• 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?

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Could concerns about the negative consequences of global warming derive from an elementary physics error? I'll be the first to admit I don't know, but it's a provocative question. Some will be put off by Christopher Monckton's authorship, but the old adage that even a blind hog will find the occasional acorn applies here as much as anywhere else.


Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This will be a long posting, but it will not be found uninteresting. Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at 8.00 am this Wednesday, 21 March 2018, in Court 8 on the 19th floor of the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Court 8…

Continue reading →

". . . 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.
The proof: I shall now outline our proof. Let us begin with the abstract of the underlying paper. It is just 70 words long, for the error (though it has taken me a dozen years to run it to earth) really is stupendously elementary:
Abstract: In a dynamical system, even an unamplified input signal induces a response to any feedback. Hitherto, however, the large feedback response to emission temperature has been misattributed to warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. After correction, the theoretically-derived pre-industrial feedback fraction is demonstrated to cohere with the empirically-derived industrial-era value an order of magnitude below previous estimates, mandating reduction of projected Charney sensitivity from to . . . ."
 
Jack Hays said:
Could concerns about the negative consequences of global warming derive from an elementary physics error? I'll be the first to admit I don't know, but it's a provocative question. Some will be put off by Christopher Monckton's authorship, but the old adage that even a blind hog will find the occasional acorn applies here as much as anywhere else.


Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This will be a long posting, but it will not be found uninteresting. Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at 8.00 am this Wednesday, 21 March 2018, in Court 8 on the 19th floor of the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Court 8…

Continue reading →

". . . 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.
The proof: I shall now outline our proof. Let us begin with the abstract of the underlying paper. It is just 70 words long, for the error (though it has taken me a dozen years to run it to earth) really is stupendously elementary:
Abstract: In a dynamical system, even an unamplified input signal induces a response to any feedback. Hitherto, however, the large feedback response to emission temperature has been misattributed to warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. After correction, the theoretically-derived pre-industrial feedback fraction is demonstrated to cohere with the empirically-derived industrial-era value an order of magnitude below previous estimates, mandating reduction of projected Charney sensitivity from to . . . ."
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Well, Monckton of Brenchley has sure stirred the can of AGW with this announcement, IMO! :lamo Fascinating.....
 
Jack Hays said:
Could concerns about the negative consequences of global warming derive from an elementary physics error? I'll be the first to admit I don't know, but it's a provocative question. Some will be put off by Christopher Monckton's authorship, but the old adage that even a blind hog will find the occasional acorn applies here as much as anywhere else.


Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This will be a long posting, but it will not be found uninteresting. Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at 8.00 am this Wednesday, 21 March 2018, in Court 8 on the 19th floor of the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. Court 8…

Continue reading →

". . . 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.
The proof: I shall now outline our proof. Let us begin with the abstract of the underlying paper. It is just 70 words long, for the error (though it has taken me a dozen years to run it to earth) really is stupendously elementary:
Abstract: In a dynamical system, even an unamplified input signal induces a response to any feedback. Hitherto, however, the large feedback response to emission temperature has been misattributed to warming from the naturally-occurring, non-condensing greenhouse gases. After correction, the theoretically-derived pre-industrial feedback fraction is demonstrated to cohere with the empirically-derived industrial-era value an order of magnitude below previous estimates, mandating reduction of projected Charney sensitivity from to . . . ."
Click to expand...

I have long contended that the gain necessary to amplify the forcing warming to the ECS predicted warming
does not exists in the empirical data. I am glad they are pointing this out.
 
"Some will be put off by Monckton"

What, you mean because he was caught fabricating charts?
 
Deuce said:
"Some will be put off by Monckton"

What, you mean because he was caught fabricating charts?
Click to expand...
Run your own numbers, with the data sets.
Show us the support for high levels of gain.
Remember that the climate feedbacks system cannot discriminate between sources of warming.
 
longview said:
Run your own numbers, with the data sets.
Show us the support for high levels of gain.
Remember that the climate feedbacks system cannot discriminate between sources of warming.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where you ran your own numbers?
 
