Simple Pocket Calculator Model Outperforms Complex Climate Models

PaV:

I found four of your comments in the “spam” category. Have no idea how they got there. You might consider how you posted, and maybe there was a problem there that you’ll want to avoid going forward.

The reason why my comments end up in spam is because Barry has banned my home IP address. I am able to post from work and also by using my university's VPN. We shall see how long this workaround remains effective. I suspect not too long. skram

DATCG: None proven due to human-caused Global Warming. So we are in agreement that there have been important climate effects. The primary evidence is the physics of greenhouse warming, the observed warming of the troposphere, the increase in oceanic heat content, and the cooling of the stratosphere. Zachriel

Zachriel said, "There have already been important climate effects." None proven due to human-caused Global Warming. We do not know if there's any correlation due to failure of models and their failed predictions. Certainly none outside of normal climatic cycles from Ice Ages to Global Warm periods of past. To insist important climate "effects" are due to human causes is beyond current science and is more a reflection of a belief system. Zachriel said, "As evidence strongly supports anthropogenic greenhouse warming, projected warming is the concern." We know the concerns. But are those concerns based upon accurate information and models? Models failed. Thus, we know they are not accurate forecast for future trends. Either at collection points or in Modeling. Or both. And if they're not accurate, we cannot trust the "evidence" as presented today through failed models. "Global Warming" was the original meme of "concern." That was the original prediction. Due to these failed models, propaganda style marketing techniques kicked in. It no longer was about objective scientific methodology or getting it right. Politicians and activist changed Global Warming to Climate Change. So we are left with rhetoric and not scientific clarity, but confusion and failure. That is why there is distrust of climatologist, activist and politicians who push Global Warming. Especially when it seeks to move money from developed nations to under developed nations as means of progressive tax credits. This is no longer about science. It becomes wealth redistribution. Through corrupt organizations and leaders that cannot be trusted with local redistribution or held accountable for their actions. In the end, it still remains his models failed and he did not have that qualifier in his original research paper. DATCG

skram:

No, as far as we know, QM is not reducible to some classical theory. The EPR paradox and subsequent refinements in the form of Bell’s inequalities and such have demonstrated that QM is quintessentially non-classical.

I'm perfectly familiar with all this stuff. I don't think, however, that you've stated this properly. QM is "quintessentially non-local," and not necessarily "non-classical." The de-Broglie-Bohm theory is classical, AND, "non-local." Also, I wonder if you are aware, skram, that the philosophical school of "positivism" lies at the root of the Copenhagen Interpretation? Einstein moved away from the 'positivism' of his youth, even embracing the "aether." (Don't howl! Just look it up at Wikisource: "The Aether and the Theory of Relativity", 1920) The 'