• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could it all be about an error of elementary physics?

You are confusing warming from forcing with the predicted amplified feedback warming.
The warming from the forcing is done within a few hours, to at most a few months.
The amount of forcing warming the IPCC applies to doubling the CO2 level is 1.1 C,
and they do not define a latency for the forcing.
The long latency warming is for the predicted amplified feedbacks.
But lets run through it one more time.
CO2 forcing since 1940 5.35 X ln(406.53/311.3)=1.4278 X .3= .428C
CH4 forcing since 1940 .510 X ln(1.815/1.089)=..260 X .3= .078C
warming from TSI increase 1361.01-1360.87=.14 X .3= .042c
Total forcing since1940 .428 +.078 + .042 = .548 C
Total warming since 1940 .6704 C - known forcing .548 C = .1224 C

If you are saying that the warming from the increase in CO2 is incomplete,
then the number for CO2 forcing would increase, but it is pressing against the fixed observed
warming for the period observed since 1940, (.6704 C)
If the amount attributable to CO2 goes up, the amount of unknown goes down.
The only amount available for the amplified feedbacks is in that unknown quantity.

I am not confusing the two, you are failing to realize that this long latency you describe messes with your calculation. That "all unknowns" figure you came up with is missing another several decades of feedbacks because those feedbacks will alter the figure you started with. "total warming since 1940." That number would rise on a hypothetical planet whose forcings you froze today, right?

Your calculation is A - B = C. It doesn't matter how accurately you've placed B. Your A is wrong because feedbacks will push A higher, therefore your C is wrong.
 
Last edited:
I am not confusing the two, you are failing to realize that this long latency you describe messes with your calculation. That "all unknowns" figure you came up with is missing another several decades of feedbacks because those feedbacks will alter the figure you started with. "total warming since 1940." That number would rise on a hypothetical planet whose forcings you froze today, right?

Your calculation is A - B = C. It doesn't matter how accurately you've placed B. Your A is wrong because feedbacks will push A higher, therefore your C is wrong.

Except that A is the actual observed warming since 1940.
No matter what you want, the recorded warming is the recorded warming, the amount of warming measured between
1940 and 2017 is what it is, from that I subtract the amount of accepted forcing for the measured increases in CO2, CH4 and TSI.
What is left is warming from unknown or unaccounted for sources.
Those unaccounted for could also include warming from aerosol clearing since the 1970's,
or amplified feedbacks, but even if all of the unknown is applied to the feedbacks, they are much smaller than the
mid to high end of the IPCC predictions, (And much closer to the finding of the IPCC scientist)
 
Except that A is the actual observed warming since 1940.
No matter what you want, the recorded warming is the recorded warming, the amount of warming measured between
1940 and 2017 is what it is, from that I subtract the amount of accepted forcing for the measured increases in CO2, CH4 and TSI.
What is left is warming from unknown or unaccounted for sources.
Those unaccounted for could also include warming from aerosol clearing since the 1970's,
or amplified feedbacks, but even if all of the unknown is applied to the feedbacks, they are much smaller than the
mid to high end of the IPCC predictions, (And much closer to the finding of the IPCC scientist)

Ok, I will concede a point and rephrase:

Your math isn't wrong, it's just useless.

You're trying to calculate the magnitude of unfinished feedbacks. Why you are attempting to do this, I could not say. You're comparing it to IPCC projections, but I'm not aware of any IPCC projections of feedbacks that magically stopped in 2017.
 
Ok, I will concede a point and rephrase:

Your math isn't wrong, it's just useless.

You're trying to calculate the magnitude of unfinished feedbacks. Why you are attempting to do this, I could not say.
We do not know what the feedback are, or if they even exists.
What we do know is that there was from a 10 year average of the HadCrut4 record, there was
.6704 C of recorded warming between 1940 and 2017.
We also know that the forcing from the added CO2 over that time would account for
.428 C of the observed warming, and would be fully realized.
In addition the increase in CH4 would account for 0.078 C of the observed warming,
and the increase in TSI another 0.042 C.
This is based on the IPCC's published numbers.
You can try and say that some other warming is waiting in the latency, but the measured
increase to 2017 is what it is.
The attributions of the causes of that fixed amount of warming is also what it is.
The only unknown is what is left, and while we do not know all the variables, we know everything must add up.
 
