feedback theory for it. For control systems theory usually assumes unilateral circuit elements, while the atmosphereocean system is devoid of those, because it is entirely dissipative, with much internal reciprocity. For example the Helmholtz reciprocity of radiative transfer makes nonsense of the main “gain” element of the HansenSchlesinger model that you have till now espoused.

        Of course I agree with you that the AOGCMs are practically useless for the present purpose, but they are not my present target, which is the FFF, that I want you to liberate yourself from, so that you will be able to use instead a proper general dynamical systems model and so to present your case without the nonsense inherent in the FFF.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        In response to Mr Game’s second unfortunate comment, several of my co-authors are eminent control theorists. Whether Mr Game likes it or not, feedback formulism is applicable to all, repeat all, dynamical systems moderated by feedback processes, without exception. Mr Game’s term “unilateral circuit element” is void for uncertainty of meaning. And he should understand that the use of circuit diagrams in feedback analysis is merely an analogy to make the underlying mathematics more readily understandable.

        The underlying mathematics of the infinite series in the feedback loop dates back more than 200 years. It is well established. Time for Mr Game to study a little number theory, so that he can understand the mathematical background to control theory.

        • CHRISTOPHER GAME says:

          Thank you, Lord Monckton, for your prompt reply.

          I accept that the term ‘unilateral circuit element’ is found only in specialist texts on electronic circuit theory and suchlike. But it is essential to the physics here. A unilateral circuit element is the contrary of a reciprocal circuit element. A unilateral circuit element is devoid of internal feedback. A reciprocal circuit element is rich in internal feedback. This distinction makes nonsense of the FFF as a model for the earths energy flow process. Again, control systems theory (including the FFF) relies heavily on unilateral circuit elements, even if its exponents don’t much articulate that fact; they just presuppose it.

          I am well aware of the geometric series calculation to which you refer, but my point is that it relies on a dominant unilateral circuit element, such as is not present in our system. In particular, again, radiative transfer obeys the Helmholtz reciprocity principle.

          By clinging to the FFF, one lets a simple but inappropriate mathematical formula blind one to the underlying physics, which must guide and lead the mathematics.

        • Swenson says:

          Time for Lord Monckton to study the history of the planet, and explain how his mathematical maunderings were unable to prevent the cooling of said planet from an initial molten state to its present tolerably acceptable temperature range.

          Resorting to analogies is generally the patronising approach of propagandists who either don’t understand what they are talking about, or hope their audience will fall for their illusions.

          Maybe Lord Monckton can use his vast knowledge of physics and mathematics to explain why Prof John Tyndall’s 19th century experiments are invalid. Tyndall showed that increasing the amount of CO2 (for example) between a heat source and a heat measuring device, resulted in less heat reaching the measuring device – recorded as a fall in temperature, naturally enough.

          Reproducible experiment – anathema to Lord Monckton, and his crew of “more than competent” “senior climatologists”. Stomping around, waving a non-existent “paper” at people, just makes Lord Monckton look like another climate crackpot – all mouth and no trousers.

          Of course, my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

        • Nick Stokes says:

          “The underlying mathematics of the infinite series in the feedback loop dates back more than 200 years. It is well established. Time for Mr Game to study a little number theory, so that he can understand the mathematical background to control theory.”

          Number theory relates to the study of integers, and has no application here. Summing a geometric progression was known to Euclid and Archimedes, but it also has no sensible application here. True, there is a primitive line of reasoning that goes something like, you get some heating, then some evaporation, which causes more heating, which causes more evaporation etc. You can sum that as a geometric series. But that is just a thought experiment, it doesn’t actually happen that way. Instead, you should just write a linear equation which balances fluxes. This gets immediately to the result, with no infinite series. That is what Hansen and Schlesinger do (and Bode).

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nick.

            Yes, as you say, number theory is about integers. On the other hand, we learnt to sum such series as schoolboys, as I guess most schoolboys did; but more generally, sums of infinite series are usually taken as belonging to analysis, not number theory. And yes, as you say, summing an infinite series is not a great way here; as you say, it is far better just to write a balance equation.

      • Swenson says:

        M,

        You wrote –

        “If he were aware of the norms of logic, he would know that to convince an opponent of his error it is advisable to adopt as much of the opponents case as may reasonably be held to be comsistent with objective truth, and to dissent only from those points that cannot legitimately be held to be consistent with objective truth.”

        Part of Richard Feynman’s summing up after the Rogers report –

        “. . . nature cannot be fooled.”

        As someone once said “A sucking chest wound is Nature’s way of telling you that you made a mistake.”

        Logic does not apply to the quantum double slit experiment. The universe doesn’t care what you or I think.

        Keep dreaming that fantasy can supplant fact if you just believe intensely enough.

      • Dave Fair says:

        Always remember that a UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modeler openly states they tune their models to achieve an ECS that “seems about right.” Parametrization leads to much mischief. And politicians will get the results they pay for.

    • Nick Stokes says:

      Christopher,
      “Not even a simple physical electronic amplifier can be fully and accurately described by the HansenSchlesinger 19841985 scalar scenario. A real physical electronic amplifier needs a formulation explicitly in terms of both voltage and current for every branch of the circuit. The transmission of the signal is to be described by a matrix, not a scalar such as Roy and Monckton cripple their accounts with, bluffed by the aura of the warmistas.”

      True, and worth remembering, about electronic amplifiers. But Hansen and Schlesinger did not say anything about electronic amplifiers. That is a local enthusiasm, taken to an extreme by Lord Monckton. H&S followed the linear algebra sequence used by Bode, which essentially amounts to manipulating N equations in N+1 variables to get one equation in an input and an output, expressed with a gain coefficient. The algebra was appropriate for their system, and the reference to Bode may have been helpful for some, but was in no way required. The algebra is self-contained and elementary.

      I have set out the proper relation of feedback to climate maths here:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/demystifying-feedback/

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nick…in your junction transistor example, if you hold the base at 0 volts while the emitter is at ground, which is normally 0 volts, the transistor will not turn on. You would need to define ground as a more negative voltage than ground, by 0.8 volts, given a silicon transistor. That’s because the transistor is NPN and needs to be biased positively on the P (base) terminal wrt the emitter.

        It would be a lot easier to use a bias resistor from base to the +ve supply with the resistor designed to limit the current via emitter-base and use a capacitor in the feedback circuit to block D*C.

        Any feedback circuits I have encountered in audio amplifiers use a capacitor from the output stage to an input preamp. Feedback is normally AC hence frequency sensitive. And, it is always negative in an amplifier otherwise it would run away, unless you seriously damped it.

        Oscillators use positive feedback but in a controlled manner. They sent a pulse back to an oscillator tank in the input side so as to keep the oscillation going but not enough to cause the output signal to increase without bounds.

        • Nick Stokes says:

          Gordon,
          The voltages marked there are the signal voltages, not bias. I put the same diagram here with the operating point voltages marked. Also, as I said, the capacitors which would normally allow separate bias and signal circuitry are omitted.

          Bias from the collector has stability merits; the negative feedback also helps, for example in minimising thermal change.

          • Swenson says:

            Nick,

            From your link –

            “Example 3 Climate feedbacks

            Again, its just a matter of writing down linear equations, resulting here from equilibrium flux balance. Ill follow this 2006 article of Soden and Held. Unfortunately, they dont actually quite write the flux equations, but Ill do it for them.”

            Hopefully, you didn’t really mean to imply that you can model a chaotic system with linear equations.

            That would make you look deranged, wouldn’t it? Or supremely ignorant, because I don’t think you are particularly stupid.

            Time to appeal to your own authority, perhaps.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Any function can be decomposed into a series of linear ones, at least insofar as we are looking to compute anything.

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Hi Nick. Thank you for your comment. Sorry I am a bit late in responding. I didn’t notice it till now. I will need a bit of time to read carefully what you posted at wattsupwiththat, and then get back to you.

        • Christopher Game says:

          Hi Nick. Step by step. First, before I directly examine and consider your wattsupwiththat post, a few preliminary comments on your post right here in this thread: “But Hansen and Schlesinger did not say anything about electronic amplifiers. That is a local enthusiasm, taken to an extreme by Lord Monckton. H&S followed the linear algebra sequence used by Bode, which essentially amounts to manipulating N equations in N+1 variables to get one equation in an input and an output, expressed with a gain coefficient.”

          I guess one can consider context as well as literal text. Bode’s book that they cited was all about amplifier design. If all that H&S meant was to refer to straight linear algebra, they might have chosen to cite a straight linear algebra source?

          An amplifier is essentially a dynamic device. Hansen 1984 talks about the time constant, suggesting that he is thinking in dynamic terms. They use the term gain, that is nearly specific for amplifiers.

          The concept of feedback is essentially dynamic, at least to some degree. To identify feedback, one usually finds a point in the circuit where one can actually cut the feedback, and one considers the system with and without feedback. That isn’t a continuous-time kind of dynamic scenario, but it does involve a sequence of observations at two times. Feedback is about causality. The output or the load quantity actually feeds back to the input of the power gain element, and that takes time, because it is causal. For a feedback scenario, I expect to see some definite way of cutting the feedback. It’s not just about timeless linear equations.

          I am not sure what kind of linear equations you are referring to. Considering the context indicated by Hansen 1984 and Schlesinger 1985, I assumed that they had in the background of their minds linear ordinary differential equations, which can also be represented by Fourier transforms that look like plain scalar linear equations. My reading (subject to revision) of their work is that its natural interpretation is about dynamical systems, at first glance linear dynamical systems. A magnifying glass magnifies but doesn’t amplify. In my mind, timeless relations hardly qualify as dynamic or as calling for such terms as ‘amplification’.

          As I see amplification, it necessarily and essentially involves adding power to a signal, in a more or less linear way. A magnifying glass selects a part of the input and magnifies it, and discards the unselected part. That isn’t power gain. It’s just selective magnification. Linear algebra doesn’t necessarily indicate adding power.

          Usually, part of the specification of an amplifier is its frequency response, as part of its dynamic character.

          More of your comment on this thread: “The algebra was appropriate for their system, and the reference to Bode may have been helpful for some, but was in no way required.” Perhaps. But why bring in Bode if he was irrelevant? My reading is that H&S are playing tricks on the word ‘amplification’, with the aim of sneaking in stories about ‘positive feedback’, with the wonderful payoff that people will then feel confident in talking about ‘runaway climate change’; and it worked a treat. I think that if H&S were in good faith, they would have cautioned about this. The stability of an amplifier is determined by its dynamic characteristics, for example analyzed by Nyquist’s procedure. Not providing a fair account of this seems to me like mauvaise foi on the part of H&S.

          This is just my preliminary comment, and perhaps when I get to your wattsupwiththat post I will see why this my comment right here is off-beam or mistaken?

          • Christopher Game says:

            Now, coming to your post;
            “I have set out the proper relation of feedback to climate maths here:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/demystifying-feedback/

            It’s hard to deal with your whole wattsupwiththat post while respecting fair allocation of space here in this comment thread of Roy’s blog. So I will need to be summary.

            Your bottom line: “So what is the outcome here? Mainly that you can talk about feedback, signals, Bode etc if you find it helps. But the underlying maths is just linear algebra, and the key thing is to write down correct perturbation equations, and manipulate them algebraically if you really want to. Or just solve them as they are.”

            I have to say that you seem to be a pure mathematician without the least regard for the physics of the scenario. My view is different: I put the physics first, every time, always. Your post shows no attempt to examine the real physics of the problem. You airily dismiss it as a bit of abstract algebra. We are looking at a physical problem.

            I didn’t see anything in your wattsupwiththat post to make me think you had dynamics in mind. Nor causality, nor real feedback. No hint of Nyquist, nor of the stability-determining rate coefficients summarized in eigenvalues of a matrix of rate coefficients. Your diagram from Wikipedia shows a triangle indicating a device that looks for all the world like a unilateral circuit element, such as is not to be found in the atmosphere or oceans.

            It seems to me that you make some of the same mistakes as do Roy and Lord Monckton, not even trying to come to grips with the physics. Not all of the mistakes that Monckton makes, but some of them. Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you, all three, have been sucked in, chewed up, spat out, and trodden on by the fancy pseudo-mathematical tricks and prestige of H&S, whose presentation, I have to acknowledge, is the finest confidence trick that I have ever seen. It takes in nearly everyone.

          • Nick Stokes says:

            Christopher,
            “If all that H&S meant was to refer to straight linear algebra, they might have chosen to cite a straight linear algebra source?”
            All that they did was straight linear algebra. None of it relies on any Bode results, and they didn’t say it did. What they said was:
            “We use procedures and terminology of feedback studies in electronics (Bode, 1945) to help analyze the contributions of different feedback processes.”
            The procedures are set out on the page – just linear algebra (no source needed). I expect they felt that some readers would find them easier to follow if Bode’s well known analysis was mentioned.

            “Its not just about timeless linear equations.”
            It is. Across a resistive pathway, voltages are equilibrated at about the speed of light, which is usually far faster than any signal changes (in Bode’s time, anyway).

            But anyway, the equations of Hansen’s analysis are explicitly timeless, because they relate to equilibrium temperatures and climate sensitivity.

            “I am not sure what kind of linear equations you are referring to.”
            I set it out in the WUWT article, third example. I used Soden and Held’s more explicit formulation,
            ΔR = λ_TΔT + λ_wΔT + λ_CΔT + λ_aΔT
            where ΔR is the change in forcing, and ΔT is the change in equilibrium temperature. The RHS sums the fluxes due to changes T itself (Planck), water vapor, clouds and albedo. The forcing relates to T
            ΔT=ECS*ΔR
            where ECS is sensitivity, and so the dependence of those fluxes on ΔT makes it a feedback issue. No dynamics are implied. And the “procedure of Bode” is just the elementary
            ECS=ΔT/ΔR=ΔT/(λ_TΔT + λ_wΔT + λ_CΔT + λ_aΔT)=1/(λ_T + λ_w + λ_C + λ_a)
            And again, that is all he seeks from this analysis. Just that the feedback coefficients can be added.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nick. It seems that we are at the end of the thread, so I hope this reply of mine will appear in a readable sequence. Thank you for your careful reply. It clarifies some things for me. I am hopeful that we may clarify more.

            Perhaps it might be wise to check that we are talking about the same papers. I have been slap-dash about that here till now.

            By Hansen 1984 I have meant to refer to J. Hansen, A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, J. Lerner (1984). Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms, ”Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity”, Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Volume 5, pages 130 – 163. I think we share this, for I get from it these words “We use procedures and terminology of feedback studies in electronics (Bode. 1945) to help analyze the contributions of different feedback processes.” just as you have quoted. That seems a good check?

            By Schlesinger 1985 I have meant to refer to M.E. Schlesinger (1985). APPENDIX A. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FROM ENERGY BALANCE AND RADIATIVE-CONVECTIVE MODELS, pp. 280 – 319 of ”Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide”, by M.C. MacCracken, DOE/ER – 0237. I guess perhaps you mean that too?

            Let’s check that before going further.

          • Nick Stokes says:

            Hi Christopher
            The Hansen paper is the same. I think it was his only mathematical venture into feedback talk.

            I have paid less attention to Michael Schlesinger; he was a minor figure whose papers would not receive much attention nowadays if not for the enthusiasm of contrarians. But his treatment of feedback was more sustained, and generally consistent. I had in mind this review paper.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Ok, thank you, I have that Schlesinger & Mitchell 1987 paper. I guess I can say that the relevant part of it is Section 2, pages 761 – 762 .

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nick. Little positive steps coming up. But first, a step in retreat.

            I have to admit that I was immoderate in saying that you had been sucked …. My apology is that I was reacting to talk, by many others, of “amplification by positive feedback through water vapour”. You didn’t say or suggest such a thing. But that’s what I was reacting to. I think it fair to say that such talk does occur, is powerfully and widely influential, and can be traced to the FFF. Such talk is why I jack up about the FFF. For clarity, I repeat that you have distanced yourself from such talk by distancing yourself from Bode. But, in apology, I think it fair to say that such talk is partly due to Hansen’s and in Schlesinger’s citation of Bode’s text on amplifier design, and in graphs such as Schlesinger’s showing a virtual explosion due to ‘positive feedback’. I can’t prove that such citation and graphing is disingenuous or of ill intent, but I can suspect it. I don’t read too many strenuous repudiations of such talk; but then I don’t read too much.

            Now to a couple of little steps where we can agree.

            “the dependence of those fluxes on ΔT makes it a feedback issue.” I am very happy to talk in terms of feedback. I have an idea that Roy thinks I reject the idea of feedback; well, I don’t reject that idea.

            “All that they did was straight linear algebra.” I am very happy to talk in terms of linear algebra within its scope.

            Enough for today.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Another step: “But anyway, the equations of Hansens analysis are explicitly timeless, because they relate to equilibrium temperatures and climate sensitivity.”

            For me, this is a matter of essence. You are right that the equations you consider are timeless. But I think that the FFF is nevertheless gravely defective and faulty. To justify this thought, I need a broader perspective, involving time.

            Hansen 1984 does admit an aspect of time, though you may contest how deep that goes, or how relevant it is: “Feedbacks modify the response time since they come into play only gradually as the warming occurs, the initial flux of heat into the ocean being independent of feedbacks.” Their equations (22) and (23) are about time constants.

            Exactly how do we define or identify ‘feedback’?

            I think we need three elements. (1) The externally imposed factor. (2) The eventually assessed response. (3) An internal factor.

            As to (1). Its definition isn’t always too clear. Ideally, one may try to say that it is the ‘source signal’.

            In our context, one might propose ‘the externally imposed factor is the increase in atmospheric CO2’. The FFF doesn’t see it that way. It sees it as a ‘forcing’, defined, for example, as ‘the no-feedback increase in OLR due to the increase in atmospheric CO2’. It defines the ‘externally imposed factor’ in terms of the concept of feedback, which is defined by (3). It assumes knowledge of the inner workings of the system, its intestines, in order to know how to prevent the feedback.

            So, in the thinking of the FFF, to define (1), it is necessary to define (3). I think that this necessarily brings in a time aspect, implicit, tacit, or explicit.

          • Nick Stokes says:

            Christopher
            “Hansen 1984 does admit an aspect of time”
            Most of the paper, including the feedback algebra, concerns equilibrium changes. The equations you mention are in a section near the end headed “transient response”. This calculates an RC like time constant. The C is heat capacity of sea, and the R is the apparent resistance of the S-B radiation, 1/(4σT). It then claims that this can be multiplied by the feedback coefficients to get their contribution. I’m not sure if that is true.

            But it is important to see this in time context. In 1984 GCM’s were just starting and reasoning if this kind was perhaps the best way to anticipate what the might say. But a few years later, the transient effects were directly calculated by GCM. That is just one reason why the papers of Hansen and Schlesinger represented something of a dead end.

            “Exactly how do we define or identify feedback?”
            I tried to demystify feedback. I think you are pushing the other way. In my interpretation, you have a system that is governed by a linear equation. If you introduce extra variables, with extra relations to match, those are feedback terms. The effect of the feedback is shown by what happens when you algebraically manipulate to get back to a single equation in two unknowns (the gain equation).

          • Christopher Game says:

            Thank you, Nick, for your careful thoughts. Your post has many threads for me to trace, but I will go with only some now.

            A preliminary comment. My main target is the FFF. I think that Monckton takes it way too seriously, and Roy takes it too seriously. You have distanced yourself from it by writing that “the papers of Hansen and Schlesinger represented something of a dead end.” So, here I think you and I are not too far apart.

            You write: “Most of the paper, including feedback algebra, concerns equilibrium changes.”

            We are concerned with a physical problem. Being much concerned with physics, I will pick up first on the word ‘equilibrium’. It is often used, and I think often enough it carries traps of meaning. In this case it has at least two possible meanings. Ostensibly here, it seems to refer to energy balance models. But really, equilibrium climate sensitivity is about stationary states. Stationarity requires not just one arbitrarily nominated energy balance, but every balance. For stationarity, any one nominated energy balance is necessary, but, in general, not sufficient. An example is given by North 1975, who found a clutch of three stationary states, two stable ones about an unstable one between them, a common enough scenario with dynamical systems.

            So I say that time is essential here. Stationarity is essentially a time concept. A reliable account of the climate sensitivity will use time as an independent variable for a dynamical system described (with finitely many state variables) by a system of ordinary differential equations. Stationarity is then defined by all of their time derivatives vanishing at once. A mere single balance is not enough. The FFF does not do a good job there.

            So I accept that, as you say, most of Hansen 1984 is explicitly about timeless formulas. But I don’t accept that as justifying the FFF. I would like to put it up as a weakness of the FFF, that it is being discussed here as timeless. And I don’t accept that feedback can be dismissed by timeless talk. The word ‘feedback’ carries a dynamical significance, distinct from ‘feedforward’, and distinct from ‘balance’, which may be static. Our good friend Lord Monckton has talked here of dynamical systems, so I suppose he may partly agree about this. The word ‘feedback’ came into the language early in the twentieth century. It is about propagation of signal energy, in the context of amplification, with causality prominent. Causality requires time. Likewise, I think that amplification is about adding energy, aka power gain, to the propagation of signals. I think use of the word ‘feedback’ cannot easily dismiss a time aspect.

            Your WUWT post uses dependent increments such as dx1 and dx2. But to make sense of that, I think it implicit that in the background is a common independent increment, obviously enough dt, a time differential.

            And you write of “the gain equation”. I would say that the word ‘gain’ implies a signal, a source and a load quantity, or an input and an output, with power gain, a causal link, and a time for propagation. I think one can’t ignore that. If one wants to ignore it, one should choose some word other than ‘gain’. You go for ‘algebra’; ok.

            As I see it, the process we are talking about has change in CO2 level as source signal, and change in surface temperature as output signal. I don’t see exactly what is meant by ‘power gain’ there. I would be more inclined to call it something like ‘transduction’ than ‘amplification with power gain’. You have distanced yourself from the ‘amplification’ story, I think I can safely say. I wish Roy and Monckton would join with you in that.

          • Nick Stokes says:

            “I will pick up first on the word equilibrium. It is often used, and I think often enough it carries traps of meaning. In this case it has at least two possible meanings.”
            Well, the one Mr Withers taught us about was dynamic equilibrium, where a forward and back reaction happen essentially independently, and the equilibrium point is the ratio of the rates (hence the Law of Mass Action). I think the generalisation of that is time scales. You have one that you want to focus on; slower processes are treated as invariant, and faster ones are treated as already completed, hence equilibrium. You can correct for “almost complete”. Here we do envisage change, on some climate time scale, but faster processes including implementation of feedbacks, are assumed to be instantaneous. That takes out the time aspect (else you have to decide what the alternative time scale actually is).

            Your stationarity only partly has this. You don’t assume the time derivatives are small; they usually are not. Instead, you assume that the equations invoilving them have been solved.

            An idea of the timescale issues comes from aircraft flight. A plane flowing subsonically establishes a pressure field which causes the air to flow smoothly around it. This field is established by stress waves, which can be thought of as primarily sound. And that happens fast enough that the field can be thought of as already established as the air flows past. That is an equilibrium solution.

            But this assumption fails with supersonic flow. The air has no warning of the coming of the plane, and no pressure field has been established. So there is a discontinuity in pressure, and hence a shock.

            Normal air travel is only just subsonic. That means that the pressure field is significantly different from equilibrium, but can be calculated by correcting the equilibrium solution, and it is still enough to allow the air to flow smoothly around the plane.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nick. Thank you for your comments. Shocking !! We are actually engaging in civil conversation !! Amazing !!

            There are two aspects that I would like to consider here.

            One. I want to distinguish between an energy balance and a stationary state. You have seemed, at least on occasion, to interpret the FFF as an energy balance model, without time dependence. I would like to distinguish that from a stationary state of an often dynamically changing system. The conditions for those two are distinct and I want to insist on the distinction. I am very unhappy with using the word ‘equilibrium’ as it is often used, to fudge that distinction.

            Two. We can now talk about a dynamical scenario. I think that the FFF by its intrinsic structure admits just one ‘time constant’ (shall we call it?), while I think that the earth’s energy transport process has to be thought of in terms of at least several different ‘time constants’. The single loop postulated by the FFF doesn’t admit that.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nick. Focusing more closely on your post.

            I like to think of stationarity as stipulating the time derivatives of all dynamical variables to vanish.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nick. Focusing again more closely on your post. It has taken me a little while to focus.

            You write:
            “Your stationarity only partly has this. You dont assume the time derivatives are small; they usually are not. Instead, you assume that the equations invoilving them have been solved.”

            Perhaps we may think of being more precise about which model or models we are talking about. My present interest is in what I like to call the ‘forcing and feedbacks formalism’, which I acronym the FFF.

            I have to admit that my main ideas about the FFF are based on my reading of Schlesinger 1984, because that proposes a relatively detailed mathematical account.

            Schlesinger 1984 considers several models. He distinguishes amongst several kinds of energy balance models (EBMs). He starts with several ‘surface energy balance models’ (SEBMs).

            A.2.2.1 Callendar. This does not consider feedback and perhaps we may bypass it.

            A.2.2.2 Moller. Schlesinger 1984 says nothing about time in his discussion of Moller’s three SEBMs. But Schlesinger does use the language of feedback in his discussion.

            A.2.2.3 Newell and Dopplick. As for A.2.2.2.

            A.2.2.4 Summary. As for A.2.2.2.

            Then to Schlesinger’s Planetary Energy Balance Models (PEBMs).

            A.2.3. Schlesinger says nothing explicit about time, but he does write “Thus, PEBMs also have the same problem as SEBMs, namely, the need to treat the behavior of the climate system away from the energy balance level.”

            This seems to me to suggest that you are right to distance yourself from EBMs?

            On page 131, Hansen et al. 1984 write: “Over a sufficient length of time, discussed below, thermal radiation from the earth must balance absorbed solar radiation.”

            On page 132, they write: “The 65m maximum depth is sufficient to make the mixed layer thermal response time much greater than one year and provide a realistic representation of seasonal temperature variations, so the mixed layer depth limitation should not significantly affect the modeled equilibrium climate.”

            On page 134, they write: “Both experiments were run for 35 years. … The time dependence of these experiments is discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section concerned with the transient response of the climate system. ”

            On page 144, they write: “… confirmation requires improved ability to accurately model the physical processes as well as empirical tests of the climate model on a variety of time scales.”

            On page 154, they write: “Although water vapor, cloud and sea ice feedbacks respond rapidly to climate change, the speed of the climate response to a changed forcing depends on the rate at which heat is supplied to the ocean and on transport processes in the ocean.”

            I won’t try to summarize their further more detailed thoughts on timing. One could say that, even by examining the above parts of Hansen et al. 1984, I have gone off topic, which is mainly aspects of the FFF.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        Mr Stokes should realize that, whether or not Hansen et al. were using the electronic analogy with which he has shown himself to be obsessed, control theory is of universal application to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, from electronic feedback amplifiers to the climate.

        It is evident from Hansen’s 1984 paper, and from numerous other papers throughout the literature on climate sensitivity, that it is widely imagined in climatology that there is no feedback response to emission temperature, and, therefore, that by implication the large feedback response to emission temperature is part of the actually minuscule feedback response to reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity.

        The sole reason why one of our co-authors first built a circuit to emulate the climate was so that he could test the proposition that feedback necessarily responds not only to the perturbation signal but also to the base signal. It is precisely because of the needlessly confusing formulism presented by Bode that even experienced control engineers do not always realize that this is the case.

        In our paper, we present a simplified formulism, with the accompanying system of equation, to make the situation clear. When our work was recently reviewed by a group of control engineers in Australia, their convenor wrote to me and said he had never seen a feedback amplifier so simply or so clearly described.

        Those of our co-authors who are control engineers or academic specialists in the field are more than competent to give dispassionate advice untainted by any prejudice.

        • Christopher Game says:

          Dear Lord Monckton, you write “control theory is of universal application to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems”.

          By using the term ‘unilateral circuit element’, I meant to convey something that I think important. You dismissed it thus:”Mr Games term unilateral circuit element is void for uncertainty of meaning.” If I remember one of the mediaeval rules of debate, you might have asked what it meant to me. Above I have put that into words: “A unilateral circuit element is the contrary of a reciprocal circuit element. A unilateral circuit element is devoid of internal feedback. A reciprocal circuit element is rich in internal feedback.” I added “In particular, again, radiative transfer obeys the Helmholtz reciprocity principle.” Above, I gave the reason that I referred to these concepts: “control systems theory usually assumes unilateral circuit elements, while the atmosphere-ocean system is devoid of those, because it is entirely dissipative, with much internal reciprocity.” I was trying to indicate a distinction between the theory of control systems and the theory of dissipative systems.

          You say that control theory covers “all feedback-moderated dynamical systems.” Now that I have clarified what I see as a distinction between control systems theory and dissipative systems theory, may I ask how that distinction appears in control theory as you define it?

        • Christopher Game says:

          Dear Lord Monckton, you write “feedback necessarily responds not only to the perturbation signal but also to the base signal.”

          Yes, indeed, feedback will come from the base signal, and from the perturbation signal. I think the point of Roy’s article is that, in a system that may have substantial non-linearities, things may be expected to look different, depending on the placement of the origin of coordinates for the dynamical variables. The usual procedure is to move the origin of coordinates to the operating point; that is usually assumed in the present context. My reading of your thesis on this topic is that you prefer, instead, to leave the origin of coordinates far from the operating point? Do I read you aright? What would you expect to follow from moving the origin of coordinates to the operating point?

        • Christopher Game says:

          Dear Lord Monckton, you write of “the needlessly confusing formulism presented by Bode”. I agree that Bode’s presentation is not too lucid.

          There is a big problem in Bode’s presentation: he thinks about only a voltage-to-voltage amplifier.

          Bode was writing in 1945 and he pretty much stuck to the original conception of feedback as discovered by H.S. Black in 1927. Black’s idea assumed a unilateral circuit element as the medium of power gain. That way, Bode was able to present a nice simple picture, scalar in, scalar out, with the gain a dimensionless number. But it slights the other circuit elements, which, in general, may much affect the performance of the amplifier, in particular its input and output impedances, and how the source and load impedances play their parts. As perhaps you found out when “one of our co-authors first built a circuit to emulate the climate”, for practical amplifier design (at least if one wants high accuracy), one needs a 2 x 2 matrix formulation showing both voltage and current, in and out. The simple model described by Black and Bode has simply a scalar gain, as does that of Hansen and Schlesinger, though theirs is not dimensionless.

          I refer to Bode’s account only because Hansen and Schlesinger do. The above is one of the reasons I don’t like their account.

        • Nate says:

          “It is evident from Hansens 1984 paper, and from numerous other papers throughout the literature on climate sensitivity, that it is widely imagined in climatology that there is no feedback response to emission temperature, and, therefore, that by implication the large feedback response to emission temperature is part of the actually minuscule feedback response to reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity.”

          Nope this is a FALSE PREMISE. There is simply nothing stated along these lines in Hansen, 1984. The paper only calculated sensitivity from modeling and observation of the T rise due to CO2 ADDED to the preindustrial level, or due to a small increase in solar constant.

          Whatever ‘feedback response to emission temperature’ there is, is already accounted for in the preindustrial temperature, and doesnt need to be further considered for any additional forcings.

          So the entire enterprise Monckton is presenting is built on a strawman. That “there is no feedback response to emission temperature” included in analysis.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nate. Yes, I am inclined to agree. I will try here to express in other words how Monckton is arguing. I think it worth an effort to do this because he seems to me to have an idiosyncratic terminology, but perhaps it isn’t his invention; I haven’t read enough to be confident of that? Roy doesn’t seem to use Monckton’s terminology, but he doesn’t seem to discuss it. It seems to me that perhaps Roy may not quite have deciphered it? If I may be so bold, I incline to see both of them as terrible mathematicians, because they do not make themselves clear in ways that a mathematician would do.

            Monckton’s diagram in green in his WUWT post is his “corrected” version of what he regards as the “incorrect” diagram in red, placed to its left on the page. These diagrams are distinctly different from the thoroughly conventional diagram in Schlesinger 1985 and Schlesinger & Mitchell 1987, but let’s try to follow along as best we can.

            The little circles at the top right hand corner of Monckton’s circuits seem to denote a sort of unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer that converts a radiance input to a temperature output.

            He then imagines a circuit element, indicated by a square box, that converts the temperature output to a “feedback” radiance, another unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer I suppose one might say.

            (By the way, I think an atmospheric no-internal-feedback transducer is an impossible figment of the imagination of a non-physicist. But for the moment, let us pass this without stopping now, and reconsider it later.)

            I think Monckton’s transducers have mutually reciprocal dimensionalities, differing in magnitude. Let us say that the little circle’s conversion factors have dimensions K/(Wm^(-2)). The red and the green diagrams have different numerical values, say cred and cgreen. Then the boxes’ conversion factors have dimensions Wm^(-2)/K, with numerical values, say Cred and Cgreen.

            Then as I understand him, Monckton says that
            cred x Cred = lgred > 1 and
            cgreen x Cgreen = lggreen > 1. As I read things, these lg quantities would be ‘loop gains’. In my simple mind, for a loop gain greater than 1, the circuit needs a positive power input, such as might be supplied by a battery for an electronic amplifier, but this is not shown in Monckton’s diagrams. Perhaps one should imagine it?
            Both lgred and lggreen signify ‘positive feedback’, because each is greater than 1.
            ‘Negative feedback’ would be signified by lg lggreen, and still more pointedly that
            lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1,
            and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.

            I will pause at this point, to let you comment on the above. I am quite ready for you to say that I have misunderstood, or for any other comment or correction that you might make? I am just trying to get our terms straight at this stage. If we can reach agreement up to this stage, then perhaps we can make further progress?

          • Christopher Game says:

            PS. I ought to have included that the little circles at the top left hand corner of Monckton’s circuit diagrams seem to denote unilateral additive nodes. The physical possibility of such things I will not comment on here.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Oh, dear, I have somehow scrambled things in the above. Sorry.

            Where the above says

            Both lgred and lggreen signify positive feedback, because each is greater than 1.
            Negative feedback would be signified by lg lggreen, and still more pointedly that
            lgred 1 >> lggreen 1,
            and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.

            I intended as follows

            Both lgred and lggreen signify positive feedback, because each is greater than 1.

            And more pointedly, I read Monckton as saying that
            lgred 1 >> lggreen 1,
            and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.

            Negative feedback would be signified by lg < 1. This would not require a 'battery'. It would be like a resistor with Joule heating, the heat being radiated to outer space, again not explicitly shown in the diagrams.

            I hope this emendation will be clear.

          • Nate says:

            Christopher, There is nothing wrong with working with perturbations away from energy balance, IMO. I dont see what illness Moncktons model is curing, and until that is explained, in simple logic, I see no need to get into the details.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nate. You and I think we don’t need to get into details, but in order to persuade others, I suppose we do need to do so.

            The great deception in the FFF is to suggest that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is equivalent to adding energy, or injecting energy into, the system. That deception is sneaked in by use of the term “forcing”.

            Adding CO2 to the system isn’t adding energy or injecting energy, into the system. Adding CO2 is injecting a catalyst that alters the transducer conversion coefficients c and C. The FFF hides that alteration, which is the only real effect. In FFF terms, there is zero signal perturbation. It is only the conversion coefficients that are changed. The catalyst speeds up the interconversion between radiative and material energy. Usually, a catalyst doesn’t alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium.

            The choice to try to capture the effects of added CO2 by looking only at its immediate direct effects on OLR (an energy flow) is a convenient trick to guarantee from the outset that the result will be warming. Added CO2 has many immediate direct effects that are not consequences of changes in OLR, and so are not recognised in the FFF. It’s not just for fun that it’s called the ‘forcing and feedback’ formalism. It’s for distracting the audience from the sleight of hand. And it works a treat at that.

            There are two bits of news here. Monckton and the warmistas think that the loop gain cC > 1. They disagree on the magnitude of cC. Roy at least recognises that cC < 1 when he says that "a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback." And even Roy still hasn't noticed the trick that takes the added CO2 perturbation to be something added in the signal energy, when in physical reality the added CO2 perturbation is a change in the rate coefficients c and C. When he notices that, he will see that the whole FFF collapses.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Typos above. Sorry. The copy-and-paste didn’t work. Obviously, I meant

            lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi again Nate. Because I have messed up above, for the convenience of the reader I will here post a corrected version, this time I hope without typos:

            Moncktons diagram in green in his WUWT post is his corrected version of what he regards as the incorrect diagram in red, placed to its left on the page. These diagrams are distinctly different from the thoroughly conventional diagram in Schlesinger 1985 and Schlesinger & Mitchell 1987, but lets try to follow along as best we can.

            The little circles at the top right hand corner of Moncktons circuits seem to denote a sort of unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer that converts a radiance input to a temperature output.

            He then imagines a circuit element, indicated by a square box, that converts the temperature output to a feedback radiance, another unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer I suppose one might say.

            (By the way, I think an atmospheric no-internal-feedback transducer is an impossible figment of the imagination of a non-physicist. But for the moment, let us pass this without stopping now, and reconsider it later.)

            I think Moncktons transducers have mutually reciprocal dimensionalities, differing in magnitude. Let us say that the little circles conversion factors have dimensions K/(Wm^(-2)). The red and the green diagrams have different numerical values, say cred and cgreen. Then the boxes conversion factors have dimensions Wm^(-2)/K, with numerical values, say Cred and Cgreen.

            Then as I understand him, Monckton says that
            cred x Cred = lgred > 1 and
            cgreen x Cgreen = lggreen > 1. As I read things, these lg quantities would be loop gains. In my simple mind, for a loop gain greater than 1, the circuit needs a positive power input, such as might be supplied by a battery for an electronic amplifier, but this is not shown in Moncktons diagrams. Perhaps one should imagine it?

            Both lgred and lggreen signify positive feedback, because each is greater than 1.

            And more pointedly, I read Monckton as saying that
            lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1,
            and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.

            Negative feedback would be signified by lg 1. They disagree on the magnitude of cC. Roy at least recognises that cC < 1 when he says that "a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback." And even Roy still hasn't noticed the trick that takes the added CO2 perturbation to be something added in the signal energy, when in physical reality the added CO2 perturbation is a change in rate coefficients such as c and C. When he notices that, he will see that the whole FFF collapses.

            Let's hope I haven't made other mistakes in this version.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Sad to say, there are still big mistakes. Is it something to do with the copy-and-paste, or am I just affected by lack of sleep? Perhaps I will try to fix later.

          • Nate says:

            “The great deception in the FFF is to suggest that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is equivalent to adding energy, or injecting energy into, the system. That deception is sneaked in by use of the term ‘forcing’.”

            No one is claiming it is simply adding energy to the system. It is adding insulation to the atmosphere, which is blocking outflow of IR, and causing a NET energy flux imbalance. It is quite similar to having the oven on initially with the door open, then closing it. It will warm to a higher equilibrium T. The physics behind this is absolutely solid.

            ” Adding CO2 is injecting a catalyst that alters the transducer conversion coefficients c and C. The FFF hides that alteration, which is the only real effect. In FFF terms, there is zero signal perturbation.”

            No, I disagree. As noted above, the physics is solid, there is actually a perturbation in W/m^2, resulting from adding insulation.

            “It is only the conversion coefficients that are changed. The catalyst speeds up the interconversion between radiative and material energy. Usually, a catalyst doesnt alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium.”

            This makes no sense to me.

            There are also solid reasons to expect feedback to any warming that the added insulation has caused. The ice-albedo effect is absolutely real, and there are measurements of enhanced solar abs*orp*tion in the arctic to back this up.

            There are also solid physics reasons to expect water vapor to increase with warming and cause, additional insulation (forcing) under clear skies, that produces additional warming.

            Cloud effects are less certain.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nate. It seems to me that we may actually be having a civil conversation. Not too common on this blog!!

            I will try to address your comments, which make sense to me, though I will disagree with a part of them. It’s a miracle that we seem to be able to make sense to each other!!

            In feedback questions, it is vital to get straight which are the model’s dependent and independent variables, and which are model parameters. Terminologies can differ, which can lead to miscommunication. We can navigate around such difficulties if we are patient.

            It is of critical importance to get this straight in our minds: For a simple model, the gain of an amplifier is a ratio. One term of the ratio is the externally imposed source signal, which is regarded as determined independently of the intestinal workings and power supply of the amplifier. The other term of the ratio is some load quantity, such as say the load current, or the load voltage, or the power absorbed by the load; this is dependent directly on the intestinal workings of the amplifier, and only indirectly on the externally imposed source signal, which is independent.

            I agree that “there is actually a perturbation in W/m^2, resulting from adding insulation.”.

            I agree that “There are also solid reasons to expect feedback to any warming that the added insulation has caused.”

            I agree that “There are also solid physics reasons to expect water vapor to increase with warming and cause, additional insulation (forcing) under clear skies, that produces additional warming,” though I am not happy with the term ‘forcing’ that you wisely write in parentheses.

            But I say that these two effects are changes in internal state variables of the model, which are dependent, not in the independent externally imposed source signal.

            I can understand you finding no sense in “It is only the conversion coefficients that are changed. The catalyst speeds up the interconversion between radiative and material energy. Usually, a catalyst doesn’t alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium.”

            Usually, in thermodynamics, the word ‘catalyst’ refers to a chemical reaction. I am using the word in a slightly different and perhaps new way. A chemical reaction is a process of interchange of chemical constituents. I am thinking of an interchange of forms of energy, and extending the meaning of the word ‘catalyst’ for it. Some of the energy in the atmosphere and oceans is as radiation, and some of it is as the motions and excitations of material particles, such as molecules. The radiation energy can be converted into material particle energy, and vice versa. Carbon dioxide is one of the catalysts of such conversion. Water vapour is another. Methane is another. Jointly, such catalysts are called ‘greenhouse gases’; no surprise there.

            I will assume that you are happy with “Usually, a catalyst doesn’t alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium” ? If not, let’s discuss it further.

            The point at issue here for me is ‘what is the externally imposed perturbation?’

            I argue that the externally imposed perturbation, as such, is addition of CO2 by emissions from such things as coal-fired power stations. The consequent changes in such things as “outflow of IR, and causing a NET energy flux imbalance” are changes in the dependent internal system state variables; they are not externally imposed variables as such. The effect of adding CO2 as such is the actual target of our interest, not “a NET energy flux imbalance” as such. We don’t actually directly impose a change in IR outflow. In your oven example, the externally imposed perturbation as such is the opening of the oven door, not the resulting air flow.

            The FFF in effect in your analogy supposes that the perturbation is like turning on a pair of fans that drive a flow through the oven. Those fans take a continuous supply of energy to operate. Opening the oven door is not like that. You just open the door, and leave it open, and don’t need to supply energy to make the air move; so the air movement is driven directly by the dependent internal workings of the oven, and only indirectly by the opening of the door, which is the independent externally imposed factor, and is like a catalyst, as distinct from an energy flux as such.

            Opening the oven door in effect just increases the already present natural leakage rate from the oven, it doesn’t in itself act as driver of a flow. The distinction is crucial to the logic of the story.

          • Jim Gorman says:

            Nate
            CG

            1) The sun can not be both the source of power and an input signal.

            2) Too often in these scenarios physical quantities get all jumbled together. If you start with W/m^2 from the sun, then you must carry this through all that occurs. The output is in power and the feedback is in power, and not temperature. You can’t “double” the concentration of CO2, you must use the increase in W/m^2 that a doubling of CO2 causes.

            3) CM argues that a world w/o GHG’s establishes the output and gain of the system. In other words, in = out, and a gain of 1. Feedback can not alter the gain of the system directly without additional energy coming from somewhere, i.e., the atmosphere is not on fire.

            4) If in = out, and no “extra” energy is available, then the feedback power can only be subtracted from the output. When feedback is added back in, you get the same output as no feedback.

            5) What conclusions? A system with feedback using Bode is impossible. There is no extra power in the system to form an amplifier, so it is an inappropriate analogy. In other words, it is a passive system. I visualize it as using nothing but power splitters and power combiners.

            6) Lastly, try and visualize N2/O2 as a thermal capacitor being charged by conduction with the surface and with CO2. The charge value is limited by temperature of the surface. The capacitor begins to discharge as the sun passes zenith. That’s why afternoon temps can continue to warm and stay warm. It also keeps Tmin at a higher value.

            I haven’t worked all this out but my starting point is thermodynamics with conduction and radiation. Both the land and ocean are thermal storage units, i.e., capacitors. The daytime temps look like a sin wave and nighttime temps look like an exponential decay, i.e., a capacitor.

            Best of all energy is conserved in the process but is time shifted which a feedback amplifier does not do!

          • Nate says:

            Christopher,

            I agree with some of this.

            The concept of forcing is that all the mechanisms produce a radiative imbalance in W/m^2 at the TOA.

            An increase in the solar constant (modeled also by Hansen 84) does that. A CO2 rise does that. An albedo change does that. A volcanic aerosol does that. All different mechanisms, but in the end they all produce a forcing in W/m^2. And to first order, the same resulting warming. Obviously a spatially nonuniform forcing will produce a different result than a uniform one.

            I agree that an insulation increase is not a direct energy input.

            You could make an analogy to a transducer. However some of these forcings are direct energy input while others are indirect, and have various mechanisms, but in principle produce the same result.

            “”I will assume that you are happy with ‘Usually, a catalyst doesnt alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium ? If not, lets discuss it further.’

            Yes, thats what a catalyst does. Not sure that is appropriate here. Since I don’t see an increase in insulation speeding up any return to equilibrium. It produces a disequilibrium. And the time to return to equilibrium is determined by other Earth properties (eg ocean heat capacity).

          • Nate says:

            Jim,

            “3) CM argues that a world w/o GHGs establishes the output and gain of the system. In other words, in = out, and a gain of 1. Feedback can not alter the gain of the system directly without additional energy coming from somewhere, i.e., the atmosphere is not on fire.”

            Well, the problem I have with that is that the climate sensitivity or feedbacks are not likely to be the same in that ‘climate state’, (an iceball Earth), as they are when Earth surface is mostly liquid water and the atmosphere full of water vapor.

            That is why Hansen 84 starts with Earth in 1880 with preindustrial GHG concentrations, which is quite close to the current ‘climate state’ and thus it CAN be used as base state to find the current climate by adding small perturbations to it.

            It is useful to describe all possible perturbations, whatever the mechanism, with the same units, and that turns out to be in W/m^2, and is called a forcing. I don’t really see a problem with that.

            Forcings in W/m^2 will add/subtract energy to/from the system and result in warming/cooling, due to the First Law of Thermodynamics. The warming results in feedbacks (additional forcing)

          • Christopher Game says:

            I have received an error message. This is a try at a short post.

          • Jim Gorman says:

            Nate,

            But you missed my point. Ignore conduction, and only look at radiation. W/O GHG’s, in = out, it can’t be anything else. The sun provides all the energy. It is the signal that generates an output.

            In this scenario there is also no “power supply” that can be used to obtain additional energy. Any feedback must be directly subtracted from the output. When summed with the input, you simply get the original power output. It’s one reason this analogy is inappropriate. Any thing else violates conservation of energy.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Jim Gorman. Trying to reply to your valuable post of October 12, 2022 at 11:31 AM. I am getting error messages. Perhaps I have reached a size limit?

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, JG. It seems I can post only very short replies. As to your point 1), I agree, but some others may not.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, JG. As to your 2), that is fair and reasonable but depends on the way one defines one’s model. For example, Monckton seems not to accept it, as I read him.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, JG. As to 3): As for CM’s story, no comment. With a reservation, I agree that “Feedback can not alter the gain of the system directly without additional energy coming from somewhere, i.e., the atmosphere is not on fire.” My reservation is that feedback can reduce the gain of a system by dissipating power as heat or somesuch. But, yes, the atmosphere is not on fire !!!

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, JG. As to 4): I agree.
            As to 5): I agree that “There is no extra power in the system to form an amplifier, so it is an inappropriate analogy. In other words, it is a passive system.” But supporters of the FFF will say ‘Oh, we don’t actually use Bode’s work, we just cite it for the benefit of those whom we deem unlikely to understand the notion of feedback’ or some other such evasion.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, JG. More on 5): As for “I visualize it as using nothing but power splitters and power combiners.” That is fair and reasonable, but some will admit transducers as well, according to their tastes.

            The rest of your post is too complicated for me to try to reply to in detail here. But in short, the FFF is a cunning word game or snow job to distort the real situation.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nate. Short post. “The concept of forcing is that all the mechanisms produce a radiative imbalance in W/m^2 at the TOA.”

            Yes, that’s the concept of forcing. The problem is that its use makes the “input” due to CO2 into an internal state variable when the actual CO2 source factor is an externally imposed change. This destroys the logic. It has the effect of making the CO2 signal into an energy flow, which is nonsense.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. I can post only short posts.

            “while others are indirect, and have various mechanisms, but in principle produce the same result.”

            The same numerical result, but with a radically different logical status. “in principle produce the same result” is illogical. It airbrushes out the distinction between an externally imposed factor and an internal state variable. A fatal error of logic.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate.

            “Since I dont see an increase in insulation speeding up any return to equilibrium.”

            CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Responding to your reply to JG.

            “It is useful to describe all possible perturbations, whatever the mechanism, with the same units, and that turns out to be in W/m^2, and is called a forcing. I dont really see a problem with that.”

            It is useful to use the same units for some purposes. But it blots out the logical distinction between added CO2 as an independent externally imposed factor and the consequent change in the energy flow which is an internal state variable.

          • Jim Gorman says:

            Nate

            I need to say that “forcings” can not ADD energy to the system over an interval of time. That would violate the conservation of energy. CO2 may MOVE energy into a storage media, N2/O2, but it can’t do that forever or the earth would go up in smoke. At some point in time that stored energy must be released, and if you download some 2 minute temp data for late afternoon and night you’ll see an exponential decay as the energy dissipates via CO2 and other GHG’s.

            The feedbacks shown here do not include any heat storage, just immediate operation. Again, that is not a physical description of what goes on.

          • Jim Gorman says:

            Christopher

            Thanks for your comments. I have been trying to piece together a better conceptual system for quite some time. It pretty soon dawned on me that the BASIC concept of a two body system, one hot and one cold was the simplest one thermodynamically. From that, came a source (the surface) and an insulator (the atmosphere). It makes more sense to define gradients for the different pieces which is what we did in college.

            I’m just an old retired EE that doesn’t have the time to work on everything so I try to simplify as much as possible. To me feedback just doesn’t fit well into the system. The other pet peeve is the use of so much averaging. The sun doesn’t shine based on an average. It varies both in time and latitude using trig functions. Trying to average radiation simply ignores the non-linear T^4 relationship.

          • Nate says:

            Christopher,

            “CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.”

            I don’t see how you conclude that. As I explained why above, the time of converting the forcing to atmosphere T rise is determined by heat capacities.

            ” It airbrushes out the distinction between an externally imposed factor and an internal state variable. A fatal error of logic.”

            No airbrushing just formulating the problem in a tractable and useful way.

            The inputs to the electronics box here must have common units. Those units are W/m^2, ie Forcings. We can then apply feedback factors on the output, Temperature (K), and add these to the input in the same units W/m^2.

            Insulation R-value or or CO2 ppm are not useful as inputs.

            Is the problem that the forcing arising from CO2 rise comes from modifying the TOA IR output?

            It certainly does, but it is possible to calculate, and verify by measurement, the resulting forcing in W/m^2 for a given CO2 rise in ppm.

            So I just don’t see a problem here.

          • Nate says:

            Jim,

            “I need to say that ‘forcings’ can not ADD energy to the system over an interval of time. That would violate the conservation of energy.”

            The forcing units are Watts/m^2. Power per unit area. So certainly that means energy is being added to the system at that rate. Why not?

            Adding more GHG, is like adding extra insulation to your attic in the winter.

            with the furnace on, less heat escapes thru the attic, and the house will end up a bit warmer (with the same furnace input).

          • Nate says:

            “W/O GHGs, in = out, it cant be anything else. The sun provides all the energy. It is the signal that generates an output.”

            I think you missed my point, Jim.

            There is no reason to start from a state with NO GHG, to understand what will happen when we add to the existing GHG.

            It is easier to start with the Earth in a state close to ours, perturb it a small amount, and see what happens.

            It is a given that the sun provides all the energy. Still, the Earth we started with has a balance of solar input and output. Zero net, so it can be ignored, and we can work with perturbations away from balance.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 13, 2022 at 3:23 PM.

