Home/BlogYesterday 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)
> as Pat Frank
Not the propagation of nonsense again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
And from Christophers favorite commentor:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-errors-really-propagate-in.html
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?
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.
Roy Spencer’s criticism of our research is answered in the head posting.
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.~px130~ 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
Nothing in that post addresses the criticism Roy made.
All you did is to try to sway Roy by appealing to his Luckwarm sensitivity.
The furtively anonymous “Willard” continues to be spitefully irrelevant. He maintains that I have not answered Roy Spencer’s points, but does not provide a list of points not answered. Pathetic!
Rosa’s brother still pontificates instead of owning the fact that his response simply regurgitates the empty assertions offered in his first post. Both are better characterized as political infomercials than scientific communications. His skill as PR stuntman might be to blame.
But let’s be sport and hightlight him some of Roy’s points that still seem to fly above his head:
If Rosa’s brother were to actually investigate what meteorologists and climate scientists already know of atmospheric processes, he would not still be pushing his current theory.
More clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere
You cannot use the observation that “clouds cool the climate system” as a basis for determining cloud feedbacks in response to adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.
The fact that sunlight shining on a theoretical cold, dark earth creates warming which creates clouds is not relevant to climate sensitivity – and even the climate models themselves (run from a cold, dark Earth state) will produce the process which Rosa’s brother imagines controls climate sensitivity.
Perhaps one day he’ll get a paid job. Let’s hope he won’t mind if it’s under the minimal wage.
Willard continues to fail to supply a proper list of points made by Roy Spencer and allegedly not answered by me.
Our Arful Dodger falls on the first swing.
It is true that we’re past his bed time.
Tomorrow, perhaps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Crickets.
More crickets.
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
And so Christopher has not and will not recognize that I was quoting Roy almost verbatim.
I must have missed it. Where is your list of points not addressed by this post?
Indeed you missed it, Bill.
Read the thread on which you commented again.
You can also compare with the post Roy wrote.
refrain from copying and pasting your list below to not destroy your image as a habitual bald faced liar.
Monckton of Brenchley:
May I suggest that you read these two comments (even though addressed to others) as you should find them informative
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379582
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379596
Also read my third (and latest) climate website at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Refrain from reading the sub thread to which you reply, Bill.
Then ask to be spoon fed.
Obviously you have no desire to promote your claim. So why post it?
That of course assumes you ever did provide a list and extremely improbably aren’t a bald faced liar as suggested and simply can’t promote it.
Obviously insulting me should make me work for you, Bill.
I hope you don’t boss anyone.
Willard you would have been fired a long time ago for not producing any work as this is hardly the first instance of you making claims you can’t back up.
And thats not to speak of how hilarious it is for you claim that backing up your own bullshit should be a compensated job. . . .obviously you contribute absolutely nothing here at all except garbage and trolling.
The only correct physics relating to the role of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane is in seven papers linked on my Home page which can be read in three minutes and is available in eight languages.
http://climate-change-theory.com
I already supported my claim, Bill, but you like Christopher cannot get that I just quoted Roy.
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?
Do you often JAQ off like that, Frank?
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.
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.
“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”.
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.
“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.
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.
Read https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-errors-really-propagate-in.html
Wave your arms faster, perhaps it will change that fact.
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.
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?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
Apparently this is a predatory journal article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152107/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/27/reviewer-to-frontiers-your-review-process-is-merely-for-show-i-quit/
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“Willard” is now reduced to open gibberish. He fails to produce any coherent objection to the head posting.
Our Pompous Pontiff requests something, but what?
Richie Tol, that guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol
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.
Stop whining, Christopher.
I told you I asked Richie to change his formulism.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Willard” has still made no discernible scientific point.
That scientists vote with their cites is a scientific fact, glorious harlequin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dug is Dug, dingbat:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
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
Monckton needs to read https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
Try this, Bart:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=random+walk+feedback
And, now you’ve discovered Google will hunt for any words you throw into it. Congratulations again, Willard. You’re learning so much.
I also discovered that there could be feedback in random walks, Bart.
Not that your point has any relevance to the issue at hand.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Don’t be silly. It is Pat Frank, not I. who wrote the paper showing that the uncertainty envelope in climate is so large as to prevent any constraint of ECS being anything better than guesswork. And, since feedback is in reality very small, his argument would not be impugned even if it were true (which is not) that propagation of uncertainty cannot occur in a feedback-moderated dynamical system.
Bart was responding to me, old chap.
Settle down.
Don’t whine. Try to produce an intelligent argument of your own against the head posting.
An argument to counter would be a great idea, Guy-Who-Disproved-Atavism-Every-Days-of-His-Existence.
An ad nauseam does not count.
Also, try to read back Bart’s barb, it should help you understand Patrick’s points. One day at least.
LORD MONCKTON – Go to ..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376748
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
> It is difficult to reconcile Monckton’s proposed value of 1.08 with observations.
Crickets.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Please see this comment regarding the REAL climate sensitivities:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377415
Thanks, Christopher:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/10/10/how-to-lord-comment-sections/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
‘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..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376333
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.
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.
“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.
“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).
Perhaps you do not know, Christopher, but the Monckton pause is a monthly source of amusement on this website.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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/
Arrgh “Even though the atmosphere, containing 90%”
should have been ‘containing < 10%'
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.
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.
Of course I do. But when the incoming energy fluxes are exactly equal to outgoing ones, then why a controller is needed?
Nabil Swedan appears ignorant of the concept of radiative imbalance in the climate.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
… 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.
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.
Please see my partial published work on earth science and climate (11 papers)under ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516
Mr Swedan is out of his depth here, as well as off the topic.
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.~px140~ 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
Moderators, please refer the email from “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent span in the usual way.
Moderators, please report the posting by “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent spam in the usual way.
Please, Christopher.
Call him Graham.
“Willard” still has no recognizably scientific point to make, then.
Our pseudo-moderator is Graham, silly putty.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here he is.
Christopher, Graham.
Graham, Christopher.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
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.
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.
Perhaps our persistent peer might profit from quoting and citing properly:
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.
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.
> 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.
“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.
I was not talking about your paper, twat.
“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.
Christopher insists, he really insists to interject in an exchange he has not read.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“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.
*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.
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.
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Not JamesD, darling.
The furtively anonymous JamesD.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> All of them, except the Russian model
Please leave true Scotsman fallacy to true Scotsmen, Christopher.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Nate will have to wait for our paper to be published. The details of the experiments are set out therein.
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.
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.
So, hearsay.
Is there an old name for that kind of fallacy?
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
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
“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.
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).
> “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/
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.
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
Moderators, please report “Gloria’s” posting to the police as fraudulent spam in the usual way.
Moderators, plesae report “Gloria’s” posting to the police as fraudulent spam in the usual way.
> 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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“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.
Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
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.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“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
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.
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.
More mere hate speech from the ugly “Willard”. No scientific point to make, just childish trolling. Grow up.
More ridiculous bravado from our Viscount.
Steven Mosher, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
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
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.
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.
> formulism
Good grief.
Formalism.
Formulism is pejorative.
You are not supposed to rain on your own parade, even if vain.
“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.
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
Steven Mosher, Little Willy, Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
“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.
Christopher seems to ignore that the word comes from theological philosophy.
Upper-crusters are not what they used to be.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
“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.
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.
GB,
We might revert to the Stone Age, sooner rather than later.
Well I think tens of millions of people should be encouraged to revert to Stone Age.
Because due to lack of education, that is what they seems want.
So rather than fight about it, we should help them live in a Stone Age.
Or we should recognize it is already here, rather some in future, it will come.
So there are many advantages to having ocean settlements, and one
of them is place for people who want to be primitive can live.
Get them off the sidewalks and they can drag their tents with them,
or they put all in the trash, and give something a lot better.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2022-0-24-deg-c/#comment-1376380
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.’
> a real amplifier
Richard, now is your time to shine!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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).
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.
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.
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.
“|several senior and more than competent control theorists and climatologists, who are co-authors in our paper”
No citation. It isn’t true.
Sorry, wrong quote. What isn’t true is
“Always remember that a UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modeler openly states they tune their models to achieve an ECS that seems about right.”
Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Mike Flynn,
Any function can be decomposed into a series of linear ones, at least insofar as we are looking to compute anything.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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).
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Typos above. Sorry. The copy-and-paste didn’t work. Obviously, I meant
lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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!
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).
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)
I have received an error message. This is a try at a short post.
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.
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?
Hi, JG. It seems I can post only very short replies. As to your point 1), I agree, but some others may not.
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.
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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?’
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?’
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
One thing is perfectly clear, Lord Monckton’s slef believe of infallibility is not perturbed by any amount of feedback.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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:
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.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
“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.
If he was old and wise, Christopher would realize that he should not tell porkies about public information.
Alas Christopher is unwise.
No scientific point from “Willard”, who remains off topic.
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“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.
Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
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.
Oh, Christopher.
Nick merely emphasizes your hypocrisy.
Quite a trivial task, I admit. But sometimes it needs to be said.
No scientific point from “Willard”, just spite.
Whining about pseudonyms is not exactly scientific, marvellous martlet.
Please stop.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
Moderators, pl;ease report the posting by “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent span in the usual way.
What moderators? This is the last bastion of the first amendment. This is the Wild West. Think Deadwood.
Not Deadwood, Troglodyte.
Westwood.
There is nothing real here. The best contrarian honey trap.
Thanks, Roy.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Gloria needs your attention, Mike or Graham.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Please stop trying to imitate me.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Mike, Graham,
Gloria is waiting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
“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?
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
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?
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.
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
CM…we do it differently, we don’t feed the trolls.
C’mon, Gordo.
Sometimes you get a response, sometimes you don’t.
Think.
Who’s “we”?
Governments are always the last bad actor.
Troglodytes say the darnedest things:
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.
Willard bathes in a sea of irrelevant obscurity.