We do not know what the feedback are, or if they even exists.

Correct, which is why your calculation is futile. You need the end-result of the feedbacks to so simply calculate what the magnitude of the feedbacks could have been. You don't have the end-result of the feedbacks. You have... well, nothing because the forcings change constantly. You have zero years of feedbacks in your calculations.

You left out a bunch of forcings from your calculation also. Not really sure why you did that.
 
Correct, which is why your calculation is futile. You need the end-result of the feedbacks to so simply calculate what the magnitude of the feedbacks could have been. You don't have the end-result of the feedbacks. You have... well, nothing because the forcings change constantly. You have zero years of feedbacks in your calculations.

You left out a bunch of forcings from your calculation also. Not really sure why you did that.

Everything is included in the measured difference between 1940 and 2017, because that is the observed difference.
By subtracting out the known causes of warming, we leave only the unknown.
It just so happens that the unknowns are quite small.
 
Everything is included in the measured difference between 1940 and 2017, because that is the observed difference.
By subtracting out the known causes of warming, we leave only the unknown.
It just so happens that the unknowns are quite small.

Yes, and for the reasons I described this is a useless calculation. This "unknown" is not useful in determining an upper limit to feedback strength because it doesn't actually include an end-result of feedbacks to begin with. You can use it to determine an upper limit on feedback strength for that period only (if you'd include all the forcings, which you didn't). But comparing that to IPCC projections on feedback strength over the next 100 years simply isn't valid.
 
Yes, and for the reasons I described this is a useless calculation. This "unknown" is not useful in determining an upper limit to feedback strength because it doesn't actually include an end-result of feedbacks to begin with. You can use it to determine an upper limit on feedback strength for that period only (if you'd include all the forcings, which you didn't). But comparing that to IPCC projections on feedback strength over the next 100 years simply isn't valid.
It is useful for defining the feedback from the pre 1940 input.
We know that there was .218 C of pre 1940 warming (decade average),
Once all of the known forcings are accounted for, all that remains are the unknown warming sources.
If a portion of that unknown is from faster response feedbacks from later warming, it would only reduce the amount
of feedback warming attributable to the response of the pre 1940 input.
Imagine we have a black box amplifier on the electronics bench, we do not know the gain of the amplifier, only that it has
Power in, ground, an input and an output. We start to understand the amplifier by applying an input and measuring the output.
Once we know the gain of the amplifier, we can predict what the output would be for a given input.
 

[h=1]A factual comment on Willlis Eschenbach’s and Christopher Monckton’s most recent posts, concerning clouds and ECS, respectively.[/h]Guest opinion by Rud Istvan I have but little scientifically to contribute, since they have been mostly factually correct. But here I provide a little more scientific evidence, visual observational evidence supporting both. The occasion arose from cooking two pork chops with BBQ on our George Forman Thrilin Grillin.. My data arises from a simple…
Continue reading →
 
feedbacks / IPCC
[h=1]Looping the loop: how the IPCC’s feedback aerobatics failed[/h]Guest essay By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This series discusses climatology’s recently-discovered grave error in having failed to take due account of the large feedback response to emission temperature. Correct the error and global warming will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial. The series continues to attract widespread attention, not only here but elsewhere. The…
 
feedbacks / IPCC
[h=1]Looping the loop: how the IPCC’s feedback aerobatics failed[/h]Guest essay By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This series discusses climatology’s recently-discovered grave error in having failed to take due account of the large feedback response to emission temperature. Correct the error and global warming will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial. The series continues to attract widespread attention, not only here but elsewhere. The…

A bit long winded, but at least they are looking at how unrealistic high gain feedbacks would be.
 