            “No airbrushing just formulating the problem in a tractable and useful way.”

            To define a ‘feedback’, we need three elements. (1) The externally imposed factor. (2) The eventually assessed response. (3) An internal factor to mediate the feedback.

            (1) by definition must be externally imposed, independent of the internal state, and can also be called a ‘signal source’. The OLR change is internally generated. It is an internal variable; it is not a signal source; it is an internal response. It is this that is airbrushed out by treating the ‘forcing’ as if it were a source signal.

            Amplifier gain is load quantity / source quantity, aka (2)/(1) The load is the thermometer. The load quantity is the surface temperature. The unit of gain is K/[CO2], temperature increment per CO2 increment. The so-called “amplifier” is really a transducer.

          • Nate says:

            I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your objections to the forcing/feedback concept are rather formal, philosophical, rather than having any practical significance.

            In science, ideas that arent useful tend to die a natural death. They don’t get used, or they get replaced when others find a better way.

            The forcing/feedback concept apparently has turned out to be useful and continues to be used. AFAIK no one has found a better alternative.

          • Nate says:

            “To define a feedback, we need three elements. (1) The externally imposed factor. (2) The eventually assessed response. (3) An internal factor to mediate the feedback.”

            Ok fine. Currently what is done is step (1) and (2) are combined to find the input in W/m^2. Same for all other forcings, like Methane, Ozone, So2 in the stratosphere, solar cycle. All are put on an equal footing and described in terms of their radiative forcing.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Continuing ad October 13, 2022 at 3:43 PM.

            The FFF takes the change in OLR as the ‘forcing’. That doesn’t include all the effects of added CO2, which is the true signal source. Hansen et al. 1984 write: “Feedbacks modify the response time since they come into play only gradually as the warming occurs, the initial flux of heat into the ocean being independent of feedbacks.” The “initial flux into the ocean” is a distinct and other response to the source signal; it is utterly ignored by the FFF when it treats the OLR ‘forcing’ as ‘the input’. These distinctions are essential to the logic.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad 5:01PM.

            “Currently what is done is step (1) and (2) are combined to find the input in W/m^2.”

            Exactly. That fails to make the distinction between source signal and internally generated response. A fatal logical error.

            Well, not quite exactly. (2) in my statement is the output temperature, the eventually assessed response, that is sampled by the feedback network.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad 4:51 PM.

            For high performance electronic device design, these distinctions are practical necessities, not mere philosophical quibbles. That there isn’t a better way isn’t a reason to airbrush out the problem. If we don’t recognise the problem, we won’t think about solving it.

            We are doing science here. “Nature cannot be fooled.”

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, JG. ad 2:16 PM.

            “To me feedback just doesnt fit well into the system.”

            The AOGCMs don’t explicitly use the concept of feedback.

            But the notion of feedback has its uses in simplified or ‘back-of-an-envelope’ models, and for pedagogy.

            The are various ways of describing feedback. Some people around here seem to think that H.S. Black’s 1927 way, more or less as Bode renders it, is the one and only way. There are other much more powerful and flexible ways, for example in the general theory of dynamical systems. My beef here is that the FFF is pretty much the Bode way, and is inadequate, and gravely misleading. Bode’s way was ok in 1945 when he was writing, but amplifier design has progressed since then. And, more to the point here, the scope of feedback thinking has broadened.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 13, 2022 at 3:43 PM.

            “CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.”

            The total energy of the atmosphere may be analyzed into two components, (1) the radiative energy, and (2) the material energy.

            A little clarification is in order for (2). The main usual account of the internal energy of a body of matter is in terms of its particles that have rest energy, such as atoms (e.g. argon) and molecules (e.g. nitrogen, oxygen, water). In a gas, such particles have motion, with velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy. They also have gravitational potential energy, which is a component of their total energy, but, strictly speaking in thermodynamically defined terms, not of their internal energy. In a liquid (e.g. rain drops) and in a solid (e.g. snowflakes), the molecules also have intermolecular forces which are responsible for intermolecular potential energy, contributing to the internal energy.

            As to (1), infrared radiation enters the atmosphere from the condensed matter of the earths surface. Quickly, most of that radiation is absorbed by excitation of water and CO2 molecules. Quickly, by inelastic collisions, those molecules pass most of that excitation energy to nitrogen and oxygen molecules’ kinetic energy. That is conversion from radiative to material energy.

            Occasionally, two gas molecules will collide inelastically so as to excite one of them; that excited molecule will quickly shed its excitation energy as radiation. That is conversion from material energy to radiative energy within the atmosphere. Some of that radiative energy travels only within the atmosphere, and some of it leaves the atmosphere.

            Greenhouse gases catalyse interconversion between atmospheric infrared radiation and molecular kinetic energy. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

          • Nate says:

            Christopher,

            “That there isnt a better way isnt a reason to airbrush out the problem. If we dont recognise the problem, we wont think about solving it.”

            You havent made a convincing case that there is any ‘airbrushing’ going on here, or that there is a real problem here.

            All is done out in the open. The Forcing efficacy for CO2, Methane, O3, H20, has to be calculated with optics and atmospheric physics. See Modtran, you can try this yourself.

            http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot

            The point is that all the various GHG and aerosols have different efficacy at producing a forcing. So 1 ppm of CO2, Methane, H2O all have different GHE strengths.

            We need to calculate their effect in common units, and that is W/m^2. This is a required step in the process.

            Once that step is done one can then treat these forcings as inputs, on an equal footing.

            Maybe you could respond to my post above about the continued usefulness of the forcing/feedback approach in climate science?

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Continuing.

            Christopher: CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.

            Nate, October 12, 2022 at 4:58 PM: “Yes, that’s what a catalyst does. Not sure that is appropriate here. Since I dont see an increase in insulation speeding up any return to equilibrium. It produces a disequilibrium.”

            I agree that CO2 does not tend to produce a normal full equilibrium. It tends to produce only a special kind of equilibrium, as follows.

            The kind of equilibrium towards which CO2 catalyses is called ‘local thermodynamic equilibrium’ (LTE). Local thermodynamic equilibrium is quite distinct from global thermodynamic equilibrium. LTE does not have to be spatially uniform, and it can occur when there is substantial local air movement such as in a wind. Ordinary thermodynamics presupposes global thermodynamic equilibrium within each system; it is spatially uniform within the system, and there is no local wind within the system; the system is allowed to move as a whole body.

            Local thermodynamic equilibrium means that, in a small local parcel of atmosphere, there is a definite temperature, and that the molecules obey the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, and the source function for the radiation is the Planck distribution. It means that all properly calibrated thermometers read the same temperature.

            LTE prevails in most of the atmosphere. This is because intermolecular collisions are relatively frequent, and they maintain the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. It prevails practically up to 70 km altitude, except in the path of a bolt of lightning.

            Greenhouse gases serve to deal with incident and emitted radiation from a parcel of air. The greenhouse gas molecules bring the radiative energy and other gas molecules towards Maxwell-Boltzmann-Planck equilibrium statistics.

            Above 100 km altitude, LTE is substantially departed from. There are two main factors that cause this. One, the air is so rarefied that intermolecular collisions are relatively rare. The molecules just fly past each other without colliding. The molecules do not obey the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. Sound does not propagate in the ordinary way. The radiative source function is not the Planck distribution. The gases are then said to be in the Knudsen gas regime. In this situation, the measured temperature depends on exactly what kind of thermometer one is using; properly calibrated thermometers of different kinds return respectively different temperature readings from one and the same place. The next factor is that sunlight causes chemical reactions such as ozone formation, and this is fast enough to keep the gases substantially out of chemical equilibrium, again because intermolecular collisions are rare.

          • Nate says:

            Christopher,

            Getting into lots of details here, but not sure where this is leading? What is the takeaway?

            I think you need to return from looking at the trees back to looking at the forest.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 14, 2022 at 4:58 am.

            “You haven’t made a convincing case that there is any airbrushing going on here, or that there is a real problem here.”

            Thank you for your post. It’s good that we can talk this over.

            Perhaps this may help. The source signal is the cause of all changes in our scenario.

            The forcing that is considered by the FFF is a change in OLR, directly and immediately caused by the added CO2.

            But, as Hansen et al. 1984 remark, added CO2 also immediately and directly causes other changes entirely independent of the changes in OLR; in particular, it immediately and directly causes substantially increased back radiation, which is not taken into account by the FFF calculation of feedback because it is not caused by the FFF forcing, which is entirely specified by the change in OLR.

            So the distinction, between (a) the independently imposed source signal, and (b) the FFF forcing, is substantial and physical. The true gain has the whole source signal as denominator. Neglecting the distinction between the source signal and the forcing entails that the FFF will, in general, return a wrong answer, because it uses the wrong denominator, because it takes into account only one of the several immediate and direct effects of the source signal, the added CO2.

            You mention different greenhouse gas additions. Each gas has its own distinct ‘ECS’. The usual ECS is that to added CO2.

            There is a remedy for this, but I will not try to fit it into this post. I am in favour of the remedy.

          • Nate says:

            “Exactly. That fails to make the distinction between source signal and internally generated response. A fatal logical error.”

            You keep asserting that this is ‘a fatal logical error’.

            Im sorry but I just havent seen any convincing evidence from you either that there is a logical error here, or that it is fatal.

            And if it were a fatal error, then surely by now it would have failed to thrive as such a useful concept in climate science, and somebody would have found a better alternative.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Responding to October 13, 2022 at 4:51 PM.

            “The forcing/feedback concept apparently has turned out to be useful and continues to be used.”

            Well, I am challenging its correctness and its accuracy. I have tried to get Roy and Monckton to understand this, but I think neither of them really has an adequate understanding of my reasons.

            Nick Stokes has in this blog page distanced himself a bit from the FFF, saying “But a few years later, the transient effects were directly calculated by GCM. That is just one reason why the papers of Hansen and Schlesinger represented something of a dead end.” Nick is not saying that the FFF is wrong, but he is also not championing it very vigorously.

            In my just previous post of 6:42 AM, I give a reason why the FFF is actually wrong in principle.

            I am happy with the concept of feedback. It’s that I think it is not properly exercised in the FFF. There are better ways to exercise it.

            I don’t object to the term ‘forcing’ when it is used within its proper scope of applicability. But I think it is most often used beyond its scope of applicability; that’s why I jack up about it. And it is essential to the FFF.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Responding to October 14, 2022 at 6:36 AM.

            The takeaway is that the move from FFF back to AOGCM was made with good reason. The FFF needs to be radically revised or replaced.

            I am looking at the trees to make sure that we are looking at the right kind of forest. Should we be lumbering in a pine forest, in an oak forest, in a Huon pine forest (the best for boatbuilding, but now sadly practically extinct), or in a eucalypt forest?

            I am ready to propose a replacement for the FFF, but that isn’t quite yet called for at this moment at this place.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Responding to your post of October 14, 2022 at 6:49 AM.

            I think my recent posts have presented about as good a case as I can muster in answer to your post. Perhaps we can think it over a bit?

            You write: “surely by now it would have failed to thrive as such a useful concept in climate science.” Hmm. Yes, it has been used a lot. I don’t think that is enough to plaster over its faults. I think it needs replacing.

          • Nate says:

            “added CO2 also immediately and directly causes other changes entirely independent of the changes in OLR; in particular, it immediately and directly causes substantially increased back radiation, which is not taken into account by the FFF calculation of feedback because it is not caused by the FFF forcing, which is entirely specified by the change in OLR.”

            I think what you are getting at here is the direct warming that occurs at the surface as result of the OLR change at the TOA is not simple to calculate. The simple approximation is that dT/T =(1/4)*dF/F, is not really accurate for the dT at the surface. It assumes a constant lapse rate, and is some sort of average of dT at the surface and dT of the atmosphere, after reaching equilibrium.

            That is really where climate models, especially GCM models are needed, coupled with observations.

            That is really what happens inside of the electronics black box to determine the output delta T at the surface, and in the atmosphere.

            The Earth is more complex than the cartoon GHE.

          • Nate says:

            “In my just previous post of 6:42 AM, I give a reason why the FFF is actually wrong in principle.”

            I think you are referring to this:

            “But, as Hansen et al. 1984 remark, added CO2 also immediately and directly causes other changes entirely independent of the changes in OLR; in particular, it immediately and directly causes substantially increased back radiation, which is not taken into account by the FFF calculation of feedback because it is not caused by the FFF forcing, which is entirely specified by the change in OLR.”

            Hmmm.

            Again, you can play around with Modtran. You can increase CO2 concentration. You will see that it produces a decrease in OLR Flux, which they call Upward diffuse @ 100 Km. It also produces a smaller increase in surface back radiation, what they call Downward Diffuse 0 Km.

            And the problem with this is what?

            This is part and parcel of the process of warming the surface and the atmosphere that ultimately must continue until the OLR at the TOA is restored to its original value.

            So in the end the OLR change is the signal that matters.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 14,2022 at 7:30 AM.

            “I think what you are getting at here is the direct warming that occurs at the surface as result of the OLR change at the TOA is not simple to calculate.”

            No, that’s not what I am getting at. What I am getting at is what Hansen et al. 1984 say is not a result of the OLR change. The increase in back radiation in question is a direct and immediate consequence of the added CO2. There may be other changes to back radiation that are a result of the OLR change, but they are not what I am getting at.

            “That is really what happens inside of the electronics black box to determine the output delta T at the surface, and in the atmosphere.”

            No, the change in the back radiation in question is not the result of what happens inside the black box. It’s a direct and immediate result of the change in the source signal. It is as if the black box has two input ports, A and B. The FFF considers the effects of input to the port A that leads directly to increase in OLR, but it ignores the input to the other input port B. So the FFF does not provide an account of the eventual effect of port B on the output where the feedback is sampled from. That is what I mean by saying that the denominator is wrong. It’s not just that the magnitude of the denominator is wrong. It’s that the dimensions of the denominator are wrong. The denominator has the dimensions of change in atmospheric CO2, not the dimensions of a flux density.

            “The Earth is more complex than the cartoon GHE.” Now you’re talking, if by ‘cartoon’ you mean ‘FFF’.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Thank you for your post of October 14, 2022 at 7:54 AM.

            “And the problem with this is what?”

            The problem with it is that the FFF recognizes the decrease in OLR flux as a ‘forcing’, aka an ‘input’, a candidate for the denominator of the ‘gain’, but that does account for all of the effect of the source signal, which must include also the increase in surface back radiation, what they call Downward Diffuse 0 km, which is not admitted by the FFF as part of the ‘input’ aka ‘forcing’.

            “This is part and parcel of the process of warming the surface and the atmosphere”

            I agree that it is part of the process of warming the surface, but I don’t agree with saying it is ‘parcel’. I insist that it is a distinct part, and belongs to a different parcel, namely that it comes from input to port B, ignored by the FFF.

            “So in the end the OLR change is the signal that matters.”

            No. The signal source is the added CO2, and the output that is eventually assessed is the surface temperature change. The OLR change that is recognized by the FFF is only one part of the effects of the source signal. The other part of the effects of the source signal is ignored by the FFF. This affects the denominator of the ‘gain’ aka the ECS.

          • Nate says:

            Christopher,

            “I insist that it is a distinct part, and belongs to a different parcel, namely that it comes from input to port B, ignored by the FFF.”

            Hmm, interesting.

            The CO2 rise produces an increase in the overall insulation effect of the atmosphere. That results in a reduction in the OLR. It has been described by Hansen and others, in over-simplified way, as an increase the height of the highest radiating level, the average level at which the radiation leaving the atmosphere is coming from.

            When that level rises, assuming the lapse rate remains constant at first, the radiation to space is from a colder level in the atmosphere, and thus is reduced (by SB law). So the OLR drops initially. With that drop in OLR there is now an imbalance. The imbalance as an input of energy to the system.

            To me, that input of energy to the system can arrive at the surface (by DWIR) or at other levels in the atmosphere by extra abs*orp*tion, and as the surface warms, there is greater radiation and convection from it into the atmosphere (and thru the IR window all the way to the TOA, leading ultimately to increase in T from the surface all the way to the TOA. At that point, the top radiating level is now warmed and the OLR is restored to its original value. All of the warming that has occurred has acted to restore the balance at the TOA.

            In my view this is all inside the black box, part of conversion of the energy imbalance to a warmer surface and atmosphere.

            Perhaps you can view as a catalyst facilitating the ultimate T rise, IDK.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 14, 2022 at 1:01 PM

            “I insist that it is a distinct part, and belongs to a different parcel, namely that it comes from input to port B, ignored by the FFF.

            Hmm, interesting.”

            Can I put it like this:

            I have proposed that your black box has two separate and distinct input ports, A and B.

            Port A immediately and directly drives a virtual change in OLR. That virtual change is explicitly defined as the entire concern of the FFF. It leads to a virtual change the surface temperature, which leads to feedback in the FFF. Those changes combine to produce the eventual output as recognized the FFF, the actual eventual change in surface temperature as recognized by the FFF, which is a planetary energy balance model (PEBM) as considered by Schlesinger 1985.

            Port B immediately and directly drives a virtual change in back radiation. It is entirely ignored and denied by the FFF. But physically it still contributes to the eventual output, the actual eventual change in surface temperature. Port B is the sole concern of the surface energy balance models (SEBMs) considered by Schlesinger 1985.

            The FFF does not have the conceptual or logical apparatus to combine the effects of Ports A and B. It therefore cannot support a valid calculation of the true ECS.

            This is because the source signal for the true ECS is the added CO2, which actually drives both A and B (and quite possibly other effects, say C, D, … which for the moment we can ignore). The true ECS is defined by the combined effects of the true signal source, the added CO2. The logical structure of the FFF cannot accommodate this.

            My opinion is that an SEBM cannot be expected to give a valid calculation for the ECS. But the FFF’s ignoring of signal source B disqualifies it too.

          • Nate says:

            Christopher,

            The point is that these papers like Hansen 84, are actually modeling the whole atmosphere, its vertical structure, and energy transfer within it.

            For example it states:

            “The global mean heat flux into the planetary
            surface and surface air temperature are shown in
            Fig. 3 for the So and CO2 experiments. The heat
            flux peaks at -3 w m-2 for both experiments; the
            radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere
            is essentially the same as this flux into the planetary
            surface, since the heat capacity of the
            atmosphere is small.”

            This is the point, the extra CO2 abso*orp*tion is throughout the atmosphere. Even in the IR window, this is happening near the surface. But this results in an imbalance at the TOA which is the ONLY entry point for added energy. That energy makes its way to the surface, and most of it has to enter the ocean.

            But as the simulation shows the flux at TOA essentially matches the flux into the surface, because the atmosphere, with little heat capacity, is mostly a conduit.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 15, 2022 at 2:39 PM

            “The point is that these papers like Hansen 84, are actually modeling the whole atmosphere, its vertical structure, and energy transfer within it.”

            Yes, that’s what the Hansen et al. 1984 paper is doing. I agree with that.

            My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: ‘Does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?’

            My answer to that question, narrowly and specifically about the FFF, is ‘No’.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate.

            I ought to have been more precise.

            When I wrote “My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: Does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?”, I ought to have written ‘My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: As a means of calculating the ECS, does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?’

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. I am getting messages that I am posting too fast.

            I ought to have been more precise.

            When I wrote “My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: Does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?”, I ought to have written ‘My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: As a means of calculating the ECS, does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?’

          • Nate says:

            “As a means of calculating the ECS, does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?”

            Are you demanding too much from it? The whole atmospheric process, and ECS, are only found from from modeling, as in Hansen 84, and better still from GCMs.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 16, 2022 at 6:07 AM. Thank you for your response.

            “Are you demanding too much from it?”

            Well, as I read Hansen et al. 1984, and Schlesinger 1985, and many widely read subsequent papers, the FFF is advertised as a means to calculate the ECS, or at least as sketching, or showing the basic structure of, such a calculation, perhaps only for pedagogy. The burden of my posts here is that I think it can’t live up to that advertisement.

            “The whole atmospheric process, and ECS, are only found from from modeling, as in Hansen 84, and better still from GCMs.” That is beyond the remit of my posts, which concern only the FFF.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. Further ad your response of October 16, 2022 at 6:07 AM.

            You ask about the FFF “Are you demanding too much from it?

            I now reply by saying that I think your question is a good one. In other words, I think it is indeed too much to expect, that such a simple scheme as the FFF could do the job: a more complex scheme is necessary. For what is needed, you suggest something such as “modeling, as in Hansen 84, [or] better still [something such as] GCMs”. A fair suggestion, but both are very big steps up in complexity.

            I ask, ‘can we come up with a model a smaller step up from the FFF that might do the job? How much more complex a scheme is necessary?’

            Monckton at times talks about ‘dynamical systems theory’, which, according to me, is not quite the same thing as the ‘control systems theory’ of his anonymous experts. Monckton doesn’t actually deliver the goods on his talk about dynamical systems theory, but, instead, apparently imperceptive of its fundamental inadequacy, he persists with the FFF.

            I think orthodox dynamical systems theory is a fair candidate for smaller steps up from the FFF. I think that orthodox dynamical systems models quite likely still won’t do all that we want, but I think they might perhaps be able to make a helpful contribution towards clearer understanding.

            There are countless ways to go with dynamical systems models, and they might be worth trying. I would think of empirical, data driven models (as distinct from fundamentally physically a priori deduced models). Quite likely they still wouldn’t work, but still they might be worth a try.

          • Nate says:

            “think it is indeed too much to expect, that such a simple scheme as the FFF could do the job: a more complex scheme is necessary. For what is needed, you suggest something such as ‘modeling, as in Hansen 84, [or] better still [something such as] GCMs”

            To do modeling, as Hansen does, is not an alternative to FFF. Hansen is clearly doing both. He is using the modeling to find the feedbacks in the FFF scheme. No need to abandon FFF.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 17, 2022 at 6:50 PM

            “To do modeling, as Hansen does, is not an alternative to FFF. Hansen is clearly doing both. He is using the modeling to find the feedbacks in the FFF scheme. No need to abandon FFF.”

            As I see it, perhaps Hansen’s modeling is right, and delivers right answers. But feeding them into a conceptually and logically wrong scheme such as the FFF would turn gold into lead.

          • Nate says:

            “would turn gold into lead.”

            Thats a bit hyperbolic.

            As you say, the modeling approach is good. If modeling results are good, then it is difficult to see how putting them into this framework changes them into bad results.

            The framework, again, simply makes clear that if the SYSTEM has warmed it must be as a result of new energy input. This is a FACT.

            And the only entry point for new energy is at the TOA. This is a FACT. Furthermore, there ARE real feedbacks in the system that need to be understood.

            The main challenge is get the modeling right with respect to things like cloud feedbacks.

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi, Nate. ad October 18, 2022 at 6:00 AM.

            Thank you for your comment. I guess we have gone about as far as we can along this path. Cheers.

  15. gbaikie says:

    Drax Is Burning Virgin Forest
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/04/drax-is-burning-virgin-forest/

    So, burning stuff to make CO2 and water vapor, but doesn’t make the world hotter, but getting rid of virgin forests could make it a little bit hotter in region. Or making desert makes it hotter, and making a desert into virgin forest makes it warmer [not hotter].

    But we live on world with 70% ocean surface. Having 70% of surface ocean, makes Earth warmer, not hotter.
    Ocean warms, land cools. But land can be hotter. It heats up and cool down, faster.
    Land regions heat up faster, oceans in a 24 hour period change air temperature by less than 1 C. Deserts can swing by 30 C or more.
    Deserts are the hottest, but also can cold at night.

    What prevents land from getting colder at night, is the average air temperature. The global average air temperature is controlled by 70% of surface of Earth which is ocean.
    What also controls global air temperature is 40% of ocean at and near
    the tropical ocean. So warm water which is 40% of Earth surface absorbs more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching the Earth surface.
    Or 60% of the Earth surface gets less than 1/2 of sunlight reaching the surface.
    So 60% of ocean surface is colder as receives less sunlight, but it is warmer than the land in that 60% of the world.
    Or average Ocean surface is about 17 C and average land is about 10 C. But the 60 percent ocean surface is about 11 C.
    Europe is warmed by the ocean [Gulf Stream] by about 10 C.
    The warming of Europe by the gulf stream is why European wondered
    why they were warmer, than they “should be”. They are warmer because the ocean. But all land area is warmer because of the ocean- one could say Europe is warmed 10 C warmer than other land area.
    Or without the Gulf Stream, the ocean would warm Europe, with Gulf Stream it warms it by at 10 C.
    And then the tropical ocean [is a ocean] and warming the atmosphere with warms Europe and warms Antarctica and Greenland or the entire world. So, Europe gets a lot global warming from the oceans.
    And if Ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, Europe get a lot more global warming from the ocean [which is still quite cold]. But also the rest of land regions, such as Canada or China or Russia get more warming from the Ocean.
    But more important is 4 C ocean causes more global water vapor.

  16. Mark M says:

    One thing is perfectly clear, Lord Monckton’s slef believe of infallibility is not perturbed by any amount of feedback.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      The furtively anonymous “Mark M” is as ignorant as he is discourteous. The control-theoretic considerations in our result are supplied and curated by several senior and more than competent control theorists and climatologists, who are co-authors in our paper.

      One realizes that our result, simple and compelling though it is, strikes fear and thus hatred into the hearts of those who, like “Mark M”, adhere to the Party Line on the climate.

      If “Mark M” is incapable of producing any arguments other than mere yah-boo, he should go back to his kindergarten sandpit and shriek at his teacher.

      • Swenson says:

        M,

        Senior and more than competent “climatologists”? You jest, surely!

        Climate is the average of historical weather observations – most which are quite pointless.

        Piss-poor appeal to authority. What is “more than competent”, anyway? Are you implying that some “senior climatologists” are barely competent, or maybe even completely incompetent.

        Maybe you could name some “senior climatologists” who are less than competent, and tell everybody why you hold that view – and why anyone should value your opinion.

        Your “paper”, like many others, will no doubt be completely unsupported by reproducible experiment. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

        I’ll wait for papers which relate to science, rather than unsupported assertions.

        In the meantime, carry on with your silly attempts at standover thuggery, and appeals to your own authority. Nature will win in the end.

        If you think I can be offended, insulted, or annoyed, give it your best shot. I generally decline to let words upset me, and I can’t think of a single reason to make an exception for you.

        Carry on.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          In response to the venomous “Swenson”, such assertions as are made in the head posting are not “unsupported”. Try reading it. If you disagree with any particular point in the head posting, then try to make a scientific response to that point rather than indulging in mere futile yah-boo. There are some very senior figures watching this thread, and your conduct, among that of others who support the Party Line, has attracted no little interest for its absence of credible – or any – scientific content.

      • Mark M says:

        My Lord provides more evidence that my claim is correct.

        It is sad to think of a man of such immense intellect, wealth, fame, and accomplishment rabidly typing insults on an obscure comment board for hours on end.

        Think of the lost opportunity cost the world is incurring while our Lord is not focusing his enormous brain on the great problems facing our society.

        Or maybe he pays ill-tempered pre-teens to do it for him while he is busy agreeing with himself.

        • Willard says:

          > Or maybe he pays ill-tempered pre-teens to do it for him while he is busy agreeing with himself.

          That might explain this enigma:

          > Do the maths.

          Good idea, Christopher. Heres what I could glean so far (sources on demand):

          You bought the estate in 1996 for 250K and paid 500K in renovation. It was costing 30K a year to run, hopefully notwithstanding the six workers to take care of it (and you). It was earning about 18K through agriculture, rent and flowers. So 12K in running costs.

          You put up the property for sale on Ebay with a starting price of 1.2M. No bid by the closing date. You got one personal call, presumably by the buyers. The domain was sold in 2001, the 1M paid to Alex and Oliver in 2000. You had to pony up 500K for the prize, 500K provided by your insurer. That means 250K + 500K + 500K + 60K (5 times 12K) = 1,31M, excluding six salaries for five years.

          You must have made a smol fortune, very smol indeed.

          I wonder how much the estate would be worth today. Around there I saw 3 bedrooms and land at 1,3M. There is also the Pittodrie Estate at 7,5M. It has 27 rooms, you had how many again, 67? Your 250K on the SPY in 1996 would have turned into 2.3M today. A 10M fortune in 1996 would now be worth 93M. Nothing to do. Just hodling.

          As for your puzzles, I could run some numbers with you for production, distribution, promotion, retail, and the insurance premium you paid for your PR stunt! No idea how much the actuary calculated that.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/03/why-it-matters-that-climatologists-forgot-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-3613507

          At least one of these six workers’ job is secure.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            Please stop trolling.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            “Willard” is sticking his long, Communist nose into a business that is well beyond his meagre capabilities. More importantly, he is not only wrong but off topic.

            Perhaps Roy will do what Anthony Watts does, and ban personal attacks on named contributors by those who cower poltroonishly behind furtive anonymity.

          • Willard says:

            If he was old and wise, Christopher would realize that he should not tell porkies about public information.

            Alas Christopher is unwise.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            No scientific point from “Willard”, who remains off topic.

          • Willard says:

            Scientists publish their results, post their code, and name their co-authors, Christopherino.

            You just parade in contrarian outlets and lord comment sections.

            Or at least you try.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Nick Stokes says:

        “several senior and more than competent control theorists and climatologists, who are co-authors in our paper”

        They seem to be even more furtively anonymous than Mark M. Certainly we never hear from them. I think they would be embarrassed to put their names to this nonsense.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          As usual, Mr Stokes is merely petty, and has no scientific point to make. Nothing he says is worthy of consideration. He is wasting his time here. He has tried and failed on many occasions to derail us, but here we still are, and he is showing himself more and more clearly to be as ignorant as he is malevolent.

  17. Gloria says:

    I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px160~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
    the given stats system. https://fixjob11.blogspot.com

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Moderators, pl;ease report the posting by “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent span in the usual way.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        What moderators? This is the last bastion of the first amendment. This is the Wild West. Think Deadwood.

      • Swenson says:

        M,

        “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” – Churchill.

        Not entirely appropriate, but if people want to believe Gloria, let them.

        If people want to believe you, let them.

        Or if people want to believe me, what’s wrong with that? Particularly if facts support my views?

        No GHE. Neither you nor anybody else can describe this mythical creature, in any way which agrees with observed facts, and theories supported by rigorous experiment.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          “Swenson” should get someone to read the head posting to him. He will notice that the relevant values for 1850 are given. Equilibrium temperature in that year was 287.5 K or thereby. Emission temperature, which would have obtained in the absence of any greenhouse gases, was 259.6 K. What is the 27.9 K difference, if it is not the natural greenhouse effect?

      • D'g Cot''n says:

        LORD MONCKTON

        You are SADLY MISTAKEN is assuming that the surface temperature of Earth is determined primary by radiation in and out of that surface.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          The surface temperature is determined by measuring it, or would be if anybody actually measured the temperature of the surface, which nobody does.

          Presumably you are referring to the same fantasy “surface temperature” as others do?

          In any case, the Earth has cooled from its initial molten state to its present reasonable temperature, which of course means that energy has been lost to a cooler environment.

          Obviously, you don’t like the concept of hot things cooling all by themselves.

          Have you conducted any reproducible experiments to support your strange speculation?

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          The persistently ignorant and ignorantly persistant “Cot’n” has failed to grasp what has been repeatedly explained to him: that for the sake of argument we accept all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false. He is entitled to his own nonsensical, anti-scientific opinions. It’s a free country. But he is off topic here. We are talking about the inconsistency between control theory and the erroneous manner in which climatologists apply it.

          If “Cot’n” wishes to convert anyone to his religion, then let him approach official climatology. He is wasting his time here, because he is entirely off topic.

      • Retired Physicist says:

        Monckton of Brenchley

        You need to understand what is in my two comments starting here:
        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375781

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        CM…we do it differently, we don’t feed the trolls.

  18. stephen p. anderson says:

    Would you trash the Western economies, and continue the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events?

    Governments are always the last bad actor.

    • Willard says:

      Troglodytes say the darnedest things:

      To rein in the inflation, it was necessary to have a tightish monetary as well as fiscal policy. Unfortunately, manufacturing did not resume once inflation was beaten, not least because the crippling cost of energy directly caused by the global-warming nonsense has driven manufacturing overseas, chiefly to Communist-led China.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/no-climatologists-did-not-forget-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-1374883

      Perhaps you should have a word with monetarists who entertained strange beliefs regarding austerity.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard bathes in a sea of irrelevant obscurity.

        A sample – “Troglodytes say the darnedest things:”

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Perhaps you should understand the difference between government and free markets……Chihuahua.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        In response to the climate-Communist “Willard”, the tough medicine of the early Thatcher years was very successful in restoring stability to the economy, reducing the national debt, increasing resources for the National Health and other public services and increasing prosperity throughout the economic system.

        She successfully withstood a Communist-led miners’ strike, and it was that success that led the Communists to capture the environmental movement and eventually to adopt and promote the global-warming nonsense, greatly to the detriment of the hated West.

        • Willard says:

          Christopher does not waste time trying to understand the point to which he responds.

          Kennui was deploring that the policies of his favorite scapegoat would destroy Western economies.

          Yet by historical fact the man of the hour favours reactionary decisions that did exactly that.

          Perhaps he should stop whining and start reading harder.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  19. CO2isLife says:

    CO2 is 410 parts per million, or basically 1 out of every 2,500 molecules. CO2 thermalizes 15 microns LWIR. 15 microns thermalized has the energy of a -80 C black body. Does anyone honestly think that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy of something -80 C can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 2,499? That is the CO2-driven Global Warming Theory in a nutshell. Basically, it is a complete joke.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      It’s Dark Matter.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      CO2islife should read the head posting. There he will discover that in 1850 the equilibrium surface temperature was 287.5 K, while the emission temperature, that would have obtained in the absence of any greenhouse gases, is 259.6 K. The 27.9 K difference is the natural greenhouse effect. Therefore, it is impermissible to seek to maintain that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. It is small, and is far less influential on temperature than official climatology (misled by its control-theoretic error) imagines, but it is real.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Monckton of Brenchley, you must have misunderstood the point I was making. No one denied the GHG effect, or that the atmosphere holds heat energy. Yes, the atmosphere holds and transfers energy through Conduction, Convection and Radiation. Yes, without an atmosphere earth would be colder. My point was specifically directed at CO2 being the cause of the warming. H2O thermalizes the vast majority of IR emitted by the earth. No one denies that CO2 thermalizes a very very narrow band of LWIR at 15 microns. Take an IR Meter and point it at dry ice and it will show 15 microns and -70 to -80 C. Wavelengths are associated with temperature, and 15 microns is associated with -80 C. CO2 isn’t warming anything, H2O is. That is my point, the quantum mechanics simply don’t support the claim that CO2 is the cause. H2O can be 4 parts per hundred and absorbs wavelengths above 18 C or 10 microns, H2O is a great atmospheric insulator, CO2 isn’t. ALso, 15 microns won’t penetrate or warm water. The oceans are warming. What warms the oceans? Warming visible radiation. Has more visible radiation been reaching the oceans? Yes, look up the data on cloud cover over the oceans. Explain the warming oceans and you explain the warming temperatures, and it has nothing to do with CO2, nothing, nada, zip. I love your work, so don’t think I was disagreeing with you. I’m just pointing out the basics of the quantum mechanics of CO2 and 15 micron LWIR.

  20. Tim S says:

    I think the uncertainty in any calculation or computer simulation model is greater than the published result. It could go either way, although the climate system is most likely more stable to human influence than sensitive. The effect of ENSO on the short term is very noticeable. Do we really understand the combined effect of the world’s ocean current cycles, and how does the current science explain the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?

    • Swenson says:

      Tim,

      ENSO is just a pattern of observations. Affects nothing – just recorded figures.

      Weather, and hence climate, its average, is unpredictable in any useful sense.

      If it looks like its going to rain, take an umbrella. If you are sufficiently concerned about the possible effects of an observed tropical storm 100 km distant, run away. Don’t depend on the best and the brightest (backed up by the finest supercomputers) to be able to peer into the future better than you can.

      It’s your life.

  21. Russell says:

    Roy, do you agree with Christopher’s recent observation that :

    The Mandelbrot set is at once the simplest and the most complex of all chaotic objects… which is why contrary to what is generally reported in the Marxstream media in recent decades there has been a decline in just about every indicator of severe weather worldwide.” ?

    I neglected to ask Mandelbrot when I had the chance some decades ago , so the ball is in your court.

  22. D'g Cot''n says:

    LORD MONCKTON and Dr ROY SPENCER

    Sadly you are both mistaken, because the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was right in the 1870’s when he explained that gravity acting on individual molecules forms the tropospheric temperature gradient in every planet with a troposphere. Centrifugal force does likewise in vortex cooling tubes and in experiments such as that at http://climate-change-theory.com.

    THE FACT THAT GRAVITY DOES THIS is now easily proven with a correct understanding of entropy, because it is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which should be stated:

    “The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”

    The law applies to the single process of radiation from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. There are no other “interacting thermodynamic systems” and so no “net effect” can excuse the violation of the law when climatologists assume that back radiation from IR-active molecules causes heat into the already-warmer surface. It doesn’t.

    The CORRECT explanation of surface temperatures is in my papers, book and videos linked from the above website and visited by over 150,000 without anyone ever proving me wrong, even for the AU $10,000 reward on offer.

  23. D'g Cot''n says:

    MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY also (like ROY SPENCER) needs to understand that entropy is affected by changes in all forms of internal energy, not just kinetic energy determining temperature.

    “The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.”

    The above quote is from Wikipedia / Laws of Thermodynamics and I have suggested in the Talk page that after “corollary” should be the words “which does not always apply in a force field.” The proof is in my 2013 paper and book published on Amazon in 2014.

    There is no reference any longer to “isolated” or “closed” systems. There is no reference to temperature or heat in the first sentence above. The law applies to “a .. process” (singular) and only “interacting” systems can be considered when determining overall entropy changes, these having to be increases.

    Thus the law is operating when, for example, a creek flows down a mountainside from a lake at the top. If climatologists were right in their assumption that there can be heat via radiation from the cold troposphere to the already-warmer surface provided more thermal energy exits the surface they are sadly mistaken. It would be a similar application of their “net” effect to say that water could flow up that creek provided that it flowed further down another creek on the other side.

    So you need to scrap your conjecture that radiation from IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases can help the Sun to raise the surface temperature on a clear and calm sunny morning. It can’t. Its energy is “pseudo” scattered as Prof Claes Johnson explained over a decade ago, my first peer-reviewed paper in 2012 citing his work.

    You will be able to learn about the ONLY correct physics that explains surface (and even core) temperatures in 15 minutes at:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      You wrote –

      “You will be able to learn about the ONLY correct physics that explains surface (and even core) temperatures in 15 minutes at: . . . ”

      Apart from planets being created in a molten state, and subsequently cooling, of course.

      You don’t believe that planets were created as roughly spherical, at absolute zero, and have since been heated to their present temperatures, molten cores and all, do you?

      Maybe the simplest answer is the correct one?

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        I do NOT reply to responses that show no evidence of having read my papers or watched my video. So don’t bother to write to me until you know what is in such, thankyou.

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          Feel free not to reply as much as you want.

          Your mind reading skills are about as defective as your knowledge of physics.

          Just accept that some people, having read your papers, think they are rubbish.

          You don’t need to reply if you don’t want to. I’ll survive.

          • Gloria says:

            I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px280~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
            the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        Swenson (ctd) … except to say that a location on the equator on the surface of Venus warms by about 5 degrees (732K to 737K) during four months on the sunlit side. That is before it then cools by about that much in four months on the dark side, indicating that, without solar radiation, the planet could cool 15 degrees per year.

        You don’t believe this warming is due to the less-hot atmosphere causing heat via radiation into the already-hotter surface do you? Such would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you don’t believe this do you … when a cogent proof is available based on that law and explaining just how precisely the required new thermal energy gets into the surface – obviously NOT by radiation from any source. Thousands have read this proof at …

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

        and

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905

        Take your pick – then publish your attempt at refutation on Researchgate in order to be considered for the AU $10,000 reward.

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          You donkey. I suggest that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, from a molten state.

          You start blathering about Venus.

          Science is not about “proving” something correct.. As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

          You have precisely no experiments to support your speculations, in any case. No testable hypothesis, so nobody can refute anything.

          Demanding that people provide you with evidence about something otherwise you will stop trying to inflict your fantasies on others might be less of a threat than you might imagine.

          Keep trying.

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            The FACT (measured) that Venus can cool by 5 degrees in 4 months PROVES you wrong.

            No evidence for “heat creep” ??? Really ????

            http://www.climate-change-theory.com/evidence.html

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            As I said, I mention Earth reality, you blather about Venus. Gee, an arid desert can cool by more than 40 C overnight!

            That is supposed to prove some nonsensical fantasy of yours?

            So what is your fantasy telling you about four and a half billion years or so of cooling – Earth, not Venus, although Venus has cooled from its molten state as well.

            Reverse heat creep, is it?

            Maybe you should waste some money, and pay to publish nonsense in a predatory journal. There are plenty about, I hear.

            On your website, you wrote –

            “The surface temperature is not determined by radiation, but rather by the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient resulting from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”, which is complete nonsense. As a matter of, surface temperatures can vary between about +90 C and -90 C. Not dictated by gravity at all.

            You are delusional, but of course that is just my opinion, so you free to ignore it.

            Maybe you can convince yourself that I care what you think about me. Just more delusional thinking, I can assure you,

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            If Earth (with its existing atmosphere) once had a surface temperature of 735K that surface would emit about 16,500w/m^2 which is far more than the solar constant of about 1,360w/m^2 and so there would be very rapid global cooling in a few days until equilibrium with the solar flux was obtained, as it is now and has been probably from within a few days of when it came into orbit with the Sun for one simple reason – it is not a star itself and its major source of energy comes from the Sun. So much for Fourier’s analysis of the situation!

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            And of course I was talking about the global MEAN surface temperature. For Earth and all planets that temperature can be calculated if one knows the distance from the Sun, the height of the so-called radiating altitude (at which there will be radiative balance with the solar radiation, thus anchoring the tropospheric temperature profile at that altitude) and one can then calculate the tropospheric temperature gradient which will be in magnitude just a little less than the quotient of the acceleration due to GRAVITY and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases.

            These calculations work for Earth and all planets and the reason why they do (and the reason for the small reduction in magnitude) are in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures”* (and my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon) which any reader is welcome to attempt to refute by publishing a paper on Researchgate.

            There’s a AU$10,000 reward for the first to prove “heat creep” doesn’t happen (despite the evidence in every vortex cooling tube and throughout the Solar System) and that water vapor warms rather than cools the surface despite the evidence of cooling in my study** of real-world data and the correct physics in my paper and book explaining why this is so.

            *https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

            ** http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg

      • Nabil Swedan says:

        D C

        I think that there is some truth to what you say and have published. But what other planets have to do with climate change? They do not experience changes for they are void of life. It is thus imperative to focus on living matter as a cause of climate change. I invite you to readhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2019.12.003

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.”

      ***

      If you read Clausius on the matter, he first develops the 2nd law, claiming heat can never, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot. Then he defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers in a process at temperature T. Stated mathematically, that becomes…

      S = 1/T (integral dq).

      He explained entropy as being zero for reversible processes and +ve for irreversible process. Although he alluded to the fact that most processes in the universe are irreversible, hence moving toward disorder, entropy is a measure of heat, not disorder.

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        Gordon, you need to catch up on research in the 1980’s about maximum entropy production. I do NOT make false statements. The statement I quoted is (at last) on the Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics” page.

        Entropy can now more correctly be understood as a measure of progress in the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, such energy taking into account all forms of internal energy, not just kinetic energy which is associated with temperature.

        Maximum entropy (that is, thermodynamic equilibrium) is the state with no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. The Second Law tells us that a natural thermodynamic process (including interacting thermodynamic systems) will tend towards that state. Until you understand this you will never understand the process which determines planetary core and surface temperatures.

        How we can calculate expected global mean surface temperatures for any planet with an atmosphere is summarised in this comment:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251

        Applicants for the AU$10,000 reward need to read that first and post their attempt at refutation on the scientific website for Researchgate having studied my 2013 paper or my book.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      You could also do well to study ..

      Guggenheim, E. A. (1949). Thermodynamics an Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists. North-Holland Publishing Company.

      http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/474/Guggenheim%20E.A.%20Thermodynamics%20(NH,%201967)(400dpi)(T)(ISBN%200444869514)(412s).pdf

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      “Cot’n” is off topic.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      “Cot’n” remains off topic.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      “Cot’n” is wasting everyone’s time here. His endless self-promoting posts are off topic here. He has made no attempt to grasp the subject of the head posting.

  24. Willard says:

    A few notes on the “Hansen paper.”

    First, I suppose our feedback theorist is referring to Hansen & al 1984:

    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

    That’s more than a “few years” after the Charney report. Five years is a lot in science, even at the time.

    Second, I gather that the authors are: James Hansen, Andy Lacis, David H. Rind, Gary L. Russell, Peter (?) Stone, Inez Fung, and Reto Ruedy, and Jean Lerner. Finding these names took me a while. And I’m not sure I got everyone of them right.

    Abbreviating first names never was a good idea. For starters it is imminently sexist as we tend to masculinize scientists. Ideally we should have an ID for each researcher, including past ones.

    Third, the caveat contrarians always seem to forget:

    The high latitude enhancement of the warming is less in our model than in observed temperature trends for the past 100 years (Hansen e t al., 1983a). If this observed high latitude enhancement also occurs for large global temperature increases, the smaller high latitude enhancement in our 3-D model suggests the possibility that the 3-D model has either overestimated the low latitude climate sensitivity (probably implicating the low latitude cloud feedback) or underestimated the high latitude sensitivity. If the former case is correct, the global climate sensitivity implied by the 3-D model may be only 2.5-3C; but if the latter interpretation is correct, the global climate sensitivity may be greater than 4C. A more precise statement requires the ability to analyze and verify the cloud feedback on a regional basis.

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

    So it’s not like climate scientists could reduce their answer to a single number. That number comes with lots of uncertainty on both sides of it. And uncertainty is nobody’s friend.

    • Swenson says:

      Willard,

      Climate is the average of historical weather observations.

      “Climate science” is an oxymoron.

      You appear to be a garden variety moron.

      Have you managed to accept that your stupid GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years or so?

      • Willard says:

        Mike,

        Do you really want me to spoon feed you with Hansen & al 1984?

        If yes, please respond to this comment.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        Climate is the average of historical weather observations.

        Climate science is an oxymoron.

        You appear to be a garden variety moron.

        Have you managed to accept that your stupid GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years or so?

        Is the “Hansen” to whom you refer the delusional James Hansen, who seems to think that a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, suddenly changed direction and started to heat the Earth, or some other climate nutter named Hansen?

        Ho! Ho! Ho!

      • Willard says:

        Thanks, Mike.

        Here’s how Hansen & al 1984 continues:

        Our analysis of climate feedbacks in 3-D models points strongly toward a net climate feedback factor of f ~ 2-4 for processes operative on 10-100 year time scales.

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

        If you want more, you know what to do.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • angech says:

      Willard

      “Abbreviating first names never was a good idea. For starters it is imminently sexist as we tend to masculinize scientists. Ideally we should have an ID for each researcher, including past ones.”

      This is the most sexist post you may have made, Willard.

      You may tend to masculinize scientists but I assure you that the rest of the world does not and has not.
      Your 1980’s approach to science and scientists went out of fashion for everyone else in the 1980’s.
      Not to mention the more recent me too flareup.
      You then go on to want to label everyone with an identity number.
      Not politically correct since the 40’s and in Australia from the 1990’s.


      Finally I would note that abbreviating first names has been in fashion for ever and for very good commonsense reasons.
      You know, a consensus approach that has developed over the years.

      Perhaps a good talk about this with some female acquaintances would put you straight?
      Try it and see.

      • angech says:

        Wllard

        Third, the caveat contrarians [and CAGW ]always seem to forget:
        Particularly Hansen and Willard but not Spencer.
        Is this the best that you can do?

        ” A more precise statement requires the ability to analyze and verify the cloud feedback on a regional basis.
        So its not like climate scientists could reduce their answer to a single number. That number comes with lots of uncertainty on both sides of it. And uncertainty is nobodys friend.”

        Or one could say since the uncertainty is so extreme that James Hansen obviously made it all up?

      • Willard says:

        Assure me all you want, Doc, the rest of the world actually does:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421378/

        Is Jean a boy or a girl?

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      It is clear from Hansen’s paper that he had made no allowance for the feedback response to emission temperature, and had implicitly added it to, and miscounted it as though it were part of, the actually minuscule feedback response to greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Hansen’s paper is predicated on the calibration assumption that because directly-forced warming was at that time about 8 K but the total greenhouse effect was about 33 K the system gain factor was of order 4, implying ECS of order 4.

      The calibration assumption, however, was incorrect. It is readily proven that at the equilibrium in 1850 ECS was 1.1 K or thereby. It is also readily proven that even a very small perturbation in the feedback strength compared with 1850 would lead to a very large change in ECS – which, however, has not been observed.

      There has by now been a total anthropogenic forcing broadly equivalent to a doubled-CO2 forcing: yet there has been less than 1.1 K global warming. There remains a small radiative imbalance; but, as the most recent posting on this topic at WUWT shows, it is possible to find a set of mainstream, midrange values of the industrial-era parameters that keep ECS at about 1.1 K. Hansen, and many others since, have been misled by their erroneous calibration assumption, and have tuned their models to fit it (which is not difficult, since the perturbation of the system-gain factor since 1850 sufficient to push up ECS by 300% to 4 K or thereby is only 1%.

      The reason for that extreme sensitivity of the system response to minuscule changes in the feedback strength is that at any moment, such as the present, the increased feedback strength does not amplify only the reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity: it also amplifies the base signal, emission temperature, which is 30 times larger than the reference sensitivity.

      Hansen had no understanding of these matters. His account of the relevant control theory is a mangled mess.

  25. angech says:

    Thank you Roy and thank you Christopher [Chris].
    I look forward to going over the details of both arguments and commenting when done.
    It is great to have information and I will help look after Willard for you.

  26. Gordon Robertson says:

    On one hand, CM talks about control theory and on the other he talks about a feedback amplifier. The latter is not an example of control theory, feedback in an amplifier is used to control gain.

    In control theory related to electronics, otherwise known as servo system theory, there is no amplification required to control the output. For example, to control the speed of a motor, a tachometer could be attached to the motor shaft. Whenever the tach exceeds a preset RPM, it might send a negative signal back to the motor speed controller to tell the controller to send less current to the motor, hence slowing it down.

    If the motor slows down, the tach indicates that and a signal with a positive sign is sent back to the motor speed controller to send the motor more current. This is part of motor control theory and the sign of the signal fed back is all that matters.

    It strikes me that servo theory is closer to climate situations.

    With a feedback amplifier, feedback is related to gain by…

    G = A/(1 + AB)

    where G = overall gain or gain with feedback
    A = amplifier gain or gain with no feedback
    B = amount of feedback signal returned from output to input.

    Note…B is actually the ratio of Ef/Eo = E feedback/E output.

    It should be noted that Wikipedia has the sign in 1 + AB wrong. They use 1 – AB, whereas electrical engineering textbooks use 1 + AB. I guess it shouldn’t matter as long as the derivation of B is understood and correctly related to Ein.

    Obviously, the sign of AB is related to the difference between the sign of the input signal Ein and the sign of Ef, the feedback voltage. We could be dealing with currents, depending on the feedback configuration.

    In a feedback amplifier, an applied signal Ein is multiplied by A to give Ein.A at the output. That output signal is then multiplied by B to give the feedback signal. The feedback signal is then mixed in a difference network where Ein is combined with (Ein.A.B) and multiplied by -1.

    This represents a loop from the input, through the amplifier, through the feedback network and back to the input.

    The produce -AB is called the loop gain or return ratio. The difference between unity and the loop gain is called the return difference, D = 1 + AB.

    There is a key point here that must be understood…

    If A = 0, the output signal must be 0. It needs to be understood that B is a passive network with no means of amplification on its own. That point seems to be missed and/or taken for granted in some climate theories. It seems to be presumed that positive feedback can amplify a signal on its own. It can’t. A passive network like a feedback loop can only attenuate.

    Also, for G = A/(1 + AB), the determining factor between positive and negative feedback is the sign of AB. That is, if |1 + AB| < 1, G increases with each cycle and the feedback is positive. Otherwise, it is negative.