A sample – “Troglodytes say the darnedest things:”
Wait till you reach “monetarists,” Mike.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Gloria needs your attention, Mike or Graham.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Please stop trying to imitate me. This is irritating.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Graham, please ask Mike Flynn’s impersonator to stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Perhaps you should understand the difference between government and free markets……Chihuahua.
Perhaps you should tell Kennui that you are fine with trashing Western economies and traditions as long as Freedom Fighters do it, Troglodyte.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
It’s Dark Matter.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Both Mandelbrot and aristocratic sets contain hyperbolic components, Russell.
Roy cannot be expected to respond unless “Russell” gives him the full quotation, properly set in context.
Click on the name, dummy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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,
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!
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
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
“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.
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.
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
“Cot’n” is off topic.
“Cot’n” remains off topic.
“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.
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:
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.
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?
Mike,
Do you really want me to spoon feed you with Hansen & al 1984?
If yes, please respond to this comment.
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!
Thanks, Mike.
Here’s how Hansen & al 1984 continues:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
If you want more, you know what to do.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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?
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?
Good question.
But so binary of you.
The world has evolved to multi choice.
(Never choose a. for the answer to the first question).
Did you know that at least one woman helped author one of the most famous papers in the history of Climateball, Doc?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, Doc. You are too sweet.
In return, may I suggest a zone defense? One-on-one coverage does not seem to work very well so far. Reading the original article and the response by Roy might also help.
Missed your reply but see above.
I do not like others helping me out so I suggest we play hockey instead.
You would make a good forward striker.
I was more the centre half back with the title of hacker.
Before computers of course.
We might both end up going to the tribunal?
Of course you don’t like others helping you out, Doc. Just like you don’t seem to like emotionality. Makes you look weak. Defeats your offer to busy me with baits.
Zone defenses in hockey are common:
https://blog.purehockey.com/hockey-drills-training-tips/three-fundamentals-to-playing-defense-in-your-own-zone/
And I already told at AT’s that I’d prefer midfield defense:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/curry-for-dinner/#comment-32227
In any event, think of a simultaneous exhibition. The guys sitting are not directly helping each other. But at least they don’t inhibit one another, as happens usually in Climateball.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“First, he should address his complaint to official climatology, where it is settled science that the climate is indeed a feedback-moderated dynamical system.”
You are a bureaucrat, not a scientist.
Christopher is no bureaucrat, Nabil.
For better or worse, they work.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“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.
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)
> 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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
“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.
I agree with Nick on this point.
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.
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.
Don’t be sorry, antiquated doorknob.
Be relevant.
And if you could drop the red baiting, that’d be great.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Referring to Nick’s post of October 6, 2022 at 12:26 AM.
I agree with Roy and Nick on this point.
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.
Try paragraphs, Doc.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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 ????
In response to “Cot’n”, even if radiative forcing is “garbage” that is off topic here. GO and complain to IPCC.
An atmosphere is warmer with GHG in it.
Full stop.
W
A surface is hotter without GHG at all.
Moon.
No.
One step at a time.
Cold surface.
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?+
Moon max 127 C no GHG.
Earth max 90 C? GHG.
Cold?
–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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ???????
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
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.
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
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
That last sentence should read “… there is AU$10,000 for the first to PROVE me wrong”
Dug, there is some truth of what you say, not everything though.
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.
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.
“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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
There aren’t any unicorns, and there ain’t any “heat creep”.
There are plenty of unicorns , they’re just not uniformly distributed between the real and null sets.
Same is true of Christopher’s M Model and many objects of existential threat inflation :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/is-climate-crisis-rigid-designator-in.html
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.~px290~ 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
Arguing over unicorns is nothing, Pup.
Wait till you argue with Graham over anything.
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.
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!
"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.
Quote fests are for losers, Graham.
Find another technique.
Everything you said was a lie. You are simply human filth.
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.
You are simply human filth.
No U, dearest Graham.
#2
You are simply human filth.
You can say that again, cute boy.
Prove my point.
#3
You are simply human filth.
Willard,
Please stop trolling
Thank you, Graham.
Perhaps one more time?
Just to make sure I win again.
Yes, you win the “who’s the pettiest” competition.
Read that sub thread again, Graham.
#4
You are simply human filth.
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.
“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.
So beautifully resounding unresponsiveness, Graham.
The Earth cannot receive more than it emits. Ask me why.
…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.”
Nothing to do with what Norman said, Graham.
You are just using his comment as an excuse to return to your old ways.
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.
You are not really responding to my comment either, Graham.
You are using it as a springboard.
Good afternoon, BTW.
All you have to offer are false accusations. That’s partly why “you are simply human filth”.
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.
Both are false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Both are true observations, and your denial only proves one thing –
you are trolling right now, Graham.
Please desist.
…are false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
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?
…false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Thank you once again for proving that you are the worst troll here, Graham.
Slimy, vindictive, and tone-deaf.
…accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
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.
…I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
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?
…was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Looks like you’re rediscovering how to duplicate your comment by changing a letter, Graham.
Just like Mike did recently.
…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]
(A very good demonstration indeed. Graham whiffs the same weak jabs while I keep adding to the score.)
…to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
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.
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?
Please stop trolling, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
While Dr Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton futilely argued about how climate sensitivity is calculated from climate models, this happened…
Exxon will not be pleased.
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?
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.
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.
Where did Wally publish this reasonable view?
Do send a copy to Lord Lawson !
Fixing Climate
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.
Clint R
On this post I agree with you.
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.
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
I suggest Lord Monckton that you read …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
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
> Cleaning up sewage is a big job.
I’m doing my part.
…to create it in the first place.
You, Pup, Gordo, and Mike were here first, Graham.
Only one of them still has his nick, and it is not you.
Yes, we were here first, clearing up the mess made by people like you.
Nothing new.
You were here before I was, Graham, and it was a mess.
Time flies like an arrow and fruitcakes become sockpuppets.
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.
I already told you, Graham –
You are the troll. I am the slayer.
Why are your tears so salty?
Yes, you say that often…most here recognize you as a troll though, whatever they might think of me.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ⌛
We’d be much better off without your pointless maunderings, troll.
I love you too, Kennui.
<3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I asked you a question, Graham.
…and I will never answer any of your questions, ever again. You have wasted enough of my time. Thank you.
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?
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.
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?
You are a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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?
…are a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Where’s your troll chart, Chartmaster?
Perhaps you can opine on bdgwx – is he a troll?
…a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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?
…troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Read this comment by Nick Stokes, Graham:
Is this trolling?
…It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
…as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
…simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Has our Troll Detector ever asked Dug to stop trolling?
I bet not. It somehow helps him.
…as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Not a very good Troll Detector, that Graham.
…that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“…as of 1 April 2023…”
At least they picked an appropriate date….
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.
> Munich Re have long been too close to Communism for comfort.
Drink!
However, you are not formally trained in science, no?
.
.
.
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
Little Willy, Tyson, please stop trolling.
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.
PS: You could also do well to wade through ..
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
Please notify us of the solicitors’ firm that is holding the $10,000 in escrow, and of the court that will hear and decide any claim independently. And then get back on thread.
Go back to these two comments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376394
And read
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376748
and the comment just written at the end of the thread.
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.
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.”
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.
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!
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
Mr “Cot’n” has not refuted anything. He has merely shouted. Understanding the head posting requires a minimum of scientific knowledge, an open mind and the ability to read and think.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376363
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376394
And Lord Monckton can do nothing but make assertive comments and calls to the very authorities that Prof Claes Johnson, Physicist Josef Loschmidt, myself and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls* and many others have proven wrong.
Just like the CSIRO, he has no proof that water vapor warms when evidence shows it cools us, and just as well.**
And he has no evidence (like the CSIRO) that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives correct temperatures when using the sum of fluxes from two or more different sources, such as what is implied in climatology energy diagrams.***
I present facts, evidence and correct physics, none of which he has ever even addressed, let alone proven wrong.
It is the arrogant, narcissistic attitudes of many scientists and academics which assist in perpetuating what Dr Tim Ball (sadly recently deceased) called the biggest deception in history.
* http://climate-change-theory.com/physicist.jpg
** http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
*** http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
Dug
I try an ignore your comments as a waste of time. I used to try and educate you but you are single-minded and not thoughtful. You should not be asking others to refute your theory (if you want to call it such) you should be doing it yourself, finding everything you can that might be wrong with it. You are not a scientist unless you can do this.
The point were you are wrong: YOU: “Just like the CSIRO, he has no proof that water vapor warms when evidence shows it cools us, and just as well.”
Water vapor is a warming effect. In your study you only verified what most accept (including NASA): “The net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5C (9F). One can calculate that a higher surface temperature would result from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the consequent slowing of heat radiation from the surface, provided nothing else changes. But what happens to the radiation balance if, as part of the climatic response, the clouds themselves change?”
From: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Here you can see for yourself.
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-dni-2018-01.jpg
Water vapor clearly has a warming effect. The cooling is not from the vapor form but the liquid form in clouds. You need to get your facts correct.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
I will only respond now to people who have read my papers and are constructively commenting on the content.
My seven papers may be read with these links
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 for the first three, then:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
“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
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.
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
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.
Closer in January, dingaling.
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
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.
What about the distance, Dug?
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.
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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
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
You just proved you know absolutely nothing. LOL
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?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376555
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
Dug,
Orbital eccentricity cannot change climates. Only living matter can. The ‘creep heat” concept is a better one, and I believe that this heat is equal to the net heat of carbon conversion to carbon dioxide resulting from deforestation, surface greening, and energy consumption.
I only respond now to people who have read my papers and are constructively commenting on the content.
https:/ssrn.com/author=2627605
My seven papers may be read with these links
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 for the first three, then:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
Dug,
Wonderful. Don’t respond to anyone who disagrees with you.
Maybe reality will ignore you if you ignore it.
Good luck with that.
Feel free to discuss anything that is actually in my papers. So far you have failed to refer to even a single sentence, let alone the cogent proofs of everything I have said and the experiments, studies and data that support such. I guess the HUGE problem for you is to deign to actually read the papers.
Hang on there Dug,
You wrote –
“I only respond now to people who have read my papers and are constructively commenting on the content.”
Do you really think I have read your papers and am constructively commenting on them?
You are more deranged than I thought, and have a very strange idea of constructive criticism. I think you are dreaming, but if you think that is constructive criticism, who am I to disagree?
I think you are delusional. I suppose that is constructive criticism, according to you, but it wasn’t intended as such,
Your rudeness does not impress me. Silent readers (of whom there are scores) will form their own opinion of you.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Einestine is the last to adhere to physical reality. Much of his work has not or cannot be validated by the public.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
You live in a world of theory.
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.
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.
All the climate models have a positive feedback written into the code.
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.
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.
Do you think that you can convince the audience with colorful wording instead of facts and sound arguments based on established and recognized science?
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
“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?
Hi Nate. Thank you for your comment.
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.
A positive feedback strength will lead to a positive feedback response, amplifying, not attenuating, the reference signal.
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.
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.’
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
Relatively speaking, they are better at governing than writing the climate science.
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’?
“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)
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?
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.
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.
“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.
“The furtively pseudonymous Willard continues to parade his ignorance and hatred.”
Best line of the day.
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:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375737
He sure figured you out fast.
“Willard is no doubt expert in Marxism-Leninism, but he is certainly no mathematician.”
John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, figured out our Viscount earlier than that, Kennui:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
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”.
Here is the source:
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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Kennui,
Just for you:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/10/10/how-to-lord-comment-sections/
So many lines. You *will* like that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.
“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)
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.
> The Earth is not “holding”, its “cooling”.
What are you rambling about, Mike?
“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.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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
“Retired physicist” is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here.
Monckton of Brenchley is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here.
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
LORD MONCKTON
Please go to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376748
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.
Morning temperatures (in C) in the Dakotas.
https://i.ibb.co/HpKWZPf/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-07-144325.png
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:
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.
Hey, Graham –
Isn’t Pup trolling with that comment?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
“…I’m not a real moderator.
…I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write ‘please stop trolling’, it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my ‘please stop trolling’.
…
I think what people are really upset about by the ‘please stop trolling’ is…they don’t get to have the last word.“
Exactly. Thank you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679512
With Little Willy, he is absolutely devastated not to get the last word.
I’m not the one who tilts when you can’t, Graham.
You forgot to opine on Pup’s trolling.
Nah, I just hold up a mirror to others’ behaviour. In order to do so, it is sometimes necessary to keep responding for long periods of time. This can be frustrating, and sometimes exhausting. But, it’s necessary, to show you people for what you are.
That excuse does not float anymore, Graham, and I ignore most of your PSTing.
And you still fail to opine on Pup’s trolling.
No excuses here. Just the truth of the matter. In my opinion, Clint R is not trolling.
Yes, Graham. Excuses. What you do is on you.
People don’t like being trolled. You troll them. Then you complain that they’re the trolls. And then you hide under false irony.
Just holding up a mirror.
No excuses here. Just the truth of the matter.
People troll, I ask them to stop, they are upset that they don’t get the last word.
Oh well.
[TYSON] “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.”
[PUP] TM, compare your desperate attempt to pervert reality with rational science. […] Believing you can boil water with ice cubes is anti-science. You suffer from over exposure to anti-science.
[GRAHAM] Not trolling.
The full comments are already there, for anyone to read.
Everyone can see that Pup is simply trolling with that comment, Pup. And right now you’re trolling by trying to defend the indefensible. Unless you count repeating the same thing over and over as a defense. Which might be what’s coming.
When was the last time you directly admitted to trolling?
Tyson only quoted an indirect admission.
We aren’t the trolls here. You are.
Of course you’re not trolling, Graham.
You’re just “having a little fun”:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
Believe me, there’s no fun in talking to you.
I’m just holding a mirror, Graham.
Yes, like many narcissists, you like mirrors.
Graham, please stop trolling.
There is nobody here commenting by that name.
#2
I’m just holding a mirror, Graham.
…and there is still nobody commenting here by the name Graham.
Correct DREMT, correcting the cult nonsense is NOT trolling.
Trolling is having NOTHING, but seeking attention anyway.
Pup, please stop trolling.
Yes, Clint R, as we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
That is your opinion, Graham.
And we just tested its worth.
…Clint R, as we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
It was an important test, Graham.
…as we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
Very important test, Graham.
Perhaps the last one.
…we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
“But, its necessary, to show you people for what you are.”
Ok the message has been sent, 47,000 times, now it is just white noise.
…can see, they don’t even possess originality.
The irony and morony that the guy who has posted the IDENTICAL message 47,000 times moans of a lack of originality from others.
…see, they don’t even possess originality.
Literally everyone visiting here can see you being a hypocrite here. That doesn’t bother you?
That’s how we recognize trolling
…they don’t even possess originality.
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.
> Mr McGuffin is in fact comparing two merchants of science with one merchant of Communism
Drink!
Not true, tropical cyclone count is increasing at 4 percent per decade. Go to previous post by Dr. Spencer for details.
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:
Monckton fancies himself a man of science but can’t be bothered to read the research.
Tyson fancies himself so much he writes his own name in capital letters.
Graham, please stop trolling.
…they don’t even possess originality.
Graham, please, stop trolling.
…don’t even possess originality.
Graham, please, stop, trolling.
…even possess originality.
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
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
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.
Off topic. Dont blub.
Christopher, please stop whining.
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
” Off topic. Dont blub. ”
That’s the harshest expression of denial since a while.
What does such a guy have to do here ???
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.
You are quoting a journalist who won beauty contests, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…as CM states, don’t blub. Henceforth we may refer to you as blubberer.
C’mon, Gordo.
Binny has a point. Christopher’s Wiki leads to marvelous memories, e.g.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720192325/http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
Granted, our Viscount is a walking contradiction himself.
That’s still no excuse.
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
It would be my pleasure to share with you my recently published papers as well as other papers presently being submitted to journals. Your comments and critique would be valuable to me if you have time. My email address is nabilswedan@yahoo.com.
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.
You’re just sore, Binny, because you’re not smart enough to participate. With major appeals to authority you are dead in the water.
Fan mail:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/no-climatologists-did-not-forget-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-1375495
More crickets from our trainee-in-classical-logic.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Considering the scattered nonsense and downright falsehoods in the above it is clear that you do not understand this stuff very well.
Failure to account for measured water vapor (which has been increasing substantially faster than possible from just feedback) is at best a mistake and perhaps science incompetence. Measured WV increase can account for all of climate change attributable to humanity. CO2 has no significant effect. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316885439_Climate_Change_Drivers
In the future, hopefully not too distant, this laws of fizzix breaking back radiation model of ground eating back its own radiation and adding it up will be looked at as just another Ptolemaic system that has no basis on reality.
maguff…”From Christopher Moncktons headline post:
But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions”
***
I may not agree with everything CM writes or for that matter everything the late Fred Singer wrote. However, both have/had their hearts in the right place, just as with Roy and John Christy, and I back CM on the statement above.
It is absolutely futile to follow this nonsense about catastrophic global warming/climate change. Michael Moore has made an excellent video demonstrating clearly the hypocrisy, naivete, and lies of climate alarmists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE&ab_channel=MichaelMoore
Salient points…
1)All Green initiatives like wind and solar power are heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels or come anywhere close to replacing them.
2)Alarmists are chopping down trees to burn them (biomass) and claiming it as a renewable process, hence clean. Absurd as this practice may be, green trees don’t burn well, in fact coal burns much better producing less CO2. So, the idiots are adding accelerants to the wood like shredded rubber tires.
3)Climate alarmists are seriously mistaken and naive in thinking addressing climate change will solve any problems we face today.
4)Huge profits are being made by pigs like Al Gore who are working both sides of the fence.
mark m…”Monckton of Brenchley is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here”.
***
Au contraire…Roy has personally invited CM to comment. Try reading Roy’s article.
maguff…”Compare and contrast two Merchants of Doubt and one scientist”.
***
Maguff is appealing to the authority of Naomi Oreskes, who divines that consensus is a valid form of science. She performed a study of 1000 scientists and claimed 90% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic theory.
Oreskes, in her not-so-brilliant book, Merchants of Doubt, tried to assault a few deceased scientists who could not defend themselves. Really classy.
GR,
Michael Mann, faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, sought to have the foolish Naomi Oreskes admitted as an expert witness in his defamation action against Mark Steyn.
Here’s part of Judge Irvings comments about the silly SkyDragon posturing of Naomi Oreskes –
“When asked about the methodologies that she used in this case, Dr. Oreskes responded: “If you want me to tell you what my method is, it’s reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them.”
The judge was scathing in his condemnation of such silliness, and explained his reasons in his written decision to dismiss her, and another five dimwits, as being “expert witnesses”.
Others may read the Court’s order dismissing the bizarre attempt by Mann to get nitwits like Naomi Oreskes admitted as “expert witnesses” in a court of law.
Courts tend to favour facts over SkyDragon fantasies, and so they should.
Others will indeed read, Mike:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/27/judge-strikes-all-of-michael-manns-expert-witnesses-from-libel-suit/
Willard,
You have quoted another journalist expressing a journalistic opinion.
I suppose that’s not as idiotic as Naomi Oreskes thinking a judge should value her opinions any more than he would a random member of the public.
Carry on appealing to the opinions of anyone you wish.
You are a donkey, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
I have quoted the important bit to show what happens when rational people think properly,
As for what happens within Sky Dragon Cranks such as you, who knows.
Probably as much as with the pitch drop experiment!
Willard,
Quoting a journalist’s opinion is about as scientific as a SkyDragon like you gets.
Might as quote the opinion of a pretentious dimwit like Dr Naomi Oreskes.
Neither is worth a cracker in a court of law.
Volokh is not exactly a journalist, Mike, and I could not find Keith Richards.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Speaking of “SkyDragon fantasies” I’m with you on that:
http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
Dead link.
This is worth repeating…from Monckton of Brenchly re Willard…aka Dullard.
***
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 Wests 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.
And this is worth repeating:
And you, my dear Gordo, are just sore, because &c.