I thought it might be interesting to looked at the IPCC AR5 forcing levels vs the observed temperature.
I picked this graph because it has numbers attached, (much less subjective)
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
For the temperature I picked HadCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The reference points for the graph I picked were 1950 and 2011.
The Graph say the total Anthropogenic forcing in 1950 was .57 Wm-2, and in 2011 was 2.29 Wm-2,
So the delta forcing is 1.72 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .516 C.
For the temperature I took the average of the 10 years before the sample date,
so 1950 is the 1941 to 1950 average or -.026 C
The 2011 10 year average was .425 C
The delta is .451 C.
The problem is that the total of the forcing is greater then the measured increase, which means if the
forcing numbers are correct, the feedback would need to be negative.
The fast Forcings have have minor time lags, between a few hours and a few months,
but the lag between an energy imbalance and warmer air temperature is observed every day.
 
I thought it might be interesting to looked at the IPCC AR5 forcing levels vs the observed temperature.
I picked this graph because it has numbers attached, (much less subjective)
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
For the temperature I picked HadCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The reference points for the graph I picked were 1950 and 2011.
The Graph say the total Anthropogenic forcing in 1950 was .57 Wm-2, and in 2011 was 2.29 Wm-2,
So the delta forcing is 1.72 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .516 C.
For the temperature I took the average of the 10 years before the sample date,
so 1950 is the 1941 to 1950 average or -.026 C
The 2011 10 year average was .425 C
The delta is .451 C.
The problem is that the total of the forcing is greater then the measured increase, which means if the
forcing numbers are correct, the feedback would need to be negative.
The fast Forcings have have minor time lags, between a few hours and a few months,
but the lag between an energy imbalance and warmer air temperature is observed every day.

They love to pick methodologies that fit their agenda, but fail to make them match to the dynamics they claim.
 
Yes, and for the reasons I described this is a useless calculation. This "unknown" is not useful in determining an upper limit to feedback strength because it doesn't actually include an end-result of feedbacks to begin with. You can use it to determine an upper limit on feedback strength for that period only (if you'd include all the forcings, which you didn't). But comparing that to IPCC projections on feedback strength over the next 100 years simply isn't valid.

It is far more valid than the IPCC's projections for the future.
 
I thought it might be interesting to looked at the IPCC AR5 forcing levels vs the observed temperature.
I picked this graph because it has numbers attached, (much less subjective)
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
For the temperature I picked HadCrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The reference points for the graph I picked were 1950 and 2011.
The Graph say the total Anthropogenic forcing in 1950 was .57 Wm-2, and in 2011 was 2.29 Wm-2,
So the delta forcing is 1.72 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .516 C.
For the temperature I took the average of the 10 years before the sample date,
so 1950 is the 1941 to 1950 average or -.026 C
The 2011 10 year average was .425 C
The delta is .451 C.
The problem is that the total of the forcing is greater then the measured increase, which means if the
forcing numbers are correct, the feedback would need to be negative.
The fast Forcings have have minor time lags, between a few hours and a few months,
but the lag between an energy imbalance and warmer air temperature is observed every day.

If my calculations are correct then your delta is wrong. I'm pretty sure it should be closer to .51 C. And since you are using a 10-year average centered on 1945 and 2006 you are biasing the delta lower than it should be. If you used the 10-year averages centered on 1950 and 2011 you would find your negative feedback would, in fact, be positive.

Here is a Wood For Trees graph that shows the difference between the trend lines you get by moving the averages 5 years:

trendg.jpg

http://woodfortrees.org/...

Now consider that the trend lines are calculated differently than how you calculated your delta T but the green line is really close to what you would have gotten if you had did your math correctly. And the blue line is what you get with the averages centered on the correct years. So... that's about .51 C for the green line and .65 C for the blue line. And the numbers are even higher if you use GISTEMP or BEST data.

Not that I think overly simplistic calculations like this show anything at all.
 
If my calculations are correct then your delta is wrong. I'm pretty sure it should be closer to .51 C. And since you are using a 10-year average centered on 1945 and 2006 you are biasing the delta lower than it should be. If you used the 10-year averages centered on 1950 and 2011 you would find your negative feedback would, in fact, be positive.

Here is a Wood For Trees graph that shows the difference between the trend lines you get by moving the averages 5 years:



http://woodfortrees.org/...

Now consider that the trend lines are calculated differently than how you calculated your delta T but the green line is really close to what you would have gotten if you had did your math correctly. And the blue line is what you get with the averages centered on the correct years. So... that's about .51 C for the green line and .65 C for the blue line. And the numbers are even higher if you use GISTEMP or BEST data.