    I don't see any way such feedback theory can be applied in the atmosphere.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      typo…

      “The produce -AB is called the loop gain or return ratio”.

      should read…

      The product -AB is called the loop gain or return ratio.

    • Entropic man says:

      Servo system theory does describe the apparent stability of our climate better than Monckton’s force feedback.

      The only problem is that servo systems are designed to maintain a stable state chosen by the engineer.

      Natural systems are not preset. Probably the best model is complexity, aka chaos theory.

      Climate is a complex system in which conditions vary around a strange attractor. This is an equilibrium state subject to stochastic variation. Random variation moves conditions away from the equilibrium while negative feedbacks returns conditions to the equilibrium.

      Forcings move the strange attractor.

      Apply this to global average temperature. The global average temperature indicates the position of the strange attractor.

      Forcing is increasing the amount of energy in the system and hence increasing the global average temperature. This has moved the strange attractor. There is still variation around the SA, but lower temperatures are becoming less likely and high temperatures more likely.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “Forcing is increasing the amount of energy in the system and hence increasing the global average temperature.”

        I suppose you think that this “forcing” cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, or would that be a different “forcing”?

        Dodge, weave, duck.

        See how you go.

        • D'ug Cott'n says:

          Mmmmmm …..

          Venus can cool at the rate of 15 degrees a year, as measured by the rate of cooling on the dark side, namely 5 degrees in four months.

          Let’s calculate the original temperature 4.5 billion years ago …

          67,500,000,000 C

          Actually the rate of cooling would have been far faster at these temperatures, so the figure is a huge underestimate.

          Do you have some evidence for this kind of temperature Dear Swenson?

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            And if the original thermal energy came from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago we also have a lot of your cooling before these last 4.5 billion years.

            I suppose you’ll continue to bluff a few with your contention Swenson, but not those who have calculators.

          • D'ug Cott'n says:

            And, as for Earth, its dark side can easily cool 10 degrees in 12 hours, so if the Sun’s energy is not maintaining current temperatures (perhaps after some rapid cooling down to such temperatures in the first few hundred years after the Solar System formed) then we’ll all be dead rather soon.

            BUT, the Sun’s direct radiation reaching the surface is only of the order of 170w/m^2 which, by Stefan-Boltzmann, cannot support a global mean surface temperature above about minus 40C, so there is OBVIOUSLY a need for a regular daily input of more thermal energy which CANNOT come as RADIATED heat from the cooler troposphere because that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            What REALLY happens (supported by experiments, studies and other evidence throughout the Solar System) is explained from the laws of physics for the first time anywhere in world literature in my 2013 paper and 2014 book.

            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            I’m talking about the Earth, but you don’t seem to want to accept reality.

            Your “calculations” demonstrate that you haven’t a clue about physics, but if you want to stick to physically impossible figures, feel free to look as stupid as you like.

            You might like to similarly calculate the effects of four and a half billion years or so of “heat creep”, and tell me that the Earth is not really the temperature that it is.

            Here’s one speculation, widely shared –

            “At its beginning, Earth was unrecognizable from its modern form. At first, it was extremely hot, to the point that the planet likely consisted almost entirely of molten magma. ”

            Seems to fit with current knowledge and physics, and if so, makes your heat creep idea look delusional.

            But no matter, reality continues, whether you agree with it or not.

            Carry on.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            Heat creep happens – experiments with vortex cooling tubes confirm such.

            I suppose you think the sub-surface regions of Earth somehow “know” to regulate their rate of cooling depending on whether it’s day or night up on the surface above, summer or winter, Equator or Pole.

            What brilliant sub-surface matter you have invented! And where is your evidence for the above temperature and where is your response to at least two other comments of mine above that you probably haven’t read? Over and out. I have work to do.

          • angech says:

            Mmmmmm ..
            “Venus can cool at the rate of 15 degrees a year, as measured by the rate of cooling on the dark side, namely 5 degrees in four months.”

            Please.

            Venus does not cool because it is being constantly irradiated by the sun.
            It loses more heat on the sunny side than it does on the dark side anyway
            The only heat gain or loss it has is due to how far away it is from the sun

          • Retired Physicist says:

            I suggest you read comments in context. We were talking about what it would be like without radiation from the Sun warming it back up on the sunlit side.

            Next time you are contemplating trying to prove me wrong, give up before you make a fool of yourself. What I write is correct.

          • angech says:

            Retired Physicist says:
            October 7, 2022 at 3:30 AM
            I suggest you read comments in context. We were talking about what it would be like without radiation from the Sun warming it back up on the sunlit side.

            No.
            You made a comment about the temperature of the whole planet based on the behaviour of only the colder side of the planet.
            Which was poor mathematics, poor premises and therefore delegitimises your other views as no one will know when you are joking or not.

            What I write is correct.

            It was a joke, wasnt it?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ent…”The only problem is that servo systems are designed to maintain a stable state chosen by the engineer”.

        ***

        That’s true, but the components are well defined and their operation is well understood. I can see things like clouds affected weather in a similar manner to a servo system but as you say, the overall system of weather and climate is likely too complex to understand fully. I recall John Christy saying that.

        I don’t regard a weather system as being all that chaotic. If it was, meteorologists would not be able to predict the weather. According to one meteorologist, weather forecasting is based on a large database of weather systems and their driving factors. He claimed when a system moves through, they predict several outcomes based on not only the conditions but upon historical conditions/outcomes. They are always prepared to adjust the outcome to suit the actuality.

        Climate prediction could prove to be chaotic. A good example is the current three year La Nina. LN and EN are claimed to interchange on a regular basis but the PDO has a say in the matter. Problem is, PDO theory has only been developed since the 1990s. It’s possible this 3 year LN is related to a change in the PDO.

        The current extended LN is creating havoc around the globe. Our rain forest climate here around Vancouver, Canada has not seen much rain for quite some time. Apparently that is related to a system parked along the west coast up to Alaska and seems to be caused by La Nina.

        No doubt it will suddenly switch and we’ll experience flooding, like last November. At least we didn’t have a heat dome parked over us like last summer.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Robertson starts from the premise that control theory does not govern the functioning of a feedback amplifier. However, feedback formulism is of universal application to feedback-moderated dynamical systems, from electronic feedback amplifiers to climate. The principles are the same.

      Mr Robertson seems unaware that a positive feedback does not attenuate the signal: it amplifies it. It is a negative feedback that attenuates it.

      Finally, Mr Robertson says feedback theory cannot be applied in the atmosphere. Then he should address his complaint not to us but to official climatology.

      Before he does so, though, he should examine the position in 1850 as set out in the head posting. There, he will find that if there were no feedback some 20.4 K of the measured temperature in 1850 has no explanation.

      Of course, then, the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Of course, then, the principles of control theory are applicable thereto.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Robertson is fatally muddled. First, feedback formulism in control theory is no less applicable to climate than to any feedback-moderated dynamical system. Of course feedback theory can be applied to the climate system. If he disagrees with that proposition, two conclusions follow. First, he should address his belief not to us but to official climatology, which, like it or not, recognizes that the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Secondly, if there were no feedback response in the system, ECS would be only 1 K, proving our point a fortiori.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      If Mr Robertson imagines feedback theory cannot be applied to the atmosphere, two conclusions follow. First, he should address his complaint to official climatology, where it is “settled science” that the climate is indeed a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Secondly, if there is no feedback response in the climate (and it is very easy to prove that there is, and it is proven in the head posting), then ECS is only 1 K, proving our result a fortiori.

  27. Nick Stokes says:

    “In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.”

    Roy says no, and he is right. Lord M’s assertion here encapsulates the basic error. If the system were in equilibrium in 1850, how does it respond to that “base signal”? Does it get warmer because of it? And go on warming forever? What would stop it?

    It might be perturbed from equilibrium in 1850, and respond proportionally to the perturbation. But that is not a response to the base signal.

    The fact is, as Roy says, insofar as the state in 1850 is in balance, it is so including the effect of the Sun shining (or the emission temperature). No further response is required, or could in fact be sustained.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      If you want to REALLY understand why back radiation from the cold troposphere does NOT cause heat into the already-warmer surface (and so both Spencer and Monckton are wrong) you have only to read my peer-reviewed 2012 paper at

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2883465
      (over 2,800 Abstract views)

      and

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317997916_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

      (over 1050 reads)

      • Willard says:

        > The fact is, as Roy says, insofar as the state in 1850 is in balance, it is so including the effect of the Sun shining (or the emission temperature). No further response is required, or could in fact be sustained.

        Crickets.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Stokes has little understanding either of control theory or of the number-theoretic closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers of a variable <1. Were he to understand these concepts, he would appreciate that at an equilibrium, such as 1850, the feedback processes then extant had done their work, the feedback response was fully evident, and the system had resettled to equilibrium.

      Of course our result is a threat to the Communist Party line on the climate question, to which Mr Stokes has been handsomely paid to adhere. But Mr Stokes makes a fool of himself by trying to muddy what are actually quite clear waters. The infinite series of powers was the first of the number-theoretic infinite series for which the closed-form solution was fond and proven, some 200 years ago.

      Mr Stokes needs to do some reading before he makes a fool of himself any further.

      • Nick Stokes says:

        “Mr Stokes has little understanding either of control theory or of the number-theoretic closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers of a variable <1."
        In fact, my PhD was in the mathematics of control theory. The sum of a geometric progression has nothing to do with number theory, which is about integers.

        “Were he to understand these concepts, he would appreciate that at an equilibrium, such as 1850, the feedback processes then extant had done their work, the feedback response was fully evident, and the system had resettled to equilibrium.”
        Exactly so. That has been my point all along. The reference temperature, and whatever other state variables you like to think about, have been balanced. They are not providing a signal which can then be fed back. That is what happens to new perturbations.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Stokes has insufficient knowledge of either control theory or the underlying number-theoretic concept of the closed-form solution to the sum of successive powers of a feedback fraction <1 that is the feedback loop.

      Roy Spencer, insofar as he had been misled by intrusive but ill-informed third parties about our result behind the scenes, came to the incorrect conclusion that at a given moment the feedback processes then subsisting do not, at that moment, respond equally to each unit of the reference signal, regardless of whether the unit in question is a unit of the base signal or a unit of the perturbation signal.

      However, in a control-theoretically simple dynamical system such as the climate, where there is no differencer to force feedback processes to respond differently to the base signal and the perturbation signal, it is a truism that at any given moment the feedback processes then subsisting must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, without distinction.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        I am sorry that some of my comments here are appearing twice. Intermittently the rather rickety comment operating system appears to have deleted the posts: then it restores them again.

    • Christopher Game says:

      Referring to Nick’s post of October 6, 2022 at 12:26 AM.

      I agree with Roy and Nick on this point.

  28. angech says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    October 6, 2022 at 12:26 AM

    In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature.
    If the system were in equilibrium in 1850, how does it respond to that base signal? Does it get warmer because of it? And go on warming forever? What would stop it?
    Thank you Nick for shooting CO2 warming in the foot.
    If feedbacks must, that is beautiful, at any given moment respond equally to each CO2 you rule outfee3dbacks for CO2 as well.

    Look, it is a long time since I read the arcane musings of Christopher but the message I thought was implicit was that previous changes were always being incorporated into the current assumed settings.
    I’m probably wrong but if right it would mean you have not bothered to read his past work when carping about and like me , not have come up to speed on his current statement.
    That would not be like you so I can only assume you are deliberately misrepresenting him?

    Sorry Willard,
    Nick gets a bit emotional with attention.

  29. Gordon Robertson says:

    angech…”Or one could say since the uncertainty is so extreme that James Hansen obviously made it all up?”

    ***

    I think Hansen got waylaid by Sagan’s theory that the atmosphere of Venus is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That has been disproved since the surface temperature of Venus was measured by a probe to be about 450 C. There is no way an atmosphere like that of Venus could transfer heat to such a hot surface.

    BTW…Velikovsky predicted that. People can regard him as a nutter all they want but that theory he got right. Besides, his theories are entertaining. You don’t have to believe them to enjoy them.

    Hansen was sold on Sagan’s theory and tried to apply it to Earth’s atmosphere and increasing levels of CO2. Problem is, a real greenhouse does not warm due to trapped CO2, you could remove all the CO2 and water vapour from a real greenhouse and it would still warm the same amount.

    A real greenhouse heats when SW solar heats soil and infrastructure through the glass and heated air molecules trying to rise are trapped by the greenhouse glass. There is no way trapped infrared will raise the temperature of a greenhouse with the piddly amount of WV and CO2 in the air. So, Hansen’s theory was wrong from the start because he bought into Sagan’s theory about Venus, and the theory was wrong.

    To make the theory work, Hansen had to alter science as we know it, and NASA GISS carries on with the same propaganda today created by Hansen.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      Yes, well explained Gordon as to why radiative forcing is garbage

      BUT

      What is YOUR explanation (and quantification) for the observed global mean surface temperature – after reading my comment above at
      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375948 ????

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        In response to “Cot’n”, even if radiative forcing is “garbage” that is off topic here. GO and complain to IPCC.

    • angech says:

      An atmosphere is warmer with GHG in it.
      Full stop.
      W

      • Swenson says:

        A surface is hotter without GHG at all.

        Moon.

        • angech says:

          No.
          One step at a time.
          Cold surface.

          • angech says:

            No.
            One step at a time.
            Cold surface.
            Turn on the sun.
            Hot surface.
            Moon or earth.
            Black-body temperature (K) Moon 270.4 Earth 254.0
            Why ?
            Because the albedo of the earth being higher means less energy gets to the earths surface layer.
            They both get the same energy as they are the same distance from the sun.
            Get up in the morning and breathe in some of that 254 K air.
            Refreshing is it not?
            Wait.
            What is the temperature on average, on the earth surface?
            Swenson 288K
            That seems somewhat warmer than the moon surface or are you on the Australian part of the earth?+

          • Swenson says:

            Moon max 127 C no GHG.

            Earth max 90 C? GHG.

            Cold?

          • gbaikie says:

            –Swenson says:
            October 6, 2022 at 4:30 AM

            Moon max 127 C no GHG.

            Earth max 90 C? GHG.

            Cold?–

            Earth is cold. 15 C water or air temperature is cold.
            Earth is in an Ice Age.
            If Earth wasn’t in an Ice Age, Earth would still be cold.

            The Moon is not significantly warm or cold. Or space environment
            [or a vacuum] has no temperature.
            So you could standing on 127 C lunar surface and one assumes
            you wearing shoes, therefore rather needing heating, when in
            a spacesuit, regardless of 127 C surface or -100 C surface you need to cool the spacesuit, as the human body generates heat.
            If you were lizard, it would different.
            Also when standing a 127 C lunar surface, one meter below the surface
            it’s around -30 C.
            Or only place in Moon where you have uniform temperature is 1 meter or lower under the lunar surface and that is cold.
            And in that sense Earth is warmer than the Moon.
            But rather than looking at atmosphere, the Earth Ocean has far more heat. And earth ocean is above, the Earth’s rock surface. Or the ocean is the Earth’s surface temperature if one can live in the
            Ocean. The human are too incompetent to live in the ocean is not too important, the ocean is the surface of Earth. And it’s average temperature is about 3.5 C.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            “At its very centre, the Moon has a solid iron core with a temperature of between 1,327C and 1427C.”

            I can explain why. You can’t.

            http://climate-change-theory.com

          • angech says:

            At its very centre, the Moon has a solid iron core with a temperature of between 1,327C and 1427C.

            Not even wrong.

            Scientists speculate

            The core may ( horrible speculative word) have nickel and sulphur in it .
            It may be molten in part.
            It might be made of Ubik
            Or not.

            Explaining why you know so much when others know so little, since they only speculate, is easy to do but impossible to prove.

  30. angech says:

    Some comments.
    Gravity has a relation to temperature and pressure
    It is why the sun is so hot.

    Some truth, wrong assumptions.
    The earth has a lot of innate energy and is cooling,
    Some truth wrong assumptions.
    CO2 and other GHG cause all the temperature changes
    GHG certainly are associated with temperature and pressure changes.
    But which came first?
    Clouds certainly change albedo, as well as having GHG properties.
    Roy is right in saying that cloud changes affect the amount of energy able to enter the earth system and are one of the major players in our temperature changes.

    Christopher Monckton is quite correct in saying that it is scientifically alright to offer a circuit board and feedbacks as an analogy, a way of considering temperature changes on the earth.
    The number of people who disagree with such an obvious, simple and correct fact is incredible.
    All there arguments are facile word twisting.
    Of course he can do it.

    The second point ignored by some is the question of if he is right to take the total energy of the earth into consideration with the smaller energy inputs and feedbacks claimed for CO2.
    Of course he is.
    Hence you will not find any useful comment on this by others
    They cannot refute it so have to deny it by never mentioning it.

    Zeno’s paradox, mentioned, refutes large ECS.
    It does not take hundreds of years for for energy processes to adjust.
    They happen in milliseconds, which is an eternity for energy at the speed of light.
    Feedback process resolve in milliseconds, or shorter.

    The earth’s atmosphere does not say, when a new day arrives, I better put all the energy into the deep ocean and bring out out in a hundred years, rather than warming up to the temperature dictated by the presence of CO2 and H2O when the sun arrives today.

    The earth has an enormous reservoir of energy, which has ever been due to the sun. This energy has always been the remainder of the mass and energy of formation of the earth and the newly forming nuclear.
    The sun provides a small amount of energy to the atmosphere and planet surface which has to go out again.
    This energy is just enough to keep the ocean surface and the land surface warm on the sun side directly and on the dark side by the IR radiated from the lit side.

    Christopher Monckton, as some have pointed out, may not have treated the concept of energy and temperature quite correctly.
    There is a lot of difference in a temperature change from 0-5 Kelvin and 280-285 Kelvin.
    I presume his maths takes this into account but if it does not a 1 degree warming may be a bigger percentage of the energy and hence a higher sensitivity than he calculates.
    I may have misread him.

    Like a lot of other commentators on ECS different pet theories, all of them have elements of truth and should all link together whether we describe the energy flows as circuits, turbulent flow [which can not be seen when reduced to Laplace equations [pp], gravity or pressure.

    Roy provides a unique perspective which I think is absolutely correct for what he is describing in terms of albedo.

    Its relationship to everyone else’s concept of ECS is relevant because it is a separate way of trying to assess the problem.
    I think I would like Christopher’s putative explanation but it is a little too deep for me.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      It is a delight to read Angech’s comment, because, unlike the trolls that are handsomely paid to disrupt these threads, he has done his best to understand what we are saying, and then has the courage to say he agrees with most of it.

      He remains hung up on just one point of substance: his suggestion that “there is a lot of difference in a temperature change from 0-5 K and 280-285 K”.

      That potential objection is easily dealt with. We do not need to go back further than 1850. At that time, the reference temperature, the sum of the 259.6 K emission temperature that would be present without greenhouse gases and the 8 K reference sensitivity to preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases, was 267.1 K. The equilibrium temperature was 287.5 K. Therefore, the system-gain factor was 287.5 / 267.1, or less than 1.08.

      Today’s temperature is about 288.5 K. So it is easy to see that the perturbation compared with 1850 is minuscule. That is one of many reasons why it is likely that ECS based on the equilibrium in 1850, which was indeed 1.1 K, may well continue to prevail today.

      Certainly, the increase of little more than a third of a percentage point in global mean surface temperature since 1850 has only warmed the world to date at about one-third of the originally-predicted decadal rate, suggesting that there has been no net change in the total feedback strength and thus in the system-gain factor and thus in ECS since 1850.

      • angech says:

        CM
        Thank you for your response and further explanation.
        One of the best parts of your articles and replies is that you do address the queries that other people raise.
        Climate Sensitivity is an extremely relevant and controversial part at the nub of a lot of the issues.
        The reason their are a lot of the usual people who defend high sensitivity lined up here attacking you personally rather than the science they claim to espouse is the fact that their range of values is so wide and so unsure as to be meaningless.
        .
        You can take it as a mark of respect when you get attention from so many including the mathematically astute but ideologically malaligned crew who ditch their objectivity rather than their biases.

        I see you and Roy come to the same conclusion in different ways.
        His point may be more on the uncertainty range in climate models being too large to allow meaningful detection and comment on human effects on climate change sensitivity.
        I may be wrong.
        His criticism of your method of estimating climate sensitivity may be along the lines of well if one set of assumptions cannot prove it then another ste of assumptions should not be able to do so with the great error range

        Ie the problem is intractable in his view.
        I may be wrong.

        The greatest argument for a low climate sensitivity is the survival of life for several billion years.
        If the system has a high sensitivity the there have been enough genuine events to cause a runaway high temperature scenario in the past that we could not be here now.

        Im sure Roy has access to a number of great mathematical and physical minds at coffee breaks at the university of Alabama.
        Perhaps some of them might discuss your views with him and validate it or not.

  31. Swenson says:

    Gravity – under 10 km of 1000 atm. or so, water, temperature is just above freezing. Enormous pressure, not much heating, is there?

    Air temperatures vary widely on Earth – say plus or minus 50 C. 1 atm pressure, gravity has little variation.

    The Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years or so.

    Christopher Monckton does not know what he is talking about, and so resorts to irrelevant analogies.

    You may disagree with Fourier, who pointed out that during the night, the Earth loses all the heat it received during the day, plus a little of its primordial heat. I’ll wager you have to resort to either magic or pointless and irrelevant analogy to support your disagreement.

    Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

    By the way, the Sun is an uncontrolled fusion reactor, somewhat constrained by gravitational forces. The gravitational force is not creating the heat.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      No law in physics says high pressure maintains high temperatures.

      Cooling from many trillions of degrees I take it, seeing that the dark side can cool 10 degrees in 12 hours ???????

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      And Swenson, precisely how does the Earth “receive” all the necessary thermal energy (for which you incorrectly use the word “heat”) during the day? Not all by radiation to the surface my friend, as the laws of physics tell us could not be the case. But there is never any physics in your comments, so I guess you don’t understand the process of maximum entropy production which we physicists abbreviate MEP.

      Why should I believe an assertive statement by Fourier? If he were right there would be no upward trend in any of Roy’s monthly graphs.

      You’ll learn how the Earth’s surface (and that of Venus) “receives” the necessary thermal energy if you read my 2013 paper on planet core and surface temperatures – well at least 70 silent readers will learn, because more than that have clicked my links to it in the last 48 hours. Thank you for the opportunity to link it once more ….

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

      or

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905

      • Swenson says:

        Dug,

        What are you babbling about?

        The Earth was created as a big molten blob. It has cooled to its present state. If you dont want to accept reality, be my guest. Be as delusional as you like.

        You wrote –

        “And Swenson, precisely how does the Earth “receive” all the necessary thermal energy (for which you incorrectly use the word heat) during the day? Not all by radiation to the surface my friend, as the laws of physics tell us could not be the case.”

        What necessary thermal energy are you talking about? The Earth has been losing energy for four and a half billion years or so, and nothing at ll stopped it. maybe you dont accept that big molten blobs in space can get colder, but thats because you are delusional.

        Your “heat creep” is just specious nonsense – a product of your imagination, unless you can provide experimental support, which you cant. Banging on about Venus or anything else wont turn fantasy into fact.

        Accept reality.

        • Retired Physicist says:

          Reality is that when the surface beneath your feet starts to get warmer on a clear sunny morning (or even under thick cloud cover) it is because there is an input of energy which increases the kinetic energy of molecules and thus causes the warming. On a relatively small portion of the Earth’s surface the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface supplies some or all of that energy, but for most of the surface (and all of the Venus surface) the required energy needed to raise the surface temperature that morning comes from the non-radiative process I called heat creep which can only happen in a force field.

          http://climate-change-theory.com

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      And so when the Earth (with its existing atmosphere) was, say, at Venus temperatures (about 735K) radiating about 16,500w/m^2 you and Fourier apparently think the Sun’s radiation (being only a very small fraction of that outward radiation) would somehow be capable of warming it back up during the day by nearly as much as it cooled with that 16,500w/m^2 during the night. In fact it would be still cooling on the sunlit side my friend.

      You really don’t think about what “famous” people bluff you into believing, do you?

      You and silent readers can learn why Venus is still much hotter than Earth, and it’s not just because it receives about twice as much solar radiation at the very top of its atmosphere. I have been first in the world to correctly explain the quantification of the Venus surface temperature and how the necessary thermal energy gets down there. It’s not a good idea to assume I’m wrong, but there is AU$10,000 for the first to do so.

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      And of what relevance was your last sentence “The gravitational force is not creating the heat.” ???? No force CREATES energy. That’s basic physics.

      (Actually, because Jupiter is collapsing there is a CONVERSION of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy which explains why measurements show more outward radiation than inward.)

      But none of this is remotely relevant to my 2013 paper which is what you cannot prove wrong. You certainly won’t do so with assertive statements, irrelevant statements or calls to authority, so don’t bother to write to me again – just post your paper refuting what is actually in my paper on Researchgate because only any such attempts at refutation will be considered and responded to, pointing out the errors their authors have made.

      CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON also cannot prove me wrong, nor can the CSIRO in Australia whose CEO is aware of my research. But I can prove them wrong.

      • Swenson says:

        Dug,

        You havent produced any experimental evidence to support your “heat creep” nonsense.

        Maybe if you state the phenomenon which you claim cannot be explained using current physical laws, and then propose a testable hypothesis, you will be able to devise experiments to support your hypothesis.

        At the moment, your assertions are back up by precisely nothing, and do not eve address the possibility that the Earth was created in a molten state.

        So carry on appealing to your own authority.

        In the meantime, more than seven billion people apparently dont value your speculations any more highly than I.

        • Retired Physicist says:

          “You havent produced any experimental evidence to support your heat creep nonsense.”

          What a joke coming from you who hasn’t read a word of my seven papers nor my website which presents the evidence you mistakenly claim I haven’t provided.

          http://climate-change-theory.com

        • Retired Physicist says:

          And a second joke: “which you claim cannot be explained using current physical laws,”

          Heat creep is proven to be a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my 2013 paper which is about core and surface temperatures.

          https://ssrn.com/author=2627605

    • angech says:

      Swenson.
      There is a lot of heating there at that pressure.
      Freezing of water is different to the coldness or freezing of -273 K.
      No sun down there yet at that pressure it is 273 K warm.
      How if there is no heat around?
      Note I do not say gravity is a heat source.
      I said there is a relationship between pressure temperature and gravity.