Willard,
Well blow me down!
The trustee of a climate change charity (I didn’t know that climate change needed charity), and the duly elected winner of a beauty contest, says that Lord Monckton isn’t taken seriously by anybody!
I assume that Lord Monckton, at least, takes himself seriously, and if he does, it demonstrates Lord Gummer is nothing more than an ignorant bullying blowhard.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here is John Gummer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer
As for blowing you, perhaps you should negotiate that with your spouse.
Willard,
As I said, the winner of a beauty contest, and the trustee of a climate change charity.
As to the rest of your nonsense, you are just peeved because I have rejected your homosexual protestations of love, and laugh at your masturbatory fantasies!
Keep trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you prefers losers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Elective affinites, no doubt.
Willard,
As I said, Gummer was the winner of a beauty contest, and the trustee of a climate change charity.
As to the rest of your nonsense, you are just peeved because I have rejected your homosexual protestations of love, and laugh at your masturbatory fantasies!
Keep trolling.
I know, Mike. You prefer losers:
Factional infighting is right up your alley.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now there is “A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.” Ecclesiastes 3:7
The suffering and potential financial ruin in countries aiming for “net zero” is only just beginning unless scientists come clean, recognise that climatology “science” is false and humbly, like Physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls, acknowledge shame for having taught the IPCC’s “sheer nonsense” which was “not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”
Click and read the whole quote, then think about how you could really save the world by about-facing, tearing apart this fictitious claim about human warming and speaking – speaking to everyone from Kings and Presidents down.
http://climate-change-theory.com/physicist.jpg
Dead link
We need to get it that the word forcing is nothing more than climate alarmist jargon that comes from climate models. The source in climate models are differential equations used to model the atmosphere.
The Sun warms the Earth it does not force it. However, if we want to model the Sun/Earth system we set up a differential equation and use a separate equation to force the modeled equation to respond. Such an equation is called a forcing function.
You force a model not the reality.
At NOAA’s site, climate dot gov, they introduce then define a forcing as follows:
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/predicting-climate/climate-forcing
“Sunlight energy heats land and water at the surface, and in turn, they emit heat. This heat provides further warming of the atmosphere. The mix of gases in our atmosphere keeps some of the heat energy from escaping directly to space, similar to the way a blanket keeps warmth near your body. This process is the naturally occurring greenhouse effect, and it keeps Earth warm enough to support life”.
***
This is utter jargon. The Earth’s surface does NOT emit heat. It emits electromagnetic energy in the infrared band and heat is lost in the conversion. No heat is emitted to space because EM has no means of carrying heat. The surface does conduct heat to the atmosphere and that heat rises due to convection. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and can only exist in a mass or as a movement of a mass, as in convection.
Radiation cannot transfer heat from one body to another, rather heat is lost in one body and gained in another body of lower temperature. The heat loss and heat gain is done locally via electron transitions in the atoms of the bodies, no heat moving between bodies.
Atmospheric gases cannot prevent heat from escaping because they lack the means to do so. Glass in a real greenhouse can prevent heat escaping because it blocks MOLECULES of air physically, and GHGs cannot do that.
NOAA is talking absolute tommy-rot.
****************************
Then they define forcing…….
“In accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics, as Earth absorbs energy from the sun, it must eventually emit an equal amount of energy to space. The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing (RF). In the same way as applying a pushing force to a physical object will cause it to become unbalanced and move, a climate forcing factor will change the climate system. When forcings result in incoming energy being greater than outgoing energy, the planet will warm (positive RF). Conversely, if outgoing energy is greater than incoming energy, the planet will cool”.
This is unmitigated jargon. They are talking here only about radiation while ignoring the effect of conduction and convection. Sure, the only way energy can escape into space is via radiation, but heat is retained in the system by conduction and convection. The effect of both warming the atmosphere far outweighs anything radiation can do since it terrestrial temperatures, radiation is highly ineffective.
When solar energy heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere adjacent to the surface. That air rises and is replaced by cooler air from above. The cycle repeats. However, the heat that rises via convection dissipates itself naturally as air pressure is reduced. That natural dissipation of heat is not accounted for in NOAA’s theory.
The point is, the Sun has been warming the Earth for millions of years and the amount of radiation to space has lagged behind a straight energy in – energy out rate. Therefore the Earth is much warmer than it should be since energy is stored the bodies of water, and the surface, especially in the Tropics, where it is distributed elsewhere on Earth.
As Christos claims, we have a rotational rate that does not allow us to cool much between solar appearances and that has a great deal to do with the current temperature of the Earth. No need for a greenhouse theory, the warming is well explained in other manners.
**************
The part about the Sun warming the Earth is not jargon but the definition of radiative forcing as the difference between radiative energy in and radiative energy out is jargon. There is no comparison whatsoever between a force applied to a mass and radiative energy applied to the Earth.
At one time, we talked about the Sun warming the Earth and we know that a body heated to a temperature, T, must dissipate its heat via conduction, convection, and/or radiation. The only time the laws of thermodynamics become involved is if there is a negative temperature difference between the body and its environment. That is, the body is warmer than its environment. That implies that back-radiation cannot warm the surface because the source is colder than the target.
With the advent of climate models in the 1960s, differential equation theory began to replace actual physics terminology with its inane terminology. Warming has become forcing and systems that cannot possibly exhibit positive feedback suddenly develop a positive feedback.
Anyone is welcome to use this jargon but at the expense of supporting idiotic climate alarmists and their butchery of physics.
Well said, Gordon.
Gordon,
Addressing the climate based on your understanding is the correct thermodynamic methodology. It is complex but not impossible. I have a paper that is presently under review based on this understanding. It is lengthy. Climatologists made a short cut concept of radiative forcing, apparently they have not tried hard enough. With time, It has been forgotten as a concept. Please see chapter 8 of ipcc 2013 report. It is only a concept. Unfortunately, the concept has not been useful, and it is time for an alternative.
Nabil…circa 1909, R. W. Wood, an expert on gases, including CO2, stated that he did not think CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it. Wood was no lightweight, he was consulted by Neils Bohr re sodium gas.
Wood reckoned the cause of the warming we call greenhouse warming is actually due to air being heated at the surface via conduction, then convected naturally in a vertical direction. Wood pointed out that nitrogen and Oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, being unable to radiate away the heat, retains it, hence the warming of the atmosphere.
That means that the pithy 0.04% f CO2 is forced to the temperature of the N2/O2, and the ever diluting surface radiation will be unable to warm it further.
steven m mosher…”the climate is not a circuit.
repeat after me. the climate is not a circuit.
and cant be modelled as a circuit.
this is a category error. full stop”
***
No one has tried to model the atmosphere as a circuit, it has been used only to demonstrate the true meaning of positive feedback and that it requires an amplifier.
Why can I describe positive feedback perfectly as per the mathematical definition using an electrical circuit but no one can begin to explain it in the atmosphere without resorting to obfuscation and innuendo?
Look up any definition of positive feedback in climate circles and all you get are obscure inferences and no absolute description that meets the criterion that a positive feedback increases the gain in a system.
The closest climate alarmists can come is claiming that back-radiation from GHGs can increase the surface temperature to a higher level than it is warmed by solar energy. Still, this implies an increase in the level of heat (temperature) via some kind of amplification.
To achieve that amplification, alarmists have changed the 2nd law to suit their inane theory. The 2nd law is absolute: heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer bodyt. Alarmists have introduced an undefined parameter called a balance of energies, claiming the 2nd law is not contradicted if a balance of energies is positive.
That is malarkey. Sheer bs.
Lord M, in a fit of hubris, wrote –
“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.”
There is no feedback. The Earth has demonstrably cooled, ruling out any positive feedback. Lord M cannot demonstrate any negative feedback, despite his protestations to the contrary.
Neither wishful thinking nor self praise can make fact out of fantasy.
Lord M may reject reality if he wishes. Reality just keeps on keeping on.
They are wrong right at the outset in saying “Sunlight energy heats land and water at the surface, and in turn, they emit heat.” That word “sunlight” and “at the surface” condemn them, because NASA energy diagrams* show such “sunlight” (solar radiation) entering the surface as of the order of 170w/m^2 (it varies over the years apparently) which will not heat “the land and the water” on a global basis because, by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the global mean surface temperature would be colder than minus 40C as I have pointed out many times. Their energy diagrams add about twice as much “back radiation” (over 320w/m^2) which is fictitious and, laughably, means they are showing more energy coming out of the base of the atmosphere via radiation than the Sun delivers at the top, even before reflection.
So that’s the First Law of Thermodynamics violated.
Then they ignore the fact that the observed temperature gradient in the troposphere tends to form (and repair itself) at the molecular level, not due to rising parcels of air from the surface that solar radiation hasn’t heated in the first place, but due to the action of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
They clearly must be assuming that they can add the fluxes of solar and atmospheric radiation for use in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, but that is an incorrect application of such calculations because the Law only applies for a single source that is hotter than the target and is delivering more flux than the target (the surface) is already emitting.
When they do add these different fluxes they ignore the fact that the combined function is not the same as would be a Planck function for a single source delivering the total flux (like a sun about three times as powerful as ours) and so that function would not have the required peak wavelength for the assumed temperature generated, and thus would not be in agreement with Wien’s Displacement Law.
So that’s four long-established laws of physics broken or ignored which is why I call it fictitious, fiddled physics.
Is that enough to convince you Lord Monckton (and Roy) that you are barking up the wrong tree and implicitly supporting the false concepts climatologists promulgate regarding back radiation and forcing?
I have given you the correct science. I’ll willingly email you my phone numbers if you have any difficulty in understanding my papers or book.
Don’t kill the goose that laid you this golden egg.
* http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
monckton of b…Just want to be clear CM, I am on your side. I support you, I just think you should modify some of your theories. My background is in electrical engineering and I have applied feedback theories in the field both in control theory and with feedback amplifiers.
So, can we work together on this to inform the public as to the nasty scams of climate alarmists?
**************************
“[CM]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.
***
Actually, what I said is there is a major difference between control theory vis-a-vis servo systems and the feedback in feedback amplifiers. In the former, the feedback is of voltage sign only re +ve and -ve and in feedback amplifiers, the feedback is used to control the overall gain of an amplifier employing feedback. Not all amplifiers use feedback.
In the atmosphere, I presume the theory is related to a runaway condition, or a tipping point, and that involves only feedback amplifier theory. Control system theory is not related to that since amplification in such systems is not important wrt the overall gain, which is of no interest.
*******************************
Mr Robertson seems unaware that a positive feedback does not attenuate the signal: it amplifies it. It is a negative feedback that attenuates it.
***
That is etched into my brain, I don’t know where you got the idea I think otherwise.
****************
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.
***
You say ‘us’, I am part of ‘us’, here on Roy’s blog. I am submitting my complaints to the correct medium.
I did not mean to imply all feedback theory cannot be employed in the atmosphere, which involves only negative feedbacks. My point is that positive feedbacks, re tipping points and runaway greenhouse effects, cannot exist in the atmosphere since there is no amplifier.
G = A/(1 + AB)
Where is the A in the atmosphere and where is the B? If (1 + AB) < 1, the input signal is amplified each cycle leading to a runaway situation. Without an amplifier it won't work.
Oh the amplifier in the atmosphere is there all right, according to NASA energy diagrams* that show more energy coming out of the base of the atmosphere via radiation (solar + back radiation) than the Sun delivers at the top.
Venus apparently has a bigger amplifier with about 2,600w/m^2 of Solar radiation entering (even before reflection) and, apparently, over 16,500w/m^2 coming out of the base of its atmosphere in order to warm the surface from 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side, as observed happens. /sarc
May I humbly suggest you read my comments from this one
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377211
Then stop endorsing false “science” that violates or ignores four laws of physics, as I explained above.
We’re all on the same side, fighting the biggest scam in history, but stop scoring own goals for goodness sake!
* http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
Well said, Gordon.
Off topic.
You cannot win. You are mud wrestling with pigs, and the pigs do not mind getting dirty. None of the people who habitually argue with each other are very talented or knowledgeable, and this fool who has been banned from just about every site is back in full force. I think that both you and Dr. Spencer make intellectually sound arguments, but as I stated somewhere, the uncertainty in climate modelling is still very large due to the complexity of the climate system.
Christopher and Roy contradict each other, Tim. At least of them has an unsound argument. Perforce, one might add if one feels like using old words.
Unlike many of the fools who argue on this site, they both are making sense using sound arguments. Neither is proven right or wrong because they are both based on theory and factors that are difficult to measure.
A sound argument has true premises, Tim.
The only cases where both Roy and Christopher could infer conclusions that are not contradictory would be if their premises would not conflict.
They obviously do. Sometimes clouds warm, sometimes they don’t. Hard to model that using a linear apparatus.
My earlier claim was therefore too strong: they *could* contradict each other and both be right, for instance if they were in violent agreement.
They obviously are not, at least not regarding what climate scientists do and presume.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Very much on topic …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377211
Your “science” Lord Monckton is PROVEN wrong. Pity you didn’t offer a reward.
Monckton of Brenchley:
Please read these two comments (addressed to others) which you should find informative
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379582
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379596
as well as my third (and latest) climate website at
http://climate-change-theory.com
The only correct physics relating to the role of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane is in seven papers linked on my Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com. This page is available in eight languages and the papers have never been proven wrong by anyone.
So none of the thousands of publications on these topics contain correct physics?
I doubt very much you’ve read all of them, or even 1 % of them, so I think we can safely disregard this comment.
The issue of climate sensitivity has been misunderstood for many decades. The core problem is the CONFUSION that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) was caused by long-wave atmospheric radiation. This is not the case, since the LW radiation is a mere consequence of atmospheric temperatures, which are determined by diabatic heating from the Sun and adiabatic enhancement of the absorbed solar energy by atmospheric pressure. There has been a profound misunderstanding of the adiabatic atmospheric heating in climate science… Since ATE is not caused by atmospheric LW radiation, there is NO climate sensitivity to variations of atmospheric LW opacity, i.e. to radiative properties of so-called “greenhouse gases”.
For a proper calculation of climate sensitivities to REAL forcings such as TSI, cloud albedo, and the absorbed solar radiation by the system, please read this article:
“Exact Calculations of Climate Sensitivities Reveal the True Cause of Recent Warming”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/
No! I dispute the claim about “adiabatic enhancement of the absorbed solar energy by atmospheric pressure.”
Pressure can do nothing. It cannot add net energy over a period wherein it returns to its original value. It is a response to variations in density and temperature. The Ideal Gas Law basically says …
Pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
As a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics gravity forms the density gradient and, simultaneously, the temperature gradient because the values towards which these gradients tend is the one and the same state of maximum entropy. The pressure gradient is then just a result of these other two gradients, not the cause.
This is easily understood with the Kinetic Theory of Gases as used by Einstein and many others.
High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. There are high temperatures in the thermosphere, but very low pressure. There is high pressure in the depths of the ocean but cold temperatures. There are similar pressures in deep bore holes but high temperatures. Pressure does not vary in any sort of correlation with night and day or summer and winter.
What really happens is in my 2013 paper on surface and core temperatures at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Apparently, you have retired too soon. You should go back to school and study some basic Thermodynamics and atmospheric physics, specifically learn why temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere. You can start with this video:
https://vimeo.com/602819278
The good news is that real Physics does not care about uneducated opinions like yours, which also does not agree with observations.
Good luck in your re-education!
Typical attempt at personal smears by those who can’t prove me wrong. Water off a duck’s back, because my physics is correct.
Prof Claes Johnson was right.
The brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was right too.
Post your refutation on Researchgate because about 3,000 have read my refutation of your Unified Theory of Climate.
Correction: It is your “Universal Theory of Climate” that has had over 2,920 reads.
You can’t prove Josef Loschmidt wrong Ned Nickolov because the gravitationally induced temperature gradient is a direct consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words it is the state of maximum entropy we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.
You can’t explain the necessary input of thermal energy that makes the Venus surface warm on the sunlit side because the solar radiation is less than 20w/m^2 at the Venus surface and radiation from the less-hot atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface. Only “heat creep” can and does do that.
Then explain why it’s hotter than Earth at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus. You can’t; I can
(continued)
That density gradient is thermodynamic equilibrium because entropy is a function ofall forms of internal energy including gravitational potential energy. At maximumentropy in any small region the sum of molecular kinetic energy + gravitationalpotential energy is constant so that there are no unbalanced energy potentials. Thetemperature gradient can then be quantified. [1]And so, in a planet’s troposphere …(1) Gravity redistributes mass and accelerates or decelerates molecules so as totend to form the stable state of thermodynamic equilibrium, namely maximumentropy wherein there are no unbalanced energy potentials. Assuming no phasechange or chemical process, that state is achieved in a local region when, at variousheights, the sum of mean molecular (gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy)is homogeneous. Hence, when PE is greater at the top the KE is less and sotemperature is cooler, and vice versa.(2) That state has a non-zero density gradient.(3) That state also has a non-zero temperature gradient.(4) The Ideal Gas Law tells us pressure is directly proportional to the product oftemperature and density.(5) Hence the non-zero pressure gradient is a result of the temperature and densitygradients formed by gravity.Variations in pressure result from variations in temperature and density. They are notthe cause of a variation in temperature.High pressure does not maintain high temperatures as you know when the air in yourvehicle’s tires is warmed by friction when you are driving, but the air in the tires coolsin your garage overnight probably right down to the ambient temperature in yourgarage. But the pressure does not match the ambient pressure in your garage.It is because this temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium thatthe non-radiative heat transfer process described in my 2013 paper occurs,transferring new thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in the middletroposphere and above down to the base of the troposphere and into any solidsurface. If this did not happen, then the temperature at the base of the 350Km highnominal troposphere of Uranus would not be hotter than Earth’s surface and, indeed,would be close to absolute zero, and likewise for the Venus surface. Earth’s meansurface temperature would be colder than that for the Moon which is probably colderthan -15C.So, it is not back radiation which climatologists have just guessed must be supplyingabout twice as much thermal energy to Earth’s surface as does the direct solarradiation, but rather it is this heat creep process that I have explained.[1]The solar radiation determines an anchoring temperature at a certain altitude in aplanet, and then the temperature gradient allows quantification at any altitude in thetroposphere as in my paper. [1]Nikolov and Zeller [2] as well as Jelbring [3] incorrectly asserted that high pressuremaintains surface temperatures.
(3) (PDF) Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate [accessed Oct 09 2022].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
ABSTRACT
I’ve noticed that many science students and graduates from recent decades become “formula” people without understanding the limitations and conditions under which such expressions are applicable. This has led to scientists like Drs Jelbring, Nikolov and Zeller all publishing papers in which they point out a kind of correlation (not linear) between pressure and temperature in planetary tropospheres, but then they incorrectly deduce that it is high pressure that is maintaining high temperatures such as at the surface of Venus. They think this is a result of the Ideal Gas Law (IGL) but they confuse cause and effect. For example, people know from undergraduate physics that the IGL tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. So, if we have a sealed, perfectly insulated cylinder full of gas and, using an inserted electric element, we raise the temperature (by adding kinetic energy to the gas molecules and making them move faster between collisions) then, since the density remains constant, the pressure will indeed increase in proportion to the absolute (K) temperature. For temperature to increase we must have a source of energy which raises the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. If some external source of energy is used it to increase the pressure then what it is really doing is increasing the density and/or the temperature. So the increase in pressure is just a result of external energy being applied that may well have increased the temperature. The point is that it was not the increase in pressure that caused the increase in temperature but vice versa. The relevance of this is that we see many attempts to explain why the surface temperature of planets is greater than that which direct solar radiation to the surface could achieve. So some people say the high pressure is causing the temperature to be hotter. That is simply not the case. Correlation does not imply cause. What actually happens occurs at the molecular level in every small parcel of air at every altitude, as was explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in 1876 but totally ignored by climatologists. As a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says entropy will tend towards a maximum (by diminishing unbalanced energy potentials) we find that gravity forms a stable density gradient in the troposphere of every planet. Simultaneously it forms a temperature gradient, this being represented by the same state of maximum entropy which in physics is called thermodynamic equilibrium.