Not that I think overly simplistic calculations like this show anything at all.
Do you understand that if moving the center of the average a few years change the results much, then the signal to noise ratio
is so bad that the observed warming since 1978 means very little?
 
Do you understand that if moving the center of the average a few years change the results much, then the signal to noise ratio
is so bad that the observed warming since 1978 means very little?

That is just ridiculous! Every one knows there is plenty of noise in the temprature record due to natural variations. All you have done is exploit these variations with more of your typical cherry picking of data to get the result you want.
 
That is just ridiculous! Every one knows there is plenty of noise in the temprature record due to natural variations. All you have done is exploit these variations with more of your typical cherry picking of data to get the result you want.

If he can do it to get his desired result then your result is equally cherry picked.

The poont he was, successfully, making is that the noise within the data, even after ignoring the fog of the wide level of inprecision of those numbers, is that any trend you like is there almost.
 
That is just ridiculous! Every one knows there is plenty of noise in the temprature record due to natural variations. All you have done is exploit these variations with more of your typical cherry picking of data to get the result you want.

Yes, that's how the alarmists operate as well.
 
That is just ridiculous! Every one knows there is plenty of noise in the temprature record due to natural variations. All you have done is exploit these variations with more of your typical cherry picking of data to get the result you want.

Yes, that's how the alarmists operate as well.

Yup. As Rose D'Arrigo said: "You have to pick cherries to make cherry pie."
 
If he can do it to get his desired result then your result is equally cherry picked.

The poont he was, successfully, making is that the noise within the data, even after ignoring the fog of the wide level of inprecision of those numbers, is that any trend you like is there almost.

Yes, that's how the alarmists operate as well.

Yup. As Rose D'Arrigo said: "You have to pick cherries to make cherry pie."

All three of you guys are WRONG!! I am not cherry picking anything.

Now if I was cherry picking in exactly the opposite direction as longview was then I would have insisted on using the temp record that shows the most warming(longview used the one with the least warming). That would have been GISTEMP instead of HADCRUT4. And then I would have used the average of 10 years after 1950 and 2011(or as much as is available). And that graph would look like this:

trendh.jpg

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The trend line of this graph shows a warming of over 0.8 C. And this is almost double longview's number of .451 C. So... when compared to longview's calculated warming from the IPCC's graph of forcings of .516 C(assuming it is correct) then this suggests a very strong positive feedback. And this cherry-picked number is still not as biased as longview's because this doesn't have any bad math thrown in like his did.

Fact of the matter is that none of you guys are even able to tell the difference between cherry-picked data and not cherry-picked data.

Pathetic!!
 
All three of you guys are WRONG!! I am not cherry picking anything.

Now if I was cherry picking in exactly the opposite direction as longview was then I would have insisted on using the temp record that shows the most warming(longview used the one with the least warming). That would have been GISTEMP instead of HADCRUT4. And then I would have used the average of 10 years after 1950 and 2011(or as much as is available). And that graph would look like this:

View attachment 67233912

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The trend line of this graph shows a warming of over 0.8 C. And this is almost double longview's number of .451 C. So... when compared to longview's calculated warming from the IPCC's graph of forcings of .516 C(assuming it is correct) then this suggests a very strong positive feedback. And this cherry-picked number is still not as biased as longview's because this doesn't have any bad math thrown in like his did.

Fact of the matter is that none of you guys are even able to tell the difference between cherry-picked data and not cherry-picked data.

Pathetic!!

I picked the dates shown on the IPCC chart for forcing, since the forcing was to a date, I choose the decade average before the date to attempt to capture the average temp to that point in time.
When I am back at a computer I can run the same averages with GISS.
Again the dates were picked by the IPCC graph, not me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

[h=1]Climatology’s startling error – an update[/h]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Well, we sent out our paper On an error in defining temperature feedback to a leading journal for review. The reviewers did not like it at all. “And, gracious! How Lord Lundy cried!” We are persevering, though, for in our submission nothing the reviewers have said in any way undermines…
Continue reading →
 
Back
Top Bottom