      Air temperatures vary widely due to the sun primarily at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
      1000 atmospheres of pressure keeps water from freezing solid.

      The earth has been cooling for four billion years .
      Ok.
      Still has a lot of momentum mass being transformed into energy.
      In the early parts it might have been heating up as cold space mass debris collided and aggregated.
      Christopher Monckton is a very smart man, as is Roy.
      It would not seem smart to disparage either of them.

      You commit the same error as the physicist re interpreting Fourier.
      The earth loses energy that it creates now due to its primordial input.
      Shades of Dylan Dog.
      It does not selectively lose heat from a dark side that it gained during the day
      It lose the heat much more from the day side.
      A lot less from the night side and what it loses during the night is the energy conveyed by IR constantly through the atmosphere at night from the day side.
      Yes it puts out all the energy that it is given from the sun and 2.7 K from space every 24 hours.

      The sun is a fusion reactor because at the enormous pressures generated by its mass {gravity} there is an associated temperature which is enough to initiate and continue said fusion reactions.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Swenson yet again resorts to mere yah-boo. The control theorists on my team have all the relevant experience, so that it cannot be fairly said they do not know what they are talking about. He shuold cease to waste any further time on trying to disrupt these threads. He is not up to the job.

  32. Clint R says:

    This is like arguing over the color of unicorns. Are they pink or purple?

    There are no unicorns.

    There is no “feedback” to CO2, because there is no “forcing” from CO2. CO2 “forcing” would require that CO2 add more energy to the system. CO2 does NOT add more energy to the system.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      Yes Clint – all so-called “greenhouse” gases cause the global mean surface temperature to be COOLER but only the extent to which water vapor does so is measurable in practice, as in this study …

      http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg

      The full methodology and data are in the Appendix of my 2013 paper linked above and in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon – but don’t feel you have to buy the book because it is only a summary of the paper in simplified language.

    • Willard says:

      Arguing over unicorns is nothing, Pup.

      Wait till you argue with Graham over anything.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Well, Little Willy…it’s your own fault. You choose to argue with me over things that I literally know that I’m right about. Like this:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1368998

        I argued what Entropic Man said in those quotes, you ferociously argued against me, for months. I was right. You now acknowledge that it is correct. You even pretend you never argued against it!

        Then there’s the moon issue. bob believes that the “moon on the left” in the below GIF cannot be described as rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating about an internal axis. I argued that it can. You supported bob, for months, even though I was right, again. The MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis, whilst not rotating on its own internal axis. Once again, you even agree with that, now. Or in fact you would probably say you agreed from the very beginning. So why you spent months arguing against me, who knows?

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

        Similarly with my argument that the moon issue transcends reference frames. There are people commenting here who believe the moon issue is simply resolved by a choice of reference frame. Those people are wrong. Yet, once again, you have supported them whenever the argument arises. If you keep choosing losing battles, don’t be surprised when you get beat.

        • Willard says:

          So now it’s my own fault if you can’t take the L, Graham? That’s just great.

          You are still wrong about what EM said, and what that implies:

          https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1368227

          He accepts averages. You don’t. In fact, you don’t even get that my push-and-pulls were there to make spell your misunderstanding of them. You still are clinging to the fact that making the Earth spin will dispense it from requiring greenhouse gases.

          As for Bob, you also still fail to understand what he’s saying. You simply can’t understand a “by your logic” argument even if your life depended on it.

          73 months of obdurate trolling like that.

          Well done, and welcome back!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "You are still wrong about what EM said, and what that implies"

            Wrong.

            "He accepts averages. You don’t."

            Wrong.

            "In fact, you don’t even get that my push-and-pulls were there to make spell your misunderstanding of them."

            Nonsense.

            "You still are clinging to the fact that making the Earth spin will dispense it from requiring greenhouse gases."

            Am I?

            "As for Bob, you also still fail to understand what he’s saying."

            Wrong.

            "You simply can’t understand a “by your logic” argument even if your life depended on it."

            Wrong.

          • Willard says:

            Quote fests are for losers, Graham.

            Find another technique.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Everything you said was a lie. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            Incorrect, Graham.

            You were trolling before I arrived here, and you still have to clean the Sky Dragon Cranks room with Gordo, Pup, and Mike.

            I award you no point and may God have mercy on your soul.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            No U, dearest Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            You can say that again, cute boy.

            Prove my point.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #3

            You are simply human filth.

          • Swenson says:

            Willard,

            Please stop trolling

          • Willard says:

            Thank you, Graham.

            Perhaps one more time?

            Just to make sure I win again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, you win the “who’s the pettiest” competition.

          • Willard says:

            Read that sub thread again, Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #4

            You are simply human filth.

          • Norman says:

            DREMT

            I was reading your past exchange between you and Willard. You support the crackpot lunatic Joe Postma (sorry he sucked you in with his nonsense). You claim he has many things against GHE and so do others. Then you claim only one has to be right. Well NONE of these idiots are right. Postma has a little cult following on a small blog that he keeps any intelligence away by banning anyone other than loyal cult “bootlickers”

            You say you a thinking person. I will accept that. I will show you evidence that proves Postma and all others are idiots and wrong. There is no convincing them otherwise. Hopefully facts have meaning in your mind.

            Here:

            https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-dni-2018-01.jpg

            If you look at the units in this graph you can convert them to W/m^2 and this graph is for actual average solar energy reaching the surface in those areas, used to determine how much solar energy is available in any given location.

            The highest numbers are above 312 W/m^2 and the lowest are less than 166.7 w/m^2.

            These values are real and all you get from the Sun. This energy can be used to turn into electricity, grow plants, or heat the surface. It is far less than 480 average you believe. These solar graphs do not take have the loss by albedo, they are just measuring how much energy can reach the surface. With a loss from albedo effect the numbers above would each be about 23 w/m^2 less than what can be used by solar cells. Give up on the cult of science deniers who think GHE is false. They are the same as the Flat Earth morons. They reject evidence and facts and are highly unscientific to the core. Science is based upon evidence and facts, that is it foundation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “If you look at the units in this graph you can convert them to W/m^2 and this graph is for actual average solar energy reaching the surface in those areas, used to determine how much solar energy is available in any given location.

            The highest numbers are above 312 W/m^2 and the lowest are less than 166.7 w/m^2.”

            Yes, presumably because they are averaged over a day or longer.

            The 480 W/m^2 that Entropic Man agreed on is the incoming flux received by the lit hemisphere at any given moment.

            As you are well aware, actual values of solar energy reaching the surface can be in excess of 1,000 W/m^2 at some locations at some times of the day.

          • Willard says:

            So beautifully resounding unresponsiveness, Graham.

            The Earth cannot receive more than it emits. Ask me why.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and the Earth is not receiving more than it emits, with 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere, and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere. As Entropic Man explains:

            “Fluxes do not have to balance.

            For example, the incoming energy from the Sun is absorbed by the dayside half of Earth’s surface. The outgoing energy is radiated from the entire surface area. For a stable climate incoming total energy and outgoing total energy should be equal.

            Since the incoming energy warms half the surface while outgoing energy radiates from the whole surface, you would expect the incoming flux to be twice the outgoing flux.”

            and

            “The simplest way to calculate the total incoming energy is to start with a disc the diameter of the Earth uniformly illuminated with 960 W/m^2.

            The daylight hemisphere receives 960W/m^2 at the subsolar point and nothing at the terminator. Because it has twice the area of the disc the dayside receives an average flux of 960/2 = 480W/m^2.

            Outgoing radiation transmits the same total energy to space from the whole of Earth’s surface, though intensity will vary with local temperature.

            Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2.”

          • Willard says:

            Nothing to do with what Norman said, Graham.

            You are just using his comment as an excuse to return to your old ways.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I was responding to your comment, “the Earth cannot receive more than it emits”. I had already responded to Norman. He had nothing to say in response, so I guess that’s that.

          • Willard says:

            You are not really responding to my comment either, Graham.

            You are using it as a springboard.

            Good afternoon, BTW.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All you have to offer are false accusations. That’s partly why “you are simply human filth”.

          • Willard says:

            My observation that you have not been responsive to Norman is clearly true, Graham. So is my observation that you have been using my comment as a springboard.

            As if you were trolling or something.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Both are false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            Both are true observations, and your denial only proves one thing –

            you are trolling right now, Graham.

            Please desist.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …are false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            Trolls repeat the same comments over and over again, Graham.

            A responsive comment would acknowledge that if the Earth emits 240W/m^2 on average, it can’t receive more than 240W/m^2 on average.

            Which means that Norman is right – Joe is running a con.

            See how much we can accomplish with forthrightness?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            Thank you once again for proving that you are the worst troll here, Graham.

            Slimy, vindictive, and tone-deaf.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            No you were not responsive to Norman, Graham, for he asked you to make an inference that you did not make. Instead you plugged your current vendetta, which you also pretend is responsive to my comment, which is clearly false.

            If the Earth cannot receive more than 240W/m^2 on average, Joe is running a con, for he claims that his savant accounting allows him to bypass that limitation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            Being responsive to Norman is telling how Sky Dragon cranks such as Joe can bypass the Earth emission limits, Graham.

            This is where you have to show courage and tell him about how second by second the Earth spins, therefore greenhouse gases are not needed.

            Courage, Graham. Ever heard of that?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

          • Willard says:

            Looks like you’re rediscovering how to duplicate your comment by changing a letter, Graham.

            Just like Mike did recently.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

            [this is a good demonstration of what Little Willy is. He just keeps going, even though he knows he is only going to keep receiving the same comment over and over again. He is the purest troll you will ever encounter, driven entirely by sheer, relentless, malevolence]

          • Willard says:

            (A very good demonstration indeed. Graham whiffs the same weak jabs while I keep adding to the score.)

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.

    • Norman says:

      Clint R

      Your post is incorrect. You are making a false statement in need of proper logical and scientific correction. In thousands of posts you have made you never actually stop and think about anything. You just post on and on.

      YOU: “There is no feedback to CO2, because there is no forcing from CO2. CO2 forcing would require that CO2 add more energy to the system. CO2 does NOT add more energy to the system.”

      Incorrect. CO2 causes forcing because it reduces the rate heat leaves the surface. With the same input energy the temperature rises until the rate of surface heat loss is increased to the point it is equal to the solar incoming energy.

      You are not capable of logically understanding this. People have explained it is like insulation, you deep adding the same input heat but reduce the outgoing heat and the temperature goes up until the outgoing heat equals the input heat.

      It is not physics you need to study. You need to learn logical thinking. I tried to help you on this but you refused. I guess you hate rational logical thinking in preference of your cult thinking process, (Declare something true and it is…you did mention unicorns. It is how you actually think, magical and illogical). I suggested you play Sudoku or other logic games to help you with your limited logic abilities.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, you keep regurgitating your same cult nonsense, hoping something will stick. Logic is NOT logic if it’s built on a false premise. Your premise results in ice being able to boil water. That ain’t reality.

        You understand neither logic, not physics.

        Found any valid technical reference for all your previous nonsense yet?

  33. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    While Dr Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton futilely argued about how climate sensitivity is calculated from climate models, this happened…

    Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, has just adopted an oil and gas exit policy. Munich Re underwrites 13% of the global economy so this sends a strong message to insurers, energy companies and governments still considering new fossil fuel infrastructure.

    …as of 1 April 2023 Munich Re will no longer invest in or insure contracts/projects exclusively covering the planning, financing, construction or operation of:

    1.- new oil and gas fields, where as at 31 December 2022 no prior production has taken place; or

    2.- new midstream infrastructure related to oil, which have not yet been under construction or operation as at 31 December 2022 and
    new oil fired power plants, which have not yet been under construction or operation as at 31 December 2022

    Furthermore, in its own listed equities & corporates portfolio, as of 1 April 2023, Munich Re will cease to conduct new direct investments in pure-play Oil & Gas companies. As of 1 January 2025, Munich Re will require a credible commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 including corresponding short- and mid-term milestones from listed integrated O&G companies with the highest relative and absolute emissions.

    https://tinyurl.com/New-Oil-and-Gas-Inv

    Exxon will not be pleased.

    • Tim S says:

      One definition of insanity is to eliminate a source of energy without a valid replacement. Just exactly how many new solar panels and wind turbines do we need to replace fossil fuels? The bigger question is how much energy will be needed to replace solar panels that lose their efficiency over time and wind turbines that wear out?

      • Russell Seitz says:

        The bigger question has already answered itself.
        Extant solar power – over a terawatt globally, already dwarfs the energy requirements of global elemental silicon and photovoltaic panel production combined.

        I suspect the same is true of wind power , and in both cases economies of scale continue to grow- perhaps you can investigate and give us some stats.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Paraphrasing professor Wally Broecker:

        Burning fossil fuels is not bad; what is bad is dumping the waste into the atmosphere. There is a direct analogy to eating food, which is also not a bad thing. When we burn food in our bodies, we create waste too, and for centuries we simply dumped it wherever we liked. We endured not just foul smells but epidemics of typhoid fever and cholera until eventually we built sewers and sewage treatment plants.

        We need to figure out how to build the equivalent of a sewage system for carbon dioxide.

        Cleaning up sewage is a big job. A lot of the infrastructure for doing so, which we now take for granted, is more recent than young people might realize. In America, most sewage still flowed raw into rivers and the sea as late as the 1960s.

        In the mid-nineteenth century, when the first municipal sewers were being built in America, there were plenty of sewage skeptics. For a while the science demonstrating the connection between sewage and disease remained uncertain.

        Even after the science was settled, however, and even after many thousands of people had died, some people still argued vehemently that the good old cesspools were good enough. But eventually the sewage skeptics faded away, a few no doubt from cholera and typhoid fever. People in the United States, as in other developed countries, came to accept that they had no fundamental right to dump their waste where they pleased, and that they should be willing to pay to dispose of it properly.

        • Russell Seitz says:

          Where did Wally publish this reasonable view?

          Do send a copy to Lord Lawson !

        • Clint R says:

          Wow, comparing CO2 to sewage! That’s REAL desperation.

          When the science isn’t on your side, go with fear-mongering. It works every time.

        • Monckton of Brenchley says:

          Broecker’s argument is not quantitative. It is not, therefore, scientific. It is a political opinion. Since we cannot abate more than 3/8 degree of global warming by 2050 even if the whole world moves in a straight line to net zero emissions by then. And that is before correcting both climatology’s error and McKinsey’s costings. Before correction, each $1 billion we spend will abate a millionth of a degree of global warming. After correction, make that a five-millionth of a degree, and only 1/7 degree would be abated by 2050 anyway.

          The fact that Broecker has made no attempt to carry out the elementary calculations underlying the above figures shows how howlingly unreasonable his opinion is. It is mere virtue-signaling.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            “I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to a small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.”

            It sounds as if you are not familiar with Professor Broecker’s work. Your loss! Here, educate yourself: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LmaL6okAAAAJ

          • Retired Physicist says:

            Dear Lord Monckton

            You simply can’t say this: “Before correction, each $1 billion we spend will abate a millionth of a degree of global warming.”

            That’s because you have no valid way of quantifying the observed global mean surface temperature using radiation calculations.

            You cannot add the flux of back radiation to the solar radiation and then use the sum (less non-radiative surface cooling) in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Radiation simply does not work that way. My peer-reviewed 2012 paper explains why.

            You should agree that if you don’t have the function (or method) of correctly explaining surface temperatures then neither do you have the function (or method) to quantify any increase or decrease in that surface temperature. But that is what climatologists think they can do using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations when they simply don’t apply. A cheap experiment confirms what I am saying.

            The missing energy needed to supplement the solar radiation to the surface is a non-radiative heat process which only occurs in force fields. Its existence is proven and, by the way, it provides the only correct explanation for temperatures and heat on Venus and other planets as well – not just for Earth.

            You can read the proof here:
            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905

        • Willard says:

          > Cleaning up sewage is a big job.

          I’m doing my part.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …to create it in the first place.

          • Willard says:

            You, Pup, Gordo, and Mike were here first, Graham.

            Only one of them still has his nick, and it is not you.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, we were here first, clearing up the mess made by people like you.

            Nothing new.

          • Willard says:

            You were here before I was, Graham, and it was a mess.

            Time flies like an arrow and fruitcakes become sockpuppets.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, people like Fatvid App.ell made it a mess, before…but he eventually got banned. He was arguably the biggest troll on here. Then you showed up.

          • Willard says:

            I already told you, Graham –

            You are the troll. I am the slayer.

            Why are your tears so salty?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, you say that often…most here recognize you as a troll though, whatever they might think of me.

          • Willard says:

            If you really cared about what people say, delicate Graham, you would have returned to the land of Sky Dragon Cranks a long time ago.

            It is almost 3 AM where you are. Get some sleep.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, exactly, so obviously I don’t care what people say about me. The point I was making is that they say you are a troll. Try to focus – this is about you, not me, for a change. It is widely acknowledged and understood that you are a troll.

            No, it is not 3 am where I am. Perhaps you don’t know where I am, after all, you creepy little freak?

          • Willard says:

            I did not say that it was 3 AM, dearest. Your eyes must be getting heavy. And the point I’m making is that you’re an opportunistic, manipulative, and toxic.

            The three main trolls of this website are Pup, Mike, and you.

            Gordo is more like a fixture, forced to spend his evenings here because the Canadian health system fails him.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It is not past 3 AM now. It was not “almost 3 AM” when you said it was “almost 3 AM”. You are completely out with the time at my location. You are wrong, Willard.

            You are one of the main trolls here. Your self awareness is zero.

          • Willard says:

            Soon enough it will be 3AM, Graham. But I said almost, which was indefinite enough not to reveal anything. And it gave you some time to bring this sterile exchange to a halt, something that always takes an eternity with you.

            If you do not care about what people think of you, why should anyone care about what you think of otters?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s not a question of what I think of others, Little Willy. It’s really nothing to do with me at all. Why can’t you get that? It’s about you, not me.

            Many here have pointed out that you’re a troll. Because that’s what you are.

          • Willard says:

            Well, Graham, you did mention self-awareness, and you keep refusing to admit that you are trolling.

            Perhaps you could tell us whos not trolling here. According to your PSTs, that must not include many commenters.

            Oh, and hurry up to respond! Tick tock, tick tock ⌛

          • Ken says:

            We’d be much better off without your pointless maunderings, troll.

          • Willard says:

            I love you too, Kennui.

            <3

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            I asked you a question, Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …and I will never answer any of your questions, ever again. You have wasted enough of my time. Thank you.

          • Willard says:

            You actually just did, Graham. In the other thread where you failed to be responsive to Norman.

            That is, you pretend to have responded to my comment.

            You are not answering my question because you will have to admit that you are not PSTing most of the trolls here.

            Do you at least know what is a honey trap?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I said I wouldn’t answer your questions, not that I wouldn’t respond. Anything to do with who I ask to stop trolling is utterly irrelevant. This sub-thread has nothing to do with me, at all. It is entirely about you. You are a troll. It’s as simple as that.

          • Willard says:

            Asking you who you think is trolling is quite relevant, Graham.

            Perhaps it’d be easier the other way around –

            Who do you think is not trolling here?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are a troll. It’s as simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            You did you say I was a troll, Graham.

            You said I was the worst one.

            So you have a troll chart somewhere.

            Where is it, and is Tim on it?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …are a troll. It’s as simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Where’s your troll chart, Chartmaster?

            Perhaps you can opine on bdgwx – is he a troll?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …a troll. It’s as simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Repeating the same thing over and over again is what Dug does, Graham. It is also what you do too. In both cases this is trolling.

            And that creates health problems for you.

            How about Norman – is he trolling?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …troll. It’s as simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Read this comment by Nick Stokes, Graham:

            The fact is, as Roy says, insofar as the state in 1850 is in balance, it is so including the effect of the Sun shining (or the emission temperature). No further response is required, or could in fact be sustained.

            Is this trolling?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …It’s as simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            So Graham seals himself into his usual schizoid scheme.

            Other readers might appreciate how he constantly ignores his fellow’s trolling:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376896

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …as simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            When was the last time that Graham asked Mike Flynn to stop trolling?

            I do not recall he ever did.

            Some Troll Detector, that Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …simple as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Has our Troll Detector ever asked Dug to stop trolling?

            I bet not. It somehow helps him.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …as that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

          • Willard says:

            Not a very good Troll Detector, that Graham.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …that.

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

    • Clint R says:

      “…as of 1 April 2023…”

      At least they picked an appropriate date….

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Munich Re have long been too close to Communism for comfort. Their virtue-signaling will cost them dear as new coal, oil and gas opportunities are developed worldwide once people realize that windmills and solar panels don’t work on still nights.

      Discussion between scientific researchers is, in any event, not futile. Roy and I have been discussing this matter on and off for a year or two now. It is debate that leads to the truth, not the enforcement of a Party Line by Munich Re or any other corporate shills for Communism.

      • Willard says:

        > Munich Re have long been too close to Communism for comfort.

        Drink!

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        However, you are not formally trained in science, no?

      • Retired Physicist says:

        .

        .

        .

        MONCKTON’S “PHYSICS” IS WRONG,
        .
        as is that of Pierrehumbert and other climatology writers.

        .
        .
        .
        That’s because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not give valid temperatures for the sum of radiative fluxes from different sources.

        If I place an electric bar radiator at a certain distance such that it just warms my cheek to a comfortable 315K, then, according to climatology “science” sixteen such radiators should roast me at double the temperature, namely 630K.

        They don’t. I’d stake my life on it.

        Study NASA’s energy diagram and my comment below it …

        http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Tyson, please stop trolling.

  34. D'ug Cott'n says:

    How we can calculate expected global mean surface temperatures for any planet with an atmosphere is summarised in this comment above:

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251

    Applicants for the AU$10,000 reward need to read that first and post their attempt at refutation on the scientific website for Researchgate having studied my 2013 paper or my book.

  35. D'ug Cott'n says:

    PS: ALl would do well to read this comment ..

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376267

    My future responses need only to be links to comments already written on this thread, so I suggest that anyone wishing to write to me first read all such comments or, preferably, my papers and website http://climate-change-theory.com already visited by over 51,900.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nia is working and will continue to work.
    “Recent downpours have pushed Sydney, Australia, to its wettest year on record, as more than 7 feet (2,134 mm) of rain has inundated the region so far in 2022.
    On Friday morning local time, Sydney’s Observatory Hill weather station recorded more than 87 inches (2,200 mm) of rain since January 1, 2022, eclipsing the previous annual record of 86 inches (2,194 mm) set 72 years ago in 1950. A deluge that unleashed more than 3.50 inches (91 mm) of rain across the city Thursday morning into Friday was responsible for stamping a new mark in the weather history books. Weather records have been kept on Observation Hill since 1858.
    To put that amount of rain into perspective, Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, averages about 39 inches (1,000 mm) a year.”

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Palmowski points out the record rainfall in Australia. But when I was there a decade ago a “Professor” Tim Flannery was telling anyone who would listen that because of global warming there would never be water in the Murray-Darling Basin ever again.

      • Swenson says:

        M,

        Rather like the idiot Met Office wanker Dr David Viner (PhD and all – how smart must he be) who said “children just arent going to know what snow is” some years ago.

        Just before record snowfalls closed Heathrow Airport, and the operators had sold much of their snow clearing equipment as a result of the Met Office prediction.

        Dr Tim Flannery, (another PhD – just as smart as Viner), said in 2007, even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems. After that, record flooding, dams overtopping, whole towns underwater, people dying – whod have thought?

        What a pair of donkeys!

  37. D'ug Cott'n says:

    And I have refuted Monckton of Brenchley in this comment above:

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376333

  38. Gloria says:

    I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px310~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
    the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com

  39. Retired Physicist says:

    And this question will tie Monckton in knots – just watch! I repeat it below:-

    So do you Lord Monckton, accept the false Climatology claims that

    (1) the troposphere without IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases would have been isothermal (or tended towards that state) rather than tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient, as first explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s and proven to be correct with valid physics supported by experiments and data throughout the Solar System.

    (2) that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the correct temperature that could be achieved by two or more sources of radiation using the arithmetic sum of the relevant fluxes, despite the obvious fact that the combination of the two Planck functions would not have the required peak wavelength as would a single source in accord with Wien’s Displacement Law and the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is derived from the integral of a single Planck function and only ever applies for a single source, as simple experiments confirm.

    • Swenson says:

      Dug,

      You wrote –

      ” . . . the troposphere without IR-active (so-called greenhouse) gases would have been isothermal (or tended towards that state) rather than tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient, . . . ”

      Complete nonsense.

      A column of gas which is hotter at one end than the other (regardless of direction or gravity), will show a temperature gradient along it.

      An example would be the Earths atmosphere. The air at the surface is hotter than the air at the limits of the atmosphere, and there is a temperature gradient – from hot to cold. No chance at all of thermal equilibrium, as long as the Earths surface is hotter than the nominal 4 K or so of space.

      Loschmidt performed no physical experiments. His gravitothermal effect is as nonsensical as your heat creep.

      So carry on burbling, but without experimental results to support you, dont be surprised if ‘m not the only one having a laugh at your ideas. Experimental results supporting your speculation will no doubt make me cry – only joking.

      • D'ug Cott'n says:

        I didn’t say thermal equilibrium. I said thermodynamic equilibrium.

        The proof is here:
        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905

        and you can’t prove Loschmidt wrong because every functioning vortex cooling tube exhibits the same effect due to radial centrifugal force, as does every planetary troposphere my friend.

        You display no correct understanding of maximum entropy production or papers in the 1980’s about such.

        • Swenson says:

          Dug,

          You wrote –

          “I didnt say thermal equilibrium.” I didn’t say you did, you ninny. Learn to read and comprehend.

          Who wants to prove Loschmidt wrong? Who can prove a fantasy “wrong”?

          Loschmidt was unable to support his fantasy with experiment. “Radial centrifugal force” has nothing to do with gravity. Some physicist you are! You seem confused between an apparent force (centrifugal) and a real one (centripetal). “Radial” is redundant in any case.

          But hey, who cares?

          The Earth cooled to its present temperature whether you like it or not. No heat creep or GHE required.

          Accept reality.

  40. Swenson says:

    Dug got a bit bent out of shape, apparently.

    He took exception when I used the word “heat”.

    He wrote –

    “And Swenson, precisely how does the Earth receive all the necessary thermal energy (for which you incorrectly use the word heat) during the day?”

    This from a guy who talks about “heat creep”?

    Dugs exceptionally flexible – right up there wth the SkyDragons – inconvenient truths are stepped around, facts are discarded in favour of fantasy, and all the rest.

    Just another looney.

    Oh well.

    • D'ug Cott'n says:

      The word “heat” as used by physicists like myself refers to a TRANSFER of thermal energy, not a property of matter.

      I have had nothing to do with PSI SkyDragons since 2013 when I wrote the page on my website proving their paper by Joseph Postma to be a load of garbage.
      http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html

      • Swenson says:

        Dug,

        As I said, you are just like the SkyDragons who define things to suit themselves.

        You wrote –

        “The word “heat” as used by physicists like myself refers to a TRANSFER of thermal energy, not a property of matter.”

        I suppose you are going to complain about Wikipedias statement –

        “The term “thermal energy” is used loosely in various contexts in physics and engineering. It can refer to several different well-defined physical concepts. These include the internal energy or enthalpy of a body of matter and radiation; heat, defined as a type of energy transfer (as is thermodynamic work); and the characteristic energy of a degree of freedom . . .”

        Appealing to your own authority as a physicist like yourself, you might care to enlighten Wikipedia and others with your authoritative definition of thermal energy.

        Not so easy? How hard can it be?

        However, I digress.

        The Earth has been transferring energy to the depths of outer space for four and a half billion years or so. Strange enough, this is called “cooling”.

        The rate of cooling is asymptotic, but I suppose from your previous ridiculous calculations that you are unaware of such physical and mathematical matters.

        The Earth has cooled asymptotically for about four and a half billion years, as far as is known. Yes, you can find peer reviewed papers in prestigious journals supporting me, if you can pulll your head out of the strange place in which it currently seems to be.

        • Retired Physicist says:

          I quote: “Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter”

          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

        • Retired Physicist says:

          Whatever cooling of the Earth occurred would have to have been nearly all in the first few days (maybe months at the most) after it entered the Solar System, or, more likely, it cooled below existing temperatures in the billions of years it may have existed in outer Space beyond the influence of any nearby star.

          For Earth to exist in its existing orbit in the Solar System with its current atmosphere even for something less than 50 years at temperatures such as those on Venus (~735K) would be impossible because the outward radiation at that temperature would be about 16,500w/m^2 totally overwhelming the inward radiation from the Sun and thus causing cooling probably at about 15 degrees a year, as I have explained in an earlier comment.

          Yes, I am quite aware of the downward overall far slower cooling trend in the last few thousand years after the warming since the last glacial period. It does not refute my hypothesis. There’s even been a graph of that cooling on my website for years here:

          http://climate-change-theory.com/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg

      • Tim S says:

        Enthalpy is the “heat” that is transfered when that happens. Thermal energy as you call it includes sensible heat and latent heat. Both types are involved in “heat transfer” which occurs any time there is a difference in temperature. The rate of heat transfer depends on a “property of matter” called thermal conductivity. The amount of Enthalpy in the material at any given temperature is most definitely a “property of matter” and is different for different chemicals. It also depends on the physical state (i.e. solid, liquid, or vapor).

        So once again, not only are you completely wrong, but as I stated in a different topic, spam posts by “Gloria” are more interesting and informative than anything you have posted.

        • Retired Physicist says:

          When and where did I write about enthalpy? What I wrote about is here:
          https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
          and you haven’t even discussed anything at all in that paper.

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            Nice try at evasion.

            How are you getting on with your definition of “thermal energy”?

            Obviously, with your ability to redefine things on the run to suit yourself, it’s hard to know why you are complaining about my statement that the Earth has merely cooled to its present temperature.

            I don’t really care about your definition of thermal energy, but you do seem interested in avoiding acknowledging that the Earth was once molten, and is now not (molten).

            This, by definition, would seem to be as a result of “cooling”, however you want to define the term.

            So Dug, what temperature was the Earth four and a half billion years ago, do you think?

            If you don’t believe it was a big molten blob, what does your vast knowledge of physics tell you its temperature was, and why?

            Time for more SkyDragon style bobbing, ducking, weaving, and general denial of reality?

            Carry on.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            When Dear Swenson did I ever say the Earth was not once a molten blob? I’ll thank you for not misquoting me.*

            If you prefer I can (and often have) referred to the mean molecular translational kinetic energy, that being proportional to the temperature of a gas.

            In the state of maximum entropy (not enthalpy!) that state being thermodynamic equilibrium (not thermal equilibrium!) the sum of the mean molecular kinetic energy and the mean molecular gravitational potential energy is constant over altitude. It HAS to be or there would be unbalanced energy potentials. There are no such potentials at maximum entropy. And since only the kinetic energy relates to temperature and since the PE varies with altitude there must be a non-zero temperature gradient, as you could have read in my 2013 paper.

            * Go back to this comment:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376431

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            Thanks for that. If I quote you, I put your words in quotation marks. If you can’t show where I did that, then others might think you are just whining about something that doesn’t exist.

            The Earth was a big molten blob, and is still more than 99% big molten blob. If you disagree, say so, or forever hold your peace, as they say. No coming back later, and saying you really didn’t mean what you said, like SkyDragons do.

            The surface has cooled by some thousands of degrees, the interior not so much.

            The present temperature is whatever it is.

            Blathering about entropy, enthalpy, and all the rest, for example, when you wrote –

            “In the state of maximum entropy (not enthalpy!) that state being thermodynamic equilibrium (not thermal equilibrium!) the sum of the mean molecular kinetic energy and the mean molecular gravitational potential energy is constant over altitude. It HAS to be or there would be unbalanced energy potentials. There are no such potentials at maximum entropy.”

            – is irrelevant, meaningless, and completely erroneous in parts. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so.

            Accept reality.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            The significance and relevance of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot be emphasized enough. The fact that it is proven to exist is sufficient to refute the whole “greenhouse” conjecture.

            This article I wrote in 2019 will help silent readers understand why, even though Swenson won’t deign to study it.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False

          • Retired Physicist says:

            Perhaps Swenson hasn’t noticed the word “Core” in the title of my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures

          • Retired Physicist says:

            Abstract

            Josef Loschmidt was a brilliant 19th century physicist who was the first to make a realistic estimate of the size of air molecules: quite a feat in those days. In 1876 he explained his “gravito-thermal” effect wherein gravity forms a non-zero temperature gradient in the lower region of the atmosphere that is called the troposphere. This fact is verified from the laws of physics and quantified. The quantification is found to be applicable in all planetary tropospheres now that we have data for such planets in modern times. The temperature gradient is called the “lapse rate” by climatologists, but it has nothing to do with any “rising parcels or air” that are supposedly warmed by conduction at the surface interface. The important thing to remember is that the temperature gradient forms locally in the atmosphere and does so at the molecular level. There does not even have to be a surface. Because this gradient forms autonomously and tends to repair itself when disturbances occur, there is no need for atmospheric radiation to assist the solar radiation reaching the surface, and it cannot do so anyway. Hence the whole radiative forcing conjecture is refuted and this totally new and different paradigm represents reality in all planets.

            For the full paper click …

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            You wrote –

            “The significance and relevance of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot be emphasized enough.”

            There is no gravito-thermal effect, except in the minds of its believers.

            Just like the GHE.

            Loschmidt was wrong. Just like the scientific consensus who believed in the caloric theory of heat (including Lord Kelvin – who at least changed his views when confronted with Joule’s experimental results, which confirmed Baron Rumfords earlier claims that the caloric theory was a load of rubbish.)

            Loschmidt’s speculation fails in the face a reality, which is why no experimental support exists.

            Same for the GHE, which is equally ridiculous.

            You reject one, I reject both, which means we are in agreement 50% of the time. Just goes to show how stupid logic can be, when faced with reality.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            “Loschmidts speculation fails in the face a reality, which is why no experimental support exists.”

            You are sadly mistaken. There is extensive, cogent and compelling evidence and it is a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            http://climate-change-theory.com

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            You wrote

            The significance and relevance of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot be emphasized enough.

            There is no gravito-thermal effect, except in the minds of its believers.

            Just like the GHE.

            Loschmidt was wrong. Just like the scientific consensus who believed in the caloric theory of heat (including Lord Kelvin who at least changed his views when confronted with Joules experimental results, which confirmed Baron Rumfords earlier claims that the caloric theory was a load of rubbish.)

            Loschmidts speculation fails in the face a reality, which is why no experimental support exists.

            Same for the GHE, which is equally ridiculous.

            You reject one, I reject both, which means we are in agreement 50% of the time. Just goes to show how stupid logic can be, when faced with reality.

  41. E. Schaffer says:

    It is fascinating how considering sunshine as a forcing seems to be a mental challenge. Yet it is no suprise, as I know how people fail on the most simplistic logical issues. The easiest way to overcome this problem here is in imagining the orbit of Earth could be moved. Moving Earth closer to, or further from the sun, would obviously mean a forcing. Once we can agree on that, we can then question what this should do to the climate of Earth, and how it would compare to other celestial bodies.

    From there on it becomes increasingly easy to see how feedbacks are most certainly not a real thing..

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

    • Tim S says:

      You bring up an interesting point about distance to the sun. Does anyone know the difference is heat coming from the sun on January 3, versus July 3.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Closer in January, dingaling.

        • Retired Physicist says:

          Nope. The main effect is because in summer the Sun passes more directly overhead. The effective solar flux striking a horizontal surface has to be multiplied by the sine of the angle which the radiation makes with the horizontal.

          Uranus is more than 20 times the distance from the Sun than we are, but the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere is hotter than Earth even though no solar radiation reaches down there and there is no solid surface there either.

          You could learn a lot about climate change reading this:
          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            Nope. The sun is about 3% closer at perihelion. Fact. If you claim that the Earth absorbs equal amounts of energy regardless of distance from the Sun, you are probably ignorant of physics, and that radiative intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. (From memory.)

            Only a bit, but every bit helps!

            You’re probably thinking about seasons changing, due to the inclination of the Earth’s axis to the plane of the ecliptic. Nothing to do with Uranus, unless your head is firmly embedded in yours for the moment.

            The Earth has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature, and will no doubt continue until it is in equilibrium with its surrounding environment. Reject reality all you want – it won’t turn your “heat creep” fantasy into fact.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            What about the distance, Dug?

          • Retired Physicist says:

            I said the MAIN effect has to do with the angle the Sun’s orbit makes being different between summer and winter. A 3% variation in distance from the Sun would be in opposite seasons in the two hemispheres anyway. You really don’t think about such basic facts do you?

            Seasonal effects are not considered climate change for the globe as a whole, which is what Roy’s graphs are. You should only watch the red line.

            There is a cycle of about 100,000 years caused by variations in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, the annual mean distance from the Sun thus varying. But that is not cooling over millions or billions of years.

            All observed climate change in the last 9,000 years can be explained by variations in cloud cover and location such that reflection by clouds varies roughly in the range from 19% to 21%. Cosmic rays assist cloud formation.

            It is blatantly obvious, when you consider the glacial periods, that there can be warming coming out of such and even coming out of Dark Ages Cooling and the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence of the Earth being hundreds or thousands of degrees hotter in the last 4 billion years or so. Such would be an unstable situation and rapid cooling of at least 15 degrees a year would have occurred. We have been at approximate equilibrium with solar radiation that gets past the clouds for most of that 4.5 billion years and you have no proof otherwise. The laws of physics prove your conjecture wrong.

          • Swenson says:

            Dug,

            You wrote –

            “I said the MAIN effect has to do with the angle the Suns orbit makes being different between summer and winter.”

            Fine, except the poster didn’t actually ask a question. He pondered about the effect of sunshine if the Earth was closer to, or further from, the Sun.

            Your comment has nothing to do with that, as far as I can see.

            You might not know that the Sun does not actually travel around the Earth, so you might want to rephrase “I said the MAIN effect has to do with the angle the Suns orbit makes being different between summer and winter.”

            You might have intended to mention the Earth’s inclination to the plane of the ecliptic, but you didn’t.

            Maybe “heat creep” has affected your brain.

          • Retired Physicist says:

            I suggest you note the words “Distance from the Sun” in my comment here:
            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251

            This is yet another assertive statement you’ve made based on your guessing what my papers say without reading them. You don’t even fully comprehend my valid explanations based on correct physics which you have never disproved in comments, let alone in my seven main papers and articles.

            Go and argue with Prof Claes Johnson about the radiation issue. His writings are cited in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper:
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317997916_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

          • Tim S says:

            You just proved you know absolutely nothing. LOL

          • Retired Physicist says:

            A 3% variation in the distance from the Sun alters the flux in the order of the difference in the squares of the greater and lesser distance. However, the temperature achieved (based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) varies only as the difference in the fourth root of the two fluxes. That is two orders of magnitude less. In contrast, at latitude, say, 40 degrees south (in New Zealand for example) when the Sun can be directly overhead at 20 degrees North then the effective flux striking a horizontal plane is halved because sine 30 = 0.5. That’s a far more significant factor determining the difference in temperatures between summer and winter than is the above fourth root.

            Again, you carry on with your attempts at personal smears and mockery without a moment’s careful thought or a word of correct physics. When did you last name and apply ANY law in Physics in your comments?

          • Tim S says:

            The retiree seems to have stumbled again. Is it the difference of the squares or the square of the difference. Wikipedia will not help you with that! Strictly speaking, the only two factors are temperature difference and projected area. When the earth is further away, the sun has a smaller projected area. That is why the energy density coming from the sun is less. Done with you!

      • E. Schaffer says:

        It is roughly 3.5% up and down. If we assume an average 342W/m2, it would be 354W/m2 in early Winter and 330W/m2 in early Summer. Potentially it would be a spread of ~5K.

        • Tim S says:

          I seem to recall Dr. Spencer commenting that we do not see a seasonal variation. Could it be that the further distance in northern hemisphere distance in summer is offset by greater land mass having some kind of effect.

          • E. Schaffer says:

            Don’t know which effect you’d expect. A larger winter/summer spread in the SH than in the NH? Sure, land masses or continental vs. maritime climate are a far stronger factor.

          • Clint R says:

            Interestingly, Earth is about 1K cooler when close to Sun (perihelion). And about 1K warmer when at the other extreme (aphelion). It’s evidence of Earth’s energy storage capability, oscillations, and lags.

            Earth knows what it’s doing. It’s not chaos — it’s thermodynamics.

  42. Nabil Swedan says:

    The Lord is so confused, he cannot tell the difference between meteorological and climate thermodynamic processes. Meteorological processes are short term: hours, days, or weeks. The heat of the sun and clouds are the major thermodynamic parameters. We see that all the time. After a hot sunny day or two, soon clouds form and rain pours to maintain surface temperature from rising indefinitely. Of course these meteorological events have feedbacks. However, these events cancel out at the completion of one year. It is a repeatable cycle, and every year (one revolution of the earth around the sun), equilibrium is reached. The average temperature of the month of March is about the same every year. No directional change in climate parameters occurs. Not so for climate processes, climate parameters have a trend. The average annual sea temperature increases every equilibrium year. The sun and clouds can have nothing to do with climate change process and there can be no feedbacks because at the conclusion of every year, thermodynamic equilibrium is reached.

    What causes climate change is living matter size variation. It is an inherent subjective property of living matter to multiply and increase in size when conditions are favorable (Vernadsky). This has been the case throughout the history of the earth. When there is no life, there can be no climate change, and James Lovelock research work implicitly implies this conclusion. For the present warming trend, the causes are deforestation, surface greening, population growth, and the resulting energy consumption. This process is an internal heat exchange within the climate system, and the sun has nothing to do with it. For more details, please see my published papers on this subject, ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516

  43. CHRISTOPHER GAME says:

    Trying to put this question in a nutshell:

    Roy is saying that it is often convenient to move the origin of coordinates to the operating point of the process? And he is saying that this move affects the rate coefficients; I think Monckton is saying that it doesn’t?

    My take is that it depends on whether or not the whole system is globally and precisely linear?

    • Swenson says:

      CG,

      I may be misunderstanding, but if you are referring to an “attractor”, then yes, the dynamic atmosphere is chaotic, and is subject to the vagaries of one or more “strange attractors”.

      The goalposts keep shifting, so to speak.

      No equilibrium, no predictability better than guessing.

      Not accepted by many, even Einstein, who rejected much of quantum physics on the basis that God does not play at dice. As Richard Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”

      Good enough for me.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson….”Not accepted by many, even Einstein, who rejected much of quantum physics on the basis that God does not play at dice. As Richard Feynman said Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment”.

        ***

        To be fair to both Einstein and Feynman, quantum theory has escalated from its initial simplicity into a consensus where much of it does not agree with experiment. Nothing new, catastrophic climate theory is based on the same consensus.

        • Swenson says:

          GR,

          You wrote –

          “quantum theory has escalated from its initial simplicity into a consensus where much of it does not agree with experiment.”

          If you are perhaps referring to the later quantum electrodynamic theory, to my knowledge, every prediction has been confirmed by experiment, to the limits of practical measurement.

          Maybe you could point me to reproducible experimental results which do not agree with predictions?

          There have been many such claims in the past, but all have proved to be wishful thinking and experimenters fooling themselves.

          So far, reality remains intact

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…electrodyamics is the field of Feynman. I was referring more to the quantum theory of Bohr, after his breakthrough discovery of the quantum nature of electron orbitals, in which he went off into sci-fi like entanglement theory. That’s when Einstein and Schrodinger split from Bohr and his theories.

            As Einstein put it, he could not support science based on speculation rather than physical reality. Then he went and defined a reality (space-time) based on the speculation of time as a physical reality.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            Einestine is the last to adhere to physical reality. Much of his work has not or cannot be validated by the public.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            Time is an observable reality. If Mr Robertson were to read Einstein’s work for the layman, Relativity Explained, he would understand why it is that we know time exists.

  44. Gordon Robertson says:

    christopher game…”As I see amplification, it necessarily and essentially involves adding power to a signal, in a more or less linear way. A magnifying glass selects a part of the input and magnifies it, and discards the unselected part”.

    ***

    Amplification with regard to a transistor is simply a small signal between base and emitter (BJT), or source and gate (FET), controlling a much larger current from the power supply between emitter/collector, or source/drain. The transistor behaves like a variable impedance.

    Nothing is actually amplified in the sense that something is added to the input signal to increase its power. The semiconductor material is arranged in junctions whereby a smaller current through one junction can control a larger current through another junction. Ultimately, the amplified power comes from the power supply.

    That’s why it is ridiculous to talk about a positive feedback in the atmosphere. When you see what is involved with positive feedback in a real amplifier circuit, it’s ingenuous to claim a PF in the atmosphere without clearly explaining how it is possible.

    You cannot explain PF using a mathematical series, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician could not explain it using a series. The irony is Schmidt is the head of NASA GISS and he cannot explain PF, even though it’s an integral part of his model.

    It’s covered in the following link under ‘Gavin Schmidt On Positive Feedback’.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180819052432/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

    • Nabil Swedan says:

      Why would a government agency do climate science in the first place? Governments are not good at any thing except governing. When they do climate science, rest assured that their internal cut throat politics will be in their version of science.

      • Swenson says:

        Nabil,

        Most Governments are absolutely dreadful at governing, as far as I can see. Maybe you live in a country which is different to any I know of.

        Only joking?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Good point Nabil. Why would NASA, and NOAA, want to become involved in politics? The head of NASA wanted to fire Hansen based on his political ideology and actions and the US government intervened, likely Hansen’s buddy, Al Gore.

        GISS has made NASA look foolish.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr Robertson continues to misinform himself. He should begin his education by reading a textbook of number theory, with particular reference to the closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers, under the convergence criterion that the fraction of the output signal represented by feedback response shall be less than unity.

      Once he has mastered the relevant formula, and has perhaps learned how it was proven some 200 years ago (indeed, it was the first infinite series whose sum was expressed in closed form), he will realize what nonsense it is to suggest that there cannot be positive feedback in the atmosphere.

      Two conclusions follow. First, if he considers official climatology is wrong about positive feedback, then he should address his complaint to official climatology, and not to us. He will deservedly get short shrift.

      Secondly, if there is no positive feedback in the climate system then ECS is of order 1 K, proving our point a fortiori.

  45. Ken says:

    The problem is that of all the climate models using feedbacks to project their scenarios of impending doom.

    As I understand it, Lord Monckton is saying is the feedback value used in the climate models is much too large and may in fact be negative.

    The matter of whether there are feedbacks in climate isnt the question. There certainly are valid comparisons to electronic circuits as well as any other process where feedback occurs.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Point is, Ken, feedbacks can be demonstrated in electrical circuits and measured. That is not the case in the atmosphere where positive feedback is an assumption that no alarmists can correctly define.

      • Ken says:

        All the climate models have a positive feedback written into the code.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Exactly, that’s why their predictions are so high and unrealistic. There are no positive feedbacks in the climate, remove them and everything is normal again.

          Also, remove the hypothetical warming factor for CO2, of 9% to 25%, built into the models and voila, catastrophic warming is gone.

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            Mr Robertson repeats himself to no good effect. There are indeed positive feedbacks in the climate system, as well as negative feedbacks. It is easy to demonstrate that such feedbacks exist, and it is demonstrated in the head posting that the net feedback strength is weakly positive, and not, as official climatology imagines, so strongly positive as to require a quadrupling of any reference sensitivity to derive equilibrium sensitivity.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            Do you think that you can convince the audience with colorful wording instead of facts and sound arguments based on established and recognized science?

          • Christopher Game says:

            Dear Lord Monckton, replying to your above post of October 7, 2022 at 11:32 AM.

            You write: “There are indeed positive feedbacks in the climate system, as well as negative feedbacks.” I think that is a lazy or careless misuse of language. It fails to make, or fudges, or glosses over the important distinction between a net effect and a contributory component effect. This fudging leads the unwary to misguidedly speak of “amplification” as a feature of the earth’s energy transport process, over-all sunlight in, intestinal mechanisms, infrared radiation out.

            You write: “It is easy to demonstrate that such feedbacks exist.” It is not clear what you mean by ‘demonstrate’. But, in general, such over-all features of the earth’s energy transport process are not easy to measure, and the notion of feedback is poorly or ambiguously defined, so that it would be hard to match measurement to a precisely and rigorously defined notion of feedback.

            One may talk in a facile way about ‘feedback’, but that is far from ‘feedback’ being easily demonstrated empirically. Of course, it is easy to talk about ‘feedback’ in a mathematical model, but hard to match the model safely or precisely to empirical measurement.

            You write: “the net feedback strength is weakly positive.” I think that statement is close to meaningless unless you give a better account than is found in the head posting. I much prefer the statement that Gordon Robertson attributes to Roy: “a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.”

            You write: “as official climatology imagines, so strongly positive as to require a quadrupling of any reference sensitivity to derive equilibrium sensitivity.” I am not a mind reader and I don’t know who is the imaginer of “official climatology”, and I don’t know what they imagine. But I do believe that there is no sound argument that the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” is at all greater than 1.2C

          • Nate says:

            “But I do believe that there is no sound argument that the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is at all greater than 1.2C”

            Speaking of lazy claims, Christopher, where o where have you made that case?

          • Christopher Game says:

            Hi Nate. Thank you for your comment.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ken…”As I understand it, Lord Monckton is saying is the feedback value used in the climate models is much too large and may in fact be negative”.

      ***

      If that is correct, then CM is correct. Roy once stated that a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback. That too makes perfect sense…everything related to feedbacks is negative.

      • Monckton of Brenchley says:

        A positive feedback strength will lead to a positive feedback response, amplifying, not attenuating, the reference signal.

        • Christopher Game says:

          Dear Lord Monckton, your comment is hard to decipher for sure.

          But whatever you might mean by it, I disagree with the idea that the word ‘amplify’ is suitable to describe a substantial feature of the earth’s energy transport process, over-all sunlight in, intestinal mechanisms, infrared radiation out. More particularly, I am saying that it is a mistake to think that the forcing-and-feedback formalism justifies the idea that the earth’s energy transport process involves amplification in a proper sense of the word. Instead, I commend the statement above that Gordon Robertson attributes to Roy: ‘a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback’

          I think that unguarded or unqualified or unmodified use of the words ‘positive feedback’ or of the word ‘amplify’ in this context is a cause of grievous mischief.

      • Christopher Game says:

        Hi Gordon Robertson.

        My memory isn’t good enough to check your statement “Roy once stated that a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.”

        Whether or not Roy once stated so, I can say that I think it a good statement: ‘a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.’

        • John Collis says:

          This talk of a climate system positive feedback actually being a less negative negative feedback puts me in mind of the acidification of the oceans, which is actually less alkaline.
          If the positive feedback is actually less negative negative feedback then it is still negative feedback. Surely if it were really positive feedback then would make the system unstable wouldnt it?

          John:

          Yes, there always has to be net negative feedback or any system would be unstable to forcing. Climate researchers muddle things by not mentioning that the Planck effect (emitted IR increasing with temperature) is not called a “feedback” even though it acts like one, and it is what stabilizes the climate system. Supposed positive feedbacks such as clouds, water vapor, etc., cannot sum to be more than the Planck effect negative feedback.

          -Roy

  46. Nabil Swedan says:

    Relatively speaking, they are better at governing than writing the climate science.

  47. Gordon Robertson says:

    e.schaeffer….”It is fascinating how considering sunshine as a forcing seems to be a mental challenge. Yet it is no suprise, as I know how people fail on the most simplistic logical issues”.

    ***

    What is logical about the word forcing? Why is sunshine a forcing?’

    Sunshine is electromagnetic energy, that is logical. Sunlight is energy. It doesn’t have to force anything, it is just there.

    The word forcing is terminology from climate models which are programmed based on differential equation theory. In DE theory, an equation is said to be forced to respond to another equation as input where the input is called a forcing function. However, in mathematics, there is no physical way to force an equation to respond.

    One type of forcing function is a unit impulse function. It models a square wave in the real physical world, and when a square wave is applied to an amplifier, it forces the amp to react in a certain manner, namely, it causes the amp to oscillate briefly due to the sharp rising edge of the pulse.

    What is it sunshine does when it is said to be a forcing in the Earth atmosphere, oceans, and surface? It doesn’t force anything in particular rather than causing things to rise in temperature. Would it not be better to use the logical word ‘warming’ rather than the illogical term ‘forcing’?

    • Ken says:

      “Would it not be better to use the logical word warming rather than the illogical term forcing?”