Continued above at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377726
Your explanation is simply DELUSIONAL! There is no other term to characterize your assertion that, in planetary atmospheres, higher temperature causes higher pressure. Apparently, you are clueless about the fact that planetary atmospheres are ISOBARIC systems governed by Charles’s law, where surface pressure is set by atmospheric mass and gravity (independently of temperature) and atmospheric volume is proportional to surface temperature. Atmospheric volume is a result of surface temperature and pressure (that’s basic atmospheric physics). This is a totally different system from a cylinder full of gas with rigid walls and fixed volume, which represents an ISOCHORIC systems governed by Gay-Lussac’s Law. Pressure is proportional to temperature ONLY in isochoric systems, which planetary atmospheres are NOT!!
Also, you don’t understand a fundamental thermodynamic truth that the gas density is NEVER a driver of temperature. Density is ALWAYS a consequence (result) of pressure and temperature. This is so because pressure is a FORCE and, by definition, energy cannot exist without a force. Temperature is simply an intensive property of the kinetic thermal energy of a gas. In other words, temperature requires energy, while energy requires FORCE or pressure to exist. Even electromagnetic radiation has pressure, because the unit W m-2 = Photon pressure X speed of light. Do you realize that, in the Gas Law, the product PV = Joule (thermal kinetic energy)??
Like I said, you are fundamentally confused about basic aspects of Thermodynamics, and you also show no understanding of the meaning of physical units.
You haven’t studied my 2013 paper at all. You have tried to guess what it says. You are apparently ignorant of the fact that entropy is affected not only by changes in mean molecular kinetic energy (i.e. temperature) but by changes in any form of internal energy including gravitational potential energy. You fail to think at the molecular level using the Kinetic Theory of Gases such as Einstein did successfully. You are not displaying any evidence of a real understanding of how the mean kinetic energy of molecules in the surface of, say, Venus increases on the sunlit side, or how the required such energy gets down through 350Km on Uranus from the top of the atmosphere to the base of that nominal troposphere where there is no surface, but making it about 320K. The solar radiation at the TOA of Uranus can only support less than 60K. There has to be heat from cold to warm downwards to balance upward losses by radiation and, mostly on the dark side, by upward free (or “natural”) convective heat transfer.
Such “heat creep” from cold to hot by molecular collision processes can ONLY happen in a force field. It happens, for example, radially in a vortex cooling tube due to the centrifugal force. It happens in every planetary troposphere and it supplies the energy (i.e. causes the necessary heat from the mid and upper troposphere absorbed from solar radiation each morning, for example, down to the surface) – yes, it supplies that energy which you think pressure magically creates without any help from the Sun I assume you think. Just switch off the Sun!
This is continued in my refutation of your paper on Researchgate which has had over 2,930 views with a research interest score of 12.7. It is linked from http://climate-change-theory.com which has had nearly 52,000 hits.
Truth will prevail and I will continue to fight false physics such as yours that effectively claims pressure creates energy, rather cleverly only on the sunlit side it would seem, especially where it happens to be near a tropical desert in mid summer. Clever pressure! Try finding a correlation between pressure and temperature all over the world in all seasons!
Good luck with that!
I suppose you just think you’re more brilliant than Josef Loschmidt who was first to make a realistic estimate of the size of molecules in the 1870’s. He thought at the molecular level.
You fail to understand how the temperature gradient in the troposphere of any planet (Uranus being a good example) forms at the molecular level and is close to the calculated value based on the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. Even climatologists get the right answer for their dry adiabatic lapse rate. But intermolecular radiation between IR-active gases at different altitudes has a temperature levelling effect that reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient, as climatologists also know for water vapor. On Uranus I calculated the reduction as only about 5%. So I could calculate the temperature within 15K of the 320K published elsewhere.
And that’s why water vapor cools – as in the study in my 2013 paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com
I write this as much for the dozens of silent readers as for you, Ned Nikolov. Yes, it’s decades since I taught physics and marked undergraduate assignments, but I do teach carefully and, hopefully clearly, with examples.
Charles law is nothing more than the Ideal Gas Law with restrictions. There are no such restrictions in the troposphere. You misquoted me in this regard. I said quite correctly (in accord with the IGL) that …
Pressure is proportional to the PRODUCT of density and temperature. (Both density and temperature can be altered by external processes such as warming devices, pistons etc, as is obvious.)
In the troposphere gravity forms the density gradient which, in calm conditions, tends towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which is maximum entropy. In other words, it is stable. Heating air at the top of a sealed vertical cylinder of air will not reverse the density gradient, nor will cooling that air at the top. There may be minor second order changes only.
Likewise, if you SLOWLY force a piston half way down a horizontal sealed cylinder then, to first order at least, you merely double the density and (approximately) double the pressure. The molecules are moving at about 500m/sec which is far faster than the slow movement of the piston. Granted the piston could make second order changes in molecular velocity, but, by the Kinetic Theory of gases …
Temperature is proportional to the mean molecular kinetic energy.
Temperature does not increase unless that KE increases. Temperature does NOT increase due to the increase in density if that mean molecular KE does not change, and why would it do so significantly? The energy you apply is primarily converted to potential energy similar to that when you wind a clockwork spring. The potential energy will be mostly regained when you release the piston.
My point is that the energy you applied in compressing the gas in the cylinder merely doubled the density and, in accord with the IGL, the pressure would be approximately doubled with only a very small second order increase in mean molecular KE, namely temperature, due to the piston giving some molecules a relatively minor push at a far slower speed than they are already moving – about 1,800 Km/hr.
Dr. Nikolov,
You’re not making any sense. What you’re saying is exactly the opposite of what is taught in US physics classes. What physics classes in what University teaches what you’re saying?
Here is my refutation of other writings by Nikolov and Zeller:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
Tonight the frost will reach Illinois and Indiana.
This is why I have recommended that you all read my 2020 paper, not only so that you can understand why climatologists are wrong, but also why all other conjectures as to what causes temperatures to be what they are in surfaces and cores of planets and moons are wrong, especially those claiming pressure somehow warms the base of the troposphere. Just because I mention gravity does NOT mean I am a pressure proponent.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
It’s winter all over Siberia. Due to the pattern of the polar vortex, air will soon begin to flow into Canada directly from Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/1THkMxR/plot-anom-sdep.png
https://i.ibb.co/r5mQpWK/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
” Its winter all over Siberia. ”
As so often, ren is kidding us all here.
Winter?
Let’s take as example Jakutsk, with an entry in GHCN daily
RSM00024959 62.0167 129.7167 98.0 JAKUTSK
It is located at the Baikal sea, with 61N a somewhat ‘meridional’ place in Siberia compared to places like e.g. Tiksi or Werchojansk, places so cold in the winter that the lower troposphere is way warmer than the surface.
It’s now a bit over 10:30 PM there, -4 C temperature.
And so do winters look in Jakutsk.
1. 5 lowest temps
RSM00024959 60-123 1891 2 5 -64.4
RSM00024959 60-123 1898 1 19 -63.0
RSM00024959 60-123 1900 2 3 -62.8
RSM00024959 60-123 1898 1 20 -62.6
RSM00024959 60-123 1898 1 21 -62.6
2. 5 lowest temps since 2000
RSM00024959 60-123 2021 1 24 -51.2
RSM00024959 60-123 2021 1 19 -50.9
RSM00024959 60-123 2012 1 13 -50.3
RSM00024959 60-123 2012 1 11 -50.1
RSM00024959 60-123 2012 1 14 -50.0
Yeah.
I’m beginning to believe that climate scientists don’t even understand how to read their own charts.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transmission-of-shortwave-solar-irradiation-and-long-wavelength-radiation-from-the_fig1_330671036
In this graphic, there are clearly 3 black body curves, 210 k to 310 k. 210 k = -63 C. The graphic clearly highlights that CO2 absorbs and thermalizes a very narrow band of LWIR of 14.9 microns. If you go to SpectralCalc and use their blackbody calculator you will see that 14.9 microns is associated with -80 C. That is consistent with the graphic showing that the 210 K BlackBody Curve lines up with the peak of the CO2 spectrum at 14.9 microns. That graphic is all you need to know, and proves CO2 isn’t going to warm anything. Ice emits higher energy 11 micron LWIR, so CO2 won’t even melt ice let alone warm the oceans.
Either I and the chart are correct, or the climate scientists are correct, but we both can’t be correct. Are my eyes lying to me, and is that chart published in every climate text book wrong?
I’m beginning to believe that climate scientists don’t even understand how to read their own charts.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transmission-of-shortwave-solar-irradiation-and-long-wavelength-radiation-from-the_fig1_330671036
In this graphic, there are clearly 3 black body curves, 210 k to 310 k. 210 k = -63 C. The graphic clearly highlights that CO2 absorbs and thermalizes a very narrow band of LWIR of 14.9 microns. If you go to SpectralCalc and use their blackbody calculator you will see that 14.9 microns is associated with -80 C. That is consistent with the graphic showing that the 210 K BlackBody Curve lines up with the peak of the CO2 spectrum at 14.9 microns. That graphic is all you need to know, and proves CO2 isn’t going to warm anything. Ice emits higher energy 11 micron LWIR, so CO2 won’t even melt ice let alone warm the oceans.
Either I and the chart are correct, or the climate scientists are correct, but we both can’t be correct. Are my eyes lying to me, and is that chart published in every climate text book wrong?
CO2IsLife
You have been corrected many times but didn’t change your mind.
Your problem!
The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2.
At best half of it is re-emitted out to space, but with that energy corresponding to the molecules’ altitude, and not with that energy the IR radiation originally had.
I know: you will deliberately continue to ignore that, and continue with this fully misunderstood ‘backradiation’ which, though existing and whose existence is demonstrated by devices, doesn’t play any really valuable role in comparison with the radiation imbalance.