Deuce said:
"Some will be put off by Monckton"

What, you mean because he was caught fabricating charts?
Click to expand...

How about pointing out his weaknesses of the research?

The Viscount went to all the effort to make a case, why can't you challenge with your counter research?

So far you attack him about something else, with that alarmist deflection with a oh look over there!

Boring!
 
Sunsettommy said:
How about pointing out his weaknesses of the research?

The Viscount went to all the effort to make a case, why can't you challenge with your counter research?

So far you attack him about something else, with that alarmist deflection with a oh look over there!

Boring!
Click to expand...

How much time do you spend putting together researched arguments to counter Al Gore?

I don't spend time on Monckton arguments for the same reason I don't spend time on James O'Keefe videos or Alex Jones rants. They make a living by making **** up. The **** would I want to use research for? They didn't do any to begin with.
 
Deuce said:
How much time do you spend putting together researched arguments to counter Al Gore?

I don't spend time on Monckton arguments for the same reason I don't spend time on James O'Keefe videos or Alex Jones rants. They make a living by making **** up. The **** would I want to use research for? They didn't do any to begin with.
Click to expand...

Then you have no case against him, thank you.
 
Deuce said:
Can you show me where you ran your own numbers?
Click to expand...
Sure, I would not challenge you to do it if I could not.
Start with one of the data sets, in this case HadCrut4
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ime_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
Subtract the 10 year average ending in 2017,(0.5684) from the 10 year average ending in 1859.(-0.3178) = .089C
Subtract out the known forcing changes.
CO2: 5.35 ln(406/280)= 1.99 Wm-2 1.99 X .3 = .597 C

The American chemical society has a CH4 sensitivity of .3 Wm-2 for a change from 375 to about 675 ppb
I am not sure where their numbers for CH4 from because ESRL shows CH4 levels about 1860 ppb
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/#global_data
The imbalance change from the ACS has a sensitivity factor of .510X ln (CH4_Hi/CH4_low)
so .510 X ln (1822/792)= .42 Wm-2, .42 X .3 =.126 C

Since 1850 TSI has increased by .308 Wm-2 or .308*.3= .09 C

.89 C
-.597C
-.126C
-.09C
______
.077C

Only .077 C cannot be attributed to known sources of warming.
The only warming that has been around long enough for most of the feedbacks to equalize is the pre 1940 .2 C,
So if the 70 year old pre 1940 .2 C warming is the input to the climate amplifier,
what gain factor could be applied?
 
longview said:
Sure, I would not challenge you to do it if I could not.
Start with one of the data sets, in this case HadCrut4
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ime_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
Subtract the 10 year average ending in 2017,(0.5684) from the 10 year average ending in 1859.(-0.3178) = .089C
Subtract out the known forcing changes.
CO2: 5.35 ln(406/280)= 1.99 Wm-2 1.99 X .3 = .597 C

The American chemical society has a CH4 sensitivity of .3 Wm-2 for a change from 375 to about 675 ppb
I am not sure where their numbers for CH4 from because ESRL shows CH4 levels about 1860 ppb
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/#global_data
The imbalance change from the ACS has a sensitivity factor of .510X ln (CH4_Hi/CH4_low)
so .510 X ln (1822/792)= .42 Wm-2, .42 X .3 =.126 C

Since 1850 TSI has increased by .308 Wm-2 or .308*.3= .09 C

.89 C
-.597C
-.126C
-.09C
______
.077C

Only .077 C cannot be attributed to known sources of warming.
The only warming that has been around long enough for most of the feedbacks to equalize is the pre 1940 .2 C,
So if the 70 year old pre 1940 .2 C warming is the input to the climate amplifier,
what gain factor could be applied?
Click to expand...

So far you've got CO2 as the largest factor. Keep it going!
 