      No. Not unless you are continually wanting to be bogged down in pointless semantics. (You do have a problem there)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        No, Ken, I don’t have a problem, I see physical reality as it is, not through the eyes of a climate modeler. The word forcing makes no sense other than in a differential equation used in a climate model. The actual climate system is not a differential equation.

        You are a bit too thick to get that, so why do you bother making comments about matters you don’t understand?

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Incoming solar irradiance is rather obviously the largest forcing acting on the Earth’s climate. Forcings are denominated in Watts per square metre of net incoming radiative flux density at the planetary characteristic emission altitude.

      • Clint R says:

        Correct!

        Sun adds energy to Earth. Solar irradiance is a “forcing”.

        That’s why adding CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT a “forcing”. It adds no energy to Earth.

      • Nate says:

        “Thats why adding CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT a ‘forcing’. It adds no energy to Earth.”

        Oh? So a volcanic eruption is placing sulfates in the stratosphere, changing Earth’s albedo, but its not a forcing?

        Show us a definition of ‘forcing’ from any legit source that agrees with you.

        I predict you will make excuses, toss ad-homs, and offer nothing to support your claims.

  48. Ken says:

    “The furtively pseudonymous Willard continues to parade his ignorance and hatred.”

    Best line of the day.

    • Willard says:

      Hard to tell, Kennui. There are so many gems. I will collect a few and write a post on How to Lord Comment Sections.

      My favorite comment remains Mark M’s:

      It is sad to think of a man of such immense intellect, wealth, fame, and accomplishment rabidly typing insults on an obscure comment board for hours on end.

      Think of the lost opportunity cost the world is incurring while our Lord is not focusing his enormous brain on the great problems facing our society.

      Or maybe he pays ill-tempered pre-teens to do it for him while he is busy agreeing with himself.

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375737

      • Ken says:

        He sure figured you out fast.

        “Willard is no doubt expert in Marxism-Leninism, but he is certainly no mathematician.”

        • Willard says:

          John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, figured out our Viscount earlier than that, Kennui:

          a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher’s office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

          • Monckton of Brenchley says:

            The poisonous climate Communist “Willard”, having been repeatedly trounced on the few occasions when he has attempt, disastrously, to make scientific points, now resorts to the default position of those paid by the Kremlin to destroy the West’s energy supplies: reputational assassination.

            Gummer, who profiteers by the ownership of windfarms, is frightened of me, and has always been so. He was not present during the sessions when I advised the Prime Minister and, therefore, is in no position to know what advice I gave. It is as simple as that.

            And as for Wokipedia, it is justly excoriated as “the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit but only a cretin would credit”.

          • Willard says:

            Here is the source:

            Fran Kelly: I’ll come to some of those measures in a moment. But I wonder what impact the climate sceptics, for instance like Lord Monkton from your country, have had on the political response?

            John Gummer: Well, Lord Monkton isn’t taken seriously by anybody. I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher’s office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he’s not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come here. Mrs Thatcher used to have the best scientists in the world in and she would nail them to the wall as she argued with them, because she was a scientist. And, like me, she didn’t want to believe in climate change, it’s the science makes it absolutely impossible not to believe that this is the most likely interpretation of what facts, which
            are becoming more and more clear.

            https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/british-mp-calls-for-a-carbon-tax/3014168

            Christopher sure knows how to lord comment sections with sanctimonious madness.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  49. angech says:

    Roy Spencer comment

    Thus, more clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere. This shows than even an expert in atmospheric radiative transfer (Ramanathan) could be misled without an adequate understanding of atmospheric circulation systems.

    This statement is semi provable by considering the fact that the average humidity of the earths atmosphere is remarkably constant year in and year out.
    This is common sense given that the water vapour, like CO2, is in equilibrium with its sources and dependent mainly on temperature , pressure and availability

  50. angech says:

    Roy Spencer

    At issue is his claim that researchers have somehow neglected that the feedback response to a climate perturbation needs to include the feedback response to the total emission temperature of the system.
    I maintain that this is not how climate sensitivity in climate models is determined only actual physical processes are modeled and I used clouds as an example of why the system response to small perturbations cannot be determined by including the response of a cold (e.g. 2.7 Kelvin) Earth to solar heating (he includes the total system temperature in his system gain calculation).

    I fail to see all the logic involved in this refutation.
    We all agree that there may be feedback responses involved.
    (This in itself validates an analogy to a feedback circuit or loop).
    Climate models determine climate sensitivity by modelling actual physical processes.
    Your words.
    This means the climate sensitivity obtained is a direct output of the assumptions used in modelling physical processes, not the actual physical processes.
    It is all algorithms which may or may not represent the actual physical processes because some of the assumptions, as you illustrate with clouds, may not be correct.

    One of these assumptions is that the perturbations are only acting on a small part of the temperature base rather than the whole amount of energy represented by that energy base.
    If he is correct in his assertion, something that one hopes most physicists would have taken into account in their calculations then presumably you would agree that it would be both an egregious and a terrible error to make.

    Is he wrong or are people hiding?

    The cold 2.7 K earth is not a correct claim on your part.
    You are talking about the temperature of an earth formed of material that has lost all its innate energy of formation to space eons ago.
    Physically this is not possible.
    Only matter that has no contact with other matter can be at true absolute zero.
    When it coagulates, compresses, constricts forming aggregates of matter it will produce some energy constantly as a meteorite, an asteroid, a planet a star or a galaxy.

    With energy from all that accumulating, which is still going on, needing to be lost over time.
    While not understanding his argument as well as I would like I do feel that he is correct in asserting that the energy equation might not be being used correctly?

    Sorry to be a pain.

    • Swenson says:

      Angech,

      The Earth is still more than 99% molten.

      Maybe any calculations which indicate otherwise are incorrect?

      Up to you, but fact is superior to fantasy as far as I am concerned.

      What about you?

      • angech says:

        The earth has a thin crust but certainly solid.
        Molten is a bit like acidic as a term.
        What would be molten to us if extruded on the surface is solid to physicists and chemists under the constraint of pressure from gravity at depth.
        Certainly a lot more solid than you assert but it is very definition bound.

        What amazes me is the concept that a solid bit of earth has no energy.
        People talk of heat hiding in the deep ocean.
        How much more energy is in 6 x 10^24 kilograms of matter hurled together from different directions and moving through space at colossal velocities .
        Yet Roy prefers to think of it as being at 2.7 K.
        Ignoring the massive intrinsic energy generated by its incorporation into a solar system.

        99% molten?
        No.
        4 Billion years of energy formation and drain and still at at least 273K with a whiff of solar energy warming the surface faintly.
        Hope that helps

        • Swenson says:

          Angech,

          Fair enough. Maybe I should have said “above the temperature of molten rock”, if you would prefer.

          More than 99% of the volume of the Earth is above the temperature of molten rock.

          Better?

          • angech says:

            I like your concept of 99 % of the earth volume is above the temperature of very hot rocks, a lot of them molten.
            The 99% figure is far too high and dependent on your definition of molten.
            But yes,
            We forget how much heat we are being kept away from by the crust and how impossible it is to have got any of that energy from the sun.

            Or why its got there in the first place.

            We will just have to disagree on everything else.

          • Swenson says:

            A,

            You say 99% is far too high, do you?

            Why is that?

            Someone told you, perhaps, or you had a fantasy where you could bend inconvenient facts to your will?

            Maybe you prefer if I use fluid rather than very hot? For example, no hole has ever been drilled deeper than 13 km into the crust. At that depth, the rock is not remaining solid enough to drill through. It moves continuously, and is quite hot. How about “not solid”?

            On the other hand, molten magma oozes continuously from the mid-ocean ridges which collectively divide the solid crust into separate parts. At such places, the depth of the crust is zero.

            It doesn’t matter. The Earth still has an extremely hot interior, much to the dismay of SkyDragons who are “sure” it can’t be so! And if the Earth is hotter than the environment which surrounds it, it must continue to cool. No GHE, no spontaneous heating.

            Just physical laws at work, no matter what your firmly held beliefs are telling you.

          • angech says:

            99% molten?
            No.

            Reason?
            Part of the core is also solid.

            not much but added to crust <99% is molten.

            Would accept about 99% on reading the thickness of the crust.
            I thought it was closer to 35m Km deep.

            Thanks.
            Mea culpa.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “The cold 2.7 K earth is not a correct claim on your part.
      You are talking about the temperature of an earth formed of material that has lost all its innate energy of formation to space eons ago.
      Physically this is not possible.”

      The issue for climate is always the SURFACE temperature, not the average temperature of the interior. Without sunshine, the ~ 0.1 W/m^2 geothermal energy flow up from interior would produce a surface temperature of ~ 40 K. The initially molten earth of 4.6 billion years ago would long since have formed a frigid, solid surface.

      It really doesn’t matter if the interior is 5,000 K. The hot core does not need to “lose all its innate energy” for the surface to be COLD!

      So, yes, 2.7 K or 0 K is an exaggeration, but not by much. And none of that influences the core argument about how to calculate feedbacks.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “4 Billion years of energy formation and drain and still at at least 273K with a whiff of solar energy warming the surface faintly.”

        No. At the surface there is a ‘whiff or geothermal energy’ (0.1 W/m^2) and a flood of solar energy (240 W/m^2). And the surface is what matters for climate.

        • Swenson says:

          Tim,

          You’ve hit it on the head! Congratulations!

          Many GHE enthusiasts assess the average temperature of the Earth due to the Sun alone, to be 255 K.

          My calculation of the sunless Earth’s present surface temperature are more or less the same as yours, so 40 K will do nicely.

          It seems non intuitive to many, but the energy input to raise a body to a certain temperature is dependent on the initial temperature. For example, less energy is required to bring water to boiling point (say 273 K), if the initial temperature is 272 K, rather than 200 K.

          Starting with the earth at 40 K, add the energy which would bring it to 255 K from 0 K (absolute zero), and hey presto!, 295K. Of course this calculation is merely meant to demonstrate that no GHE is required to explain whatever temperature the surface might be, from its original possible 5,500 K or so, to its present temperature.

          Just simple application of physical laws to measured reality.

          • Nate says:

            “Starting with the earth at 40 K, add the energy which would bring it to 255 K from 0 K (absolute zero), and hey presto!, 295K.”

            Tee hee hee, funny guy.

            Swenson is determined to lower our expectations of his intellect.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “Starting with the earth at 40 K, add the energy which would bring it to 255 K from 0 K (absolute zero), and hey presto!, 295K. Of course this calculation is merely meant to demonstrate that no GHE is required to explain whatever temperature the surface might be, from its original possible 5,500 K or so, to its present temperature.

          Just simple application of physical laws to measured reality.”

          There are two seperate, fundamental errors in your ‘simple application of physical laws’.

          1) The issue is not about ‘bringing it to’ 295 K from a given starting point, but ‘holding at’ 295 K. This requires adding power continuously, not adding energy once. You seem to be imagining a calorimetry experiment in a perfectly insulated container.

          2) The power required is not a linear function.

          0.1 W/m^2 will hold at ~ 36 K (rounded to 40 K earlier). Adding 0.1 W/m^2 more will warm just 7 K more (not 40 K more).

          240 W/^2 will hold at ~ 255 K. Adding 0.1 W/m^2 more will warm just 0.026 K more (not 40 K more)

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            Don’t be stupid, Tim.

            The Earth is not “holding”, it’s “cooling”.

            The Sun is unable to “hold” the temperature, any more than it has been able to “hold” it for four and a half billion years or so.

            You are confusing W/m2 (radiative intensity) with energy.

            For example, to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 C, 4.184 joules of energy is required. Not any number of W/m2, but you are too ignorant to admit that you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Go away and learn some physics.

            Or not – keep looking stupid. I’ll help you out.

          • Willard says:

            > The Earth is not “holding”, its “cooling”.

            What are you rambling about, Mike?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The Earth is not “holding”, its “cooling”.”

            The surface (the only part we are interested in for climate discussions) has been “holding” close to current temperatures (+/- about 5 C) for about 30 million years. This is because there has been a rough balance between incoming sunlight and outgoing IR over that time. (With a TINY bit of geothermal thrown into the mix).

            So yes, the surface of the earth is HOLDING its temperature pretty darn well. (And in fact, the surface has actually been *warming* over the past 50 years, and also warming over the past 15,000 years. Not cooling. Not even holding. But warming!)

            “For example, to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 C, 4.184 joules of energy is required. ”
            Yes, that is a part of the discussion. But once the water or soil or air has warmed due to a one-time input of energy, it will emit more thermal IR. To STAY at that higher temperature requires a continued increase in energy. Otherwise it would cool back to it’s original temperature.

            Since the amount of energy emitted each second by IR depends on the surface area emitting the IR, the energy per second required to hold the higher temperature will all depend on the surface area. Hence W/m^2, not W and not J. W/m^2.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A powerful wave of Arctic air from Canada is coming into the central US. Temperatures will drop below zero C at night and there will be snowstorms in places. The temperature drop will be dramatic.
    Cooler air to finally return to much of western US.
    Forecasters say a big change will begin Monday. A dip in the jet stream is expected to move into Washington before dropping even farther south Tuesday and Wednesday. Although the West Coast will cool down, the biggest effects may be felt farther east.
    Some locations could see nearly a 20-degree drop within 12 hours, said Massey.

  52. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This is not the end of rainfall in southeastern Australia. More cold fronts from the south will arrive there soon.
    There are still three months left in the year, and SOI is high.

  53. Retired Physicist says:

    You can all learn sooooooo much from what happens on the planet Uranus. Read my latest paper (written two years ago) here …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS

    I will only respond to those who have demonstrated knowledge of the content therein and who treat me with respect, for this is all about a very major breakthrough in our understanding of temperatures and heat in planetary systems right down to the core. It totally and utterly refutes the radiative forcing conjecture invented by climatologists and promoted by Raymond Pierrehumbert whose textbook is riddled with errors in physics.

    You all need to face the fact that “heat creep” happens in force fields for there is evidence in experiments with centrifugal force as well as in data throughout the Solar System. I know it is surprising, which is probably why I have been the first in the world to explain it from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it is increasing entropy. My 2013 paper has the proof. It provides the ONLY correct explanation of temperatures and heat everywhere.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      “Retired physicist” is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here.

    • Nabil Swedan says:

      I think that there is some truth to what you say and have published. But what other planets have to do with climate change? They do not experience changes for they are void of life. It is thus imperative to focus on living matter as a cause of climate change. I invite you to readhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2019.12.003

  54. Clint R says:

    A good test for any climate model of Earth would be to start it from two temperature extremes, say 270K and 310K. If the model doesn’t settle to about 288K, then it’s wrong.

  55. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Morning temperatures (in C) in the Dakotas.
    https://i.ibb.co/HpKWZPf/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-07-144325.png

  56. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Compare and contrast two Merchants of Doubt and one scientist.

    From Christopher Monckton’s headline post:
    “But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions…”

    Julie Green September 2022:
    https://youtu.be/nZkdQfr-eHE
    “Something in those waters is being used against you, and you will see it because I will expose it. But some of these storms were man-made.”

    Kerry Emanuel 2018:

    My colleagues and I have shown that hurricanes should become more intense and produce much more rain as the planet warms, and observations are beginning to show such trends.

    • Clint R says:

      TM, compare your desperate attempt to pervert reality with rational science.

      Earth oscillates between warm and cool periods. Earth is in a warming trend. A warming trend will likely cause more intense hurricanes, as the waters are warmer.

      All that is reality and science.

      Believing you can boil water with ice cubes is anti-science. You suffer from over exposure to anti-science.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Mr McGuffin is in fact comparing two merchants of science with one merchant of Communism, whose allegation that warmer weather worldwide should increase the frequency, intensity and duration of hurricanes and other tropical cyclones is not borne out by events. There has been small but not insignificant warming in recent decades, yet the accumulated cyclone energy index does not show the increase in the frequency, intensity or duration of hurricanes and suchlike cyclonic storms that the climate Communists have long predicted.

      You’re too young to remember, but the hurricane of 1815 was a lulu. There has been nothing like it since.

      • Willard says:

        > Mr McGuffin is in fact comparing two merchants of science with one merchant of Communism

        Drink!

      • Nabil Swedan says:

        Not true, tropical cyclone count is increasing at 4 percent per decade. Go to previous post by Dr. Spencer for details.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Mr Monckton is unaware of Kerry Emanuel’s work and rather than familiarize himself with it chooses the ad hominem route.

        I also note that Monckton dishonestly inserts the “frequency” strawman to suit his purpose, even though that was neither implied nor explicitly a part of the original quote.

        To further Monckton’s education I provide the following quote from Emanuel’s 2005 article in Nature:

        Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years

        Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multidecadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming.

        Monckton fancies himself a man of science but can’t be bothered to read the research.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Tyson fancies himself so much he writes his own name in capital letters.

      • Retired Physicist says:

        Your physics is wrong Lord Monckton.

        You can’t add fluxes from different sources and assume Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give the achieved temperature.

        http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg

  57. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The blocking phenomenon begins high in the stratosphere.
    2022/10/07/1800Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa
    https://i.ibb.co/6P36ZWk/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-07-191911.png

  58. Bindidon says:

    From Wikipedia (a web site discredited by most Pseudoskeptics but to which they endlessly refer to when it fits their narrative):

    ” In 2009, John P. Abraham criticized Monckton’s claims in a lecture at Bethel University, and Monckton filed disciplinary charges alleging academic dishonesty against Abraham.

    The University of St Thomas’s lawyers wrote to Monckton that

    ‘The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abrahams right to disagree with you.

    What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham, Father Dease, and The University of St Thomas. ‘

    The latter was in response to an interview in which Monckton characterized Abraham as ‘a wretched little man’, the university’s president Dease as ‘a creep’, and the University of St. Thomas as ‘a half-assed Catholic bible college’. ”

    This is incredible.

    • Monckton of Brenchley says:

      Off topic. Dont blub.

      • Willard says:

        Christopher, please stop whining.

      • Retired Physicist says:

        Heat creep happens, Lord Monckton.

        If it didn’t you’d be frozen to death. If it didn’t then no vortex cooling tube would function. If it didn’t there is no other valid explanation for temperatures in planets, even down to the core.

        I have provided both the proof and the evidence. You need to look into it and realise that your radiation explanations are irrelevant and you are scoring own goals endorsing the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology which violates or ignores at least three long established laws of physics. Click the link to my seven papers on my website linked below.

        I’ve also provided evidence that water vapour cools, and I have provided the correct physics to explain why this happens. You can’t prove me wrong, reward or not. Nobody has in nearly a decade. That’s because the physics I present is the correct science.

        http://climate-change-theory.com

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Off topic. Dont blub. ”

        That’s the harshest expression of denial since a while.

        What does such a guy have to do here ???

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Is that the jack boots and riding crop fantasy taking over?

          You don’t support free speech, I know, but there is nothing you can do to prevent it here, should Dr Spencer choose to allow it.

          Winston Churchill said –

          “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

          I believe in unfettered free speech. For example if you see a fire starting in a theatre unbeknownst to anyone else, you should alert the audience by shouting “Fire!”. They should then proceed in an orderly fashion to the mustering point which is clearly shown where patrons enter the theatre.

          You don’t seem to agree with free speech.

          Maybe that’s the nature of a sauerkraut.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…as CM states, don’t blub. Henceforth we may refer to you as blubberer.

  59. Bindidon says:

    I would appreciate it if Dr. Spencer would separate his regular UAH reports on the lower troposphere from all these main and guest contributions, which ultimately do little more than add to the level of unnecessary polemics that we regular posters already contribute to.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      You’re just sore, Binny, because you’re not smart enough to participate. With major appeals to authority you are dead in the water.

  60. Willard says:

    Fan mail:

    Mark B says:

    October 5, 2022 at 12:49 PM

    Am I the only having trouble understanding how “increasingly obviously a non-problem follows from “impossible to constrain ECS at all”?

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/no-climatologists-did-not-forget-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-1375495

  61. Retired Physicist says:

    MONCKTON’S PHYSICS is WRONG because, just like climatologists, there is an implicit assumption that the Stefan Boltzmann Law can be used for the sum of solar and atmospheric physics.

    Ironically Lord Monckton is scoring own goals, effectively endorsing this false physics in climatology textbooks such as that by Pierrehumbert.

    Monckton needs to heed what I have explained using the Second Law of Thermodynamics which implies that a non-zero temperature gradient will tend to form in the troposphere of any and every planet, as we observe. This then facilitates the “heat creep” process which supplies the missing energy that climatologists just guessed must come from back radiation.

    I once challenged Michael Mann face-to-face on this but he is too entrenched in the scam to which he contributed deliberately with his “hockey stick” graph for which he could produce no calculations in court. After all, in leaked emails they had to “get rid of the Medieval Warming Period” now didn’t they?

    Folks! This is the biggest scientific scam in modern history and I predict it will be defeated, hopefully by 2025 at the latest.

    Monckton and Spencer need to realise that.

    • Retired Physicist says:

      Ooops! It should read:

      MONCKTON’S PHYSICS is WRONG because, just like that of climatologists, there is an implicit assumption that the Stefan Boltzmann Law can be used for the sum of solar and atmospheric radiation.

  62. Retired Physicist says:

    Originally IPCC authors produced energy diagrams which did not show back radiation. They spoke about carbon dioxide supposedly “trapping” outward energy and acting like a blanket (despite being only one molecule in about 2,500) rather like the roof of a greenhouse. Then they realized there was no evidence for this hypothesis and, furthermore, there was a huge blunder in the energy diagrams because the solar radiation into the surface (averaging no more than about 170w/m^2) was nowhere near sufficient to explain the observed global mean surface temperature – not be a long shot.

    So, as Roy Spencer once admitted, they just calculated the back radiation figure so that everything balanced. It is not a measured figure.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us that for a temperature of about 288K (15C) the associated flux is about 390w/m^2. But that law only applies for true blackbodies and such bodies do not gain or lose energy by any process other than radiation, rather like a small, black copper marble in Space. If such a marble circled the Sun in Earth’s orbit it would get to about 120C like the hottest spot on the Moon. So the issue was, why is the mean surface temperature of Earth far hotter than the Sun’s direct radiation to that surface could make it?

    The answer does not have anything to do with back radiation and the figure shown in current energy diagrams is impossibly high and needs false assumptions such as showing molecules radiating more downwards than upwards. The fallacy becomes even more apparent for Venus because there the solar radiation to the surface is less than 20w/m^2 and does no significant surface warming at all. No matter how much carbon dioxide is in the Venus atmosphere, radiation from the less-hot atmosphere cannot explain the warming of the Venus surface on the sunlit side which compensates for equivalent cooling on the dark side, actual about 5 degrees over the course of four months. After all, why wouldn’t a location passing through darkness cool?

    So this leaves a huge mystery. Nowhere in world literature was there a correct explanation as to what happens on Venus, and the same applies to Earth even though in a small portion of the surface solar radiation may well do the warming on a clear day in summer. But, when considering the whole surface, there must be additional input of energy in the form which increases the mean molecular kinetic energy and thus increases the temperature mostly in the morning, even under thick cloud cover, as we can all observe. That extra energy is explained for the first time in my 2013 paper and subsequent book.

    See the NASA energy diagram at
    http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg

    and watch the 15-minute video and read the seven linked papers at
    http://climate-change-theory.com

  63. Dan Pangburn says:

    The average global temperature increase has been measured. The measured temperature increase is the net result of ALL forcings and feedbacks. The WV increase resulting from temperature increase is easily calculated, see Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com The measured WV increase is substantially more than from just feedback as seen e.g. at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FsGOBIRZ5b3VmKapPpwUC12iGeQWZvmT/view?usp=sharing . This demonstrates that humanity’s contribution to climate change has been from WV increase, not CO2 increase.

    • Retired Physicist says:

      You CANNOT add atmospheric radiation (feedbacks) to solar radiation (then deduct non-radiative surface cooling) and use the net total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations (as NASA does) because that law only ever works for a SINGLE source and that source must be hotter than the target and, if the source is at a distance, the attenuated flux must be greater than the flux being emitted by the target.

      The linked NASA diagram in my comment above has a note below it which you should read. In any event, real world data shows water vapor cooling* and the correct physics in my 2013 paper explains why that is so.

      It’s no use feeding me what is in climatology textbooks – I’ve studied what they write extensively and done a massive amount of research these last 12 years. The radiation issue was explained in my peer-reviewed paper in 2012. The first three papers are at:
      https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.

      As the red line on Roy’s graphs shows, there has been net global cooling since 1998, so your comment about “average global temperature increase” is getting out of date because the RATE of annual increase since earlier last century is obviously decreasing. From later this century the world will start to experience about 500 years of global cooling, just as it did after the Medieval Warming Period which was hotter than the present, though not as hot as the Roman warming period. So we also have net global cooling over the last 3,200 years at least as shown here.**

      * http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg

      ** http://climate-change-theory.com/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg

    • Retired Physicist says:

      And, Dan Pangburn, in regard to your paper on water vapor, if water vapor were causing a rise in the global mean surface temperature then it would be increasing the absolute value of the temperature gradient between the radiating altitude and the surface. It would be doing most of the IPCC’s “33 degrees” of supposed warming by IR-active gases at its average concentration of just over 1%. But it is well known that an increase in water vapor reduces the magnitude of that temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) and, besides, how much warming would it then do where its concentration could well be three times as much?

      Six years ago I asked the CSIRO in Australia (as a Freedom of Information question) to produce a study contrary to that I did and published in my 2013 paper and my book. They had no evidence what-so-ever of water vapor warming the surface, and nor is there any to my knowledge anywhere. Studies which just show more downward radiation are begging the question and incorrectly assuming such radiation can be added to solar radiation.

      Generally speaking, back radiation can only slow radiative cooling of the surface, not the non-radiative component. The latter will usually increase, often enough to compensate for (ie negate) the slowing of radiative cooling. To be sure, when there is a high concentration of water vapor in thick, low cloud, there can be net slowing of cooling. However, in regions where that is likely to happen (rarely in deserts, for example) the overall mean temperatures are lower (other factors like latitude and altitude being equal) because the average concentration of water vapor is higher. My study shows that. Also, think about humid Singapore where the high humidity tends to cap maximum daily temperatures such that they rarely exceed 33C. Obviously the maximum temperature where there had been thick cloud cover would have been lower during the day when the water vapor in the clouds slowed night-time cooling.