Bindidon, you have never corrected that graphic. You can claim I’m wrong all you want, but you can’t claim the graphic, Spectralcalc, the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule, or show me one single experiment where 15 micron can warm water. Claiming I’m wrong won’t change the real science behind the GHG Effect. Simply explain how CO2 and 15 microns can warm water or how 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic every of the other 2,499. You can’t. Either the graphic is wrong or you are wrong, and I believe the graphic.
Yes, greenhouse gases in the stratosphere, such as water vapor and CO2 absorb radiation in certain bands, the problem is that this has no effect whatsoever on the temperature in the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2022.png
Ireneusz Palmowski, I’m pretty sure if you look up the data you will see that where H2O is in the atmosphere you will find warm air…pretty much by definition. NASA charts water vapor and temperature and the charts pretty much replicate themselves. Water vapor is a great insulator. CO2 not so much.
On the other hand, ozone production through UV photolysis of the O2 molecule determines the temperature of the stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_05_nh_f00.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Bididion Says: The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2.
Once again, you don’t know the real science.
1) CO2 in the lower atmosphere is totally negated by H20. You don’t even see a CO2 signature until you are up about 3km and H2O has precipitated out of the atmosphere
2) Identify a location without water and the UHI effect and you discover that an increase in CO2 hasn’t resulted in any warming (Antarctica and other dry hot or cold deserts)
3) As the air thins, radiation more effectively removes heat than it traps heat, that is why the stratosphere actually cools as CO2 increases
You do understand radiation is by far the fastest way to remove heat from the system right? It literally transports energy at the speed of light, and the thinner the air, the less resistance to moving that energy from the system. You do understand that basic concept right?
In fact, the temperature in the stratosphere is not rising at all.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb2525.png
Ireneusz Palmowski, I think if you find a longer term data set you will see that temperatures in the stratosphere is actually falling. ONce again, radiation is great for removing energy from the system. CO2 actually acts to COOL the system. Radiation rapidly removes energy from the system. Conduction and convection are much slower. The higher the altitude and thinner the air the less resistance to removing energy from the system.
The tops of hurricanes in the tropopause radiate in the infrared at a temperature of -80 degrees C. These are the lowest temperatures in the tropopause.
Hurricane Julia.
Sorry
https://i.ibb.co/w0NSNZX/f763a405-904b-4b09-bc85-8b0c6a6670a8.jpg
Ireneusz Palmowski, yep, now you see the true impact of CO2, it puts a temperature FLOOR in the system, it doesn’t warm the system. That is why the stratosphere bottoms at -80 C, that is the temperature at which CO2 thermalizes LWIR of 15 microns. In reality because the air is so thin there it is much colder but to an IR camera, it is -80 C. An astronaut would freeze to death in the hot thermosphere.
Bindidion Says: The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2.
Why would I ignore that? It has nothing to do with temperatures near the ground. When the air is that thin, CO2 acts to COOL the atmosphere by rapidly transporting energy out of the system. Once again, radiation moves at the speed of light. Help me understand how the thermosphere, named thermosphere for a reason, somehow warms the surface of the earth. Answer, it doesn’t.
I was at an event and the destruction of North Korea was blamed on climate change. I approached the expert for more insight, and asked the obvious question, why weren’t S Korea, Japan, China and Russia, whose borders are in the same vicinity, suffering the same climate change-related problems? The conversation immediately ended. I guess climate change and CO2 can read maps and know where borders are to stop its impact.
CO2…we know climate change is about propaganda geared at scaring people to follow a belief system.
I was at an event and the destruction of North Korea was blamed on climate change. I approached the expert for more insight, and asked the obvious question, why weren’t S Korea, Japan, China and Russia, whose borders are in the same vicinity, suffering the same climate change-related problems? The conversation immediately ended. I guess climate change and CO2 can read maps and know where borders are to stop its impact.
Funny how injecting logic into the conversation seems to unsettle them to no end. A lack of knowledge and logic is a real destructive force.
I don’t see why the conversation ended.
South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are experiencing the same climate problems as North Korea.
The difference is that North Korea has very little margin. Any drop in food production puts them into immediate famine.
The others have reserves and resources which allow them to ride out the bad years, at least for a while.
Though one wonders why Russia chose this year to try and take over the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is the second largest grain producer in the world behind the American Midwest. Is Russia anticipating food shortages?
You’re perverting reality again, Ent.
Russia invaded Ukraine because Biden was weak.
Russia invaded Crimea because Obama was weak.
It had nothing to do with your cult beliefs that ice cubes can boil water and passenger jets fly backwards.
I often respond to Pup and the conversation ends there.
A lack of knowledge and logic is a destructive force.
Keep whining and crying Pup.
Maybe DREMT will have some time to babysit you today.
Pup is trolling once again.
Oh noes!
Stop, please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Russia invaded Ukraine because Biden was weak.”
Well that didnt work out, did it..
ent…Russian did not try to take over the Ukraine they tried to take over a couple of provinces in the East and they succeeded.
The Russian are cooperating with the Ukrainians to allow their grain to get out the Ukraine. Meantime, the Ukrainians show a lack of good faith by bombing a bridge to Crimea.
C’mon, Gordo.
You must be trolling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
Communism is why the people are starving, not climate change. Simply study the history of communism. It is the most murderous political system in world history. North Korea is simply destroying its country through its policies. Simply look at S Korea. No problems with climate change there. Funny how climate change knows where borders are and it only impacts non-capitalist Nations.
CO2IsLife
Why do people like you always ‘forget’ to name their sources?
1) I’m not into doxing people and embarrassing
2) Do I strike you as the type of person that would make us stories?
3) Converging Crisesin North Korea:
Security, Stability & Climate Change
https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Converging-Crises-in-North-Korea_Security-Stability-and-Climate-Change_CSR_Woodwell.pdf
4) Natural disasters drive North Koreas embrace of international climate goals
https://www.ft.com/content/d637c465-fc9e-4254-8191-193ac5eae30e
Vornas, Pangburn, Co**on, Nikolov, Monckton.
Fascinating to see so many of the authors of alternative global warming theories on the same thread.
It gives me an opportunity to compare their effectiveness.
Figure 6 here is the energy budget of probably the most extreme planet, Venus.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
Viewed from space and accounting for albedo it shows a net shortwave input of 160W/m^2 and longwave output of 160W/m^2.
From the surface it shows a net input of 22W and a net output of 22W.
The gross energy budget for the surface shows an output of 17,000W/m^2 and a return from the atmosphere of 17,000W/m^2.
The conventional explanation is that the surface emits by Stefan-Boltzman radiation, returned from the atmosphere by back radiation.
I would be fascinated to read and compare links or calculations by which you explain this energy budget using your theories.
Theoretical calculations are simple pplication of the law of radiation. What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation. They are the absolute truth, not math. As of now, no one has ever observed or measured radiative forcing, ipcc report of 2013, chapter 8.
Ent couldn’t get it right if he observed something. He’s known for his perversions of reality.
Pup, stop trolling please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nabil Swedan
“What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation.”
Downwelling radiation is routinely measured. See here: https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Yes TM, DWIR can be measured. For example, a couple of days ago, the 24-hr average on 10/6 was about 290 W/m^2. Do you realize that is less than emitted by ice?
The sky was colder than ice, yet your cult believes it can warm Earth.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You’re still trolling, Pup.
Please stop.
Cult Leader grammie pup, Of course, as has been clearly demonstrated to you, fluxes add. The result is a warming of the lower atmosphere and the surface. The absorbing surface has no way to discriminate whether the source temperature is below or above that at the surface, only the wavelength matters.
Sorry willard junior, aka “Swanson”, but all you demonstrated was your ignorance of physics. In fact, you couldn’t answer ANY of the simple physics problems I presented. You don’t understand ANY of this. You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Want another chance? Here’s a problem that involves your blue/green plates. So, you should want to attempt an answer.
A blue plate (surface area one side, equals 1 m^2) with emissivity 1, receiving 400 Watts, will reach a temperature of 244K at steady state, emitting 200 W/m^2 from both sides. That is science.
But, you cult believes that bringing in a green plate (same size, compostion) will results in the blue plate increasing its temperature to 262K! THAT ain’t science.
So, here’s your problem:
The blue and green plates are at steady state. Another green plate is placed on the other side of the blue plate. Everything else remains the same. What is the temperature of the blue plate at the new steady state?
See, Pup?
*That* is baiting.
Baiting is trolling.
Stop, please.
Cult Leader grammie pup thinks repeating his idiocy makes it true, perhaps to gaining respect from others. For example, he wrote above that:
grammie appears to believe that said rate of energy supply is from a black body and concludes from S_B calculations that the emission temperature is “colder than ice”, what ever that means. grammie pup is hopelessly ignorant of the physics of IR radiation heat transfer of gases, which emit at discrete wavelengths, not with a continuous spectrum of a black body. His claim that the emission temperature is less than ice has no connection to reality, indeed, he doesn’t bother to provide any other information, such as the source of his data.
Poor willard jr. demonstrates again he understands none of this. He can’t even follow the discussion that included the link.
With his dad’s help, he gets even stupider.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Eric refutes your point and all you got is trolling, Pup.
One has to wonder what would happen if you did not troll and tried to meet his argument.
Try it.
As expected, cult leader grammie pup can’t answer a simple question about the flaming obvious fact that fluxes do add, causing an increase in the temperature of a body receiving those fluxes. He can’t admit that the physics is correct, since it sinks his entire argument. Silly boy…
willard junior, here’s some more reality for you to avoid:
1 You can’t follow the discussion.
2. You didn’t ask a question.
3. Your bogus demonstration doesn’t even apply to the issue.
4. You can’t answer the simple physics problem.
But, your continuing desperate effort to pervert reality is amusing.
That’s good, Pup.
Christopher is showing you how to pontificate.
Here’s why it’s trolling:
[NABIL] What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation.
[T] Downwelling radiation is routinely measured.
[PUP] Yes TM, DWIR can be measured. But flux…
[W] Please stop trolling.
[ES] It has has been clearly demonstrated to you that fluxes add.
[P] All you demonstrated was your ignorance of physics. But plates…
[W] See, Pup? *That* is baiting. Baiting is trolling.
[ES] His claim that the emission temperature is less than ice has no connection to reality, indeed, he doesn’t bother to provide any other information, such as the source of his data.
[PUP] ES can’t even follow the discussion that included the link.
[W] ES refutes your point and all you got is trolling, Pup.
[ES] As expected, cult leader grammie pup can’t answer a simple question about the flaming obvious fact that fluxes do add
[PUP] Let me evade with a listicle. Lulz.
See?
All you did was to troll.
Systematically.
Please stop.
Also Junior, a couple I missed from one of your previous comments:
5) Yes, 290 W/m^2 is less than ice at 273K emits..
6) Terrestrial IR can NOT return to raise Earth’s average temperature.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R
You seem so unable to think.
You are correct with the amount of DWIR but you have never understood the GHE and how it works. Posters have attempted to correct your invalid POV but your cult mind snaps into robot mode (which is why you seem a BOT, you are extreme cult minded only allowing a very small amount of information in your mostly closed and limited mind).
You got your data from here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6341f578eb7c5.png
YOU:
“5) Yes, 290 W/m^2 is less than ice at 273K emits..
6) Terrestrial IR can NOT return to raise Earths average temperature.”
You can’t see the whole picture so I linked you to more information. If you had logical rational thinking (which you don’t) you could grasp the reality.
The DWIR is around 290 W/m^2 in this sample. But look at the UPIR, around 400 W/m^2. Without the DWIR being absorbed by the surface (which it is despite your unscientific declarations based upon cult belieif) the HEAT loss from the surface would be around 400 w/m^2. But the reality is the HEAT loss (note it is still a loss with the DWIR) is around 100 w/m^2.
Logic would help you but you do not possess any. You could see that if you reduce the HEAT loss of a surface but keep adding the same input energy the surface will reach a higher temperature. You could understand that does not mean “ice cubes boil water” or violates the 2nd Law. The image clearly explains it, easy for rational logic people to understand. You will not understand it or even attempt to try. Your cult program dominates you thinking and is highly unscientific. I call you a denier of reality, science and Truth.
Norman, if you had any science you would present it without insults and false accusations. But, you have no science.
In this latest perversion of reality, you’re ignoring Sun! Do you understand where the ground/sky energy comes from? Ever heard the phrase “It’s the sun, stupid”? You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes. You’ll never learn.
Found any valid technical reference to support your previous nonsense yet?
You’re right, Pup –
Sun, please stop trolling.
Clint R
You cult minded idiot! You cannot understand anything. If you were g/e/r/a/n in a previous life and idiot J/D/H/u/f/f/m/a/n posting under those names you are just as dumb now as you were then.
You keep posting your cult minded garbage. Many take the time to point out the errors in your thoughts. Nothing but stupid responses from you.
I clearly gave you valid evidence showing your posts are stupid brain-dead cult fantasy and you still can’t think logically enough to figure it out. You are a complete idiot. Go back to you brain dead chants. Ice cubes can boil water…ice cubes can boil water…ice cubes can boil water….fluxes don’t add….fluxes don’t add…fluxes don’t add. You braindead cult minded idiot!
Norman, it’s not my fault you can’t support your made-up nonsense, now is it?
Likely no one enjoys your frantic, quixotic meltdowns more than I do. You’ve got to save your cult — science and reality be damned!
science and reality be damned!
Pup is just having a “little fun,” Norman.
He should stop trolling, but he can’t.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Reduced cooling is still warming.
“In this latest perversion of reality, youre ignoring Sun! Do you understand where the ground/sky energy comes from? Ever heard the phrase ‘Its the sun, stupid’? ”
Yes the NET Solar is ~ 300 W/m^2 on average.
As Norman noted “look at the UWIR, around 400 W/m^2.”
Clint:
You don’t see a problem with the sun supplying 100 W/m^2 less than the amount emitted?
Tyson
The link, Backradiatin is not directly measured by IR sensitive cells, it is through wrong calibration of Thermopcouples. Take your IR camera, point it to the sky and see if you can capture back radiation photo, you will not because it does not exist.
Nabil,
Are u saying that all detectors used to detect sky radiation have bad calibration?
ALL these too?
https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/all-up.png
C’mon, that is a bit implausible.
Nikolov has been proved wrong in my refutation on Researchgate read by over 2,920. Go to this comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377722
The main premise of Monckton’s Post is completely wrong.
“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.”
I read the Hansen 1984 paper carefully, and NOWHERE in the paper is that reasoning used.
They NEVER estimate climate sensitivity from 32K/8K, the ratio of preindustrial Surface Temperature – emission temperature to the ‘directly-forced warming’
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
On the contrary, all of their climate sensitivity calculations are based on observations and modeling of the preindustrial rise in T up to that year, or for the Co2 doubling or a 2% rise in solar constant.
“Observations and modeling” mean NOTHING if you don’t know what you’re doing. Cults can observe something and then completely pervert it, as they’ve done with the lunar rotation nonsense.
Or, they can model anything to be anything. See John Von Neumann’s elephant.
See, Pup?
*That* is trolling.
Please stop.
Translation from Clint-speak:
“you dont know what youre doing.”
-to use science to obtain results contrary to Clint’s erroneous beliefs
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Measured data shows very clearly that the models overestimate warming from CO2. Hansen is the one who is personally and solely responsible for the satellite data set being developed by Roy and John. As soon as he saw that it contradicts his theories, he rejected it instead of adjusting his models. What does that say about the reliability of his published work?
” the satellite data set being developed by Roy and John. As soon as he saw that it contradicts his theories, he rejected it instead of adjusting his models”
Their initial data set that showed no warming turned out to be highly flawed…RSS team found the flaw.
The models are constantly adjusted in any case to improve agreement with observations.
The models do not agree with measured data, and you know it. There are enough reasons to be concerned about rising CO2 and the depletion of non-renewable fossil resource without people being dishonest. Science should be about being honest and skeptical. That is the only valid science. Medical studies are done double-blind for a very good reason!
I didnt say the models are fully in agreement, yet. But they are informed by observations. Just as weather models 40 y ago werent very accurate, but are now.
FYI Tim,
Here is Hansen response to satellite data, the controversy about its difference from surface data, and then discovery of the flaw in the data.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_ha06100c.pdf
25 years later all of that has been resolved, so who are you trying to fool? The thing you people do not like is the fact that ENSO shows up so well as the dominant year-to-year effect. This completely destroys the narrative about continuous warming due to continuous CO2 accumulation. Once again, honesty in the science will do a lot more to inform the public than hype which causes people to doubt the honesty of the scientists. Data smoothing by NASA GISS to erase ENSO is a form of dishonesty.
In epistemology, the veracious inquirer is most likely to have justified beliefs that are true. Since knowledge is founded on having true beliefs, a dishonest scientist is just a different kind of fool. People who argue science to deceive rather than inform dishonor the whole profession — especially scientists who are regarded as being authoritative. Once again skepticism and humility are needed for good accurate science.
I am sorry to break it to you, Tim, but the knowledge as true belief thesis is on shaky grounds these days:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#GettProb
Dishonesty does not imply being wrong, btw. Think about how doctors sometimes conceal information from their clients.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The thing you people do not like is the fact that ENSO shows up so well as the dominant year-to-year effect. This completely destroys the narrative about continuous warming due to continuous CO2 accumulation.”
Nobody is claiming there should be continuous warming, nor that CO2 is the only source of T variation. So this is a strawman.
Climate scientists are fully aware that ENSO is a dominant source of SHORT-TERM T variation, but not long term.
It is odd that you left out the most important point. Hmmmmm
“Data smoothing by NASA GISS to erase ENSO is a form of dishonesty.”
Uhhh…
Here’s GISS with and without their usual 12 month smoothing.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.5/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:12
To me, ENSO variation is easier to see with the 12 mo. smoothing.
In meteorology, climate is typically determined from a 30 y average.
Of interest for the Climate Change issue is definitely long-term change. So I see nothing wrong with smoothing over 5 or even 10 years to isolate the long-term change.
Pretty standard in data analysis.
What the new “Climate Declaration” doesn’t tell us (nudge nudge, wink wink)
“So, there’s a lesson in this, if you decide you want to oppose a scientific conclusion that you know very little about and start a petition, the first step is to at least find out what the scientific conclusion is. Otherwise you find yourself opposing something that doesn’t even exist.
…
In place of Doubt which has been the mainstay of the anti-science lobby, we now have something far more wussy, ambiguity.
…
I guess catching up to the science of 1955 is progress, right?”
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WCD-version-100122.pdf
More and more people are speaking out as your cult collapses.
Please, Pup, stop trolling.
Pup, I correct trolls. I’m “anti-trolling”. You’re the troll, I’m the anti-troll.
I noted your 2-minute response time to my last comment. You may be an ignorant and immature troll, but at least you’re prompt….
That line and that role are already taken, Pup.
Please, very please, stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Monckton of Brenchley
Have you read chapter 8 of IPCC 2013 (AR5)? In the Chapter it clearly says that Radiative Forcing has never been observed or measured, it is just a concept. So why are you treating the subject as a science?
Asking our Sudoku Xpert about the IPCC will lead you nowhere, Nabil.
But I do like to RTFR.
Here it is, FYEO:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
What is difficult is usually not impossible.
Hope this helps.
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Apparently, your version of Chapter 8 IPCC (in bold letter) is different than what I read, unless IPCC revised their initial version. What about measurements of Radiative Forcing? Any publications you know of?
Nabil,
Without a link to your version it is difficult for me to compare.
As for your whataboutism, are you referring to EF or ERF?
> EF or ERF
RF or ERF, that is.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Even most ignorant SkyDragons understand that “radiative forcing” is just SkyDragons redefining sunlight as something else.
I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
You must be a really, really, stupid SkyDragon.