Deuce said:
So far you've got CO2 as the largest factor. Keep it going!
Click to expand...
CO2 forcing sensitivity was never the issue, and I hope you know that.
The alarmist warning was about the warming from the added CO2 being amplified to several times greater.
I have just shown, as the article is somewhat pointing out, that within the temperature record,
there is almost no room for amplified feedbacks.
Minimal feedbacks, and AGW is not an issue.
 
longview said:
CO2 forcing sensitivity was never the issue, and I hope you know that.
The alarmist warning was about the warming from the added CO2 being amplified to several times greater.
I have just shown, as the article is somewhat pointing out, that within the temperature record,
there is almost no room for amplified feedbacks.
Minimal feedbacks, and AGW is not an issue.
Click to expand...

You're not accounting for all factors, nor lag-time in reaching equilibrium.

When you think something as complicated as climate change can be disproven on the back of a napkin, you're not well-enough informed to even attempt the math.
 
Deuce said:
You're not accounting for all factors, nor lag-time in reaching equilibrium.
Click to expand...
Actually I was, the .2C was passed over 70 years ago in 1940, Hansen said that roughly 70% of equalization would
occur within 70 years.
And we still only have .077C to work with.
Keep in mind, if a positive climate amplifier exists, it has no way of limiting the source of inputs.
Warming looks like warming whatever the source.
 
Deuce said:
I can't help but notice you have no case for him.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Still no counterpoint to Monkton comes from you same man who said recently:

What, you mean because he was caught fabricating charts?
Click to expand...

and,

How much time do you spend putting together researched arguments to counter Al Gore?

I don't spend time on Monckton arguments for the same reason I don't spend time on James O'Keefe videos or Alex Jones rants. They make a living by making **** up. The **** would I want to use research for? They didn't do any to begin with.
Click to expand...

Still nothing but hot air is you have so far.

I am still reading it, reading the comments in the thread and pondering, which is a major reason why I have not set position on it.

Al Gore has been wrong so many times on simple stuff.................
 
longview said:
Actually I was, the .2C was passed over 70 years ago in 1940, Hansen said that roughly 70% of equalization would
occur within 70 years.
And we still only have .077C to work with.
Keep in mind, if a positive climate amplifier exists, it has no way of limiting the source of inputs.
Warming looks like warming whatever the source.
Click to expand...

We didn't stop influencing climate 70 years ago.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Al Gore has been wrong so many times on simple stuff.................
Click to expand...

Which is why if I post links to stuff he says, you're not going to bother with "counter research."
 
Deuce said:
We didn't stop influencing climate 70 years ago.
Click to expand...
Of course not, and I did not say we did, but the warming that occurred 70 years ago,
would be most of the way equalized by now.
Even alarmist sites like skeptical science verify,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html
A paper by James Hansen and others [iii] estimates the time required for 60% of
global warming to take place in response to increased emissions to be in the range of 25 to 50 years.
The mid-point of this is 37.5 which I have rounded to 40 years.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Could concerns about the negative consequences of global warming derive from an elementary physics error? I'll be the first to admit I don't know ...
Click to expand...

Your post should have ended there.
 
Jack Hays said:
Which charts would those be?
Click to expand...

He invented a chart that was allegedly showing IPCC projections of temperatures, but his chart was of a straight linear temperature progression, which no organization on the planet has ever actually projected.

So where did he get the projection?
 
Deuce said:
Riiight but we've continued to pile on more CO2, so there's plenty of warming still "on deck," and your calculations are ignoring that.
Click to expand...
Like I said, run your own calculations and show how much possible feedback there could be.
I say it is minimal.
What does that mean, well if the 2XCO2 forcing is 1.1 C and the feedbacks factor is 1.385 (.277/.2),
then the most warming we could expect out of doubling the co2 level is 1.1X 1.385 or, 1.52 C.
But that would be spread over almost 180 years, and assumes we can actually double the CO2 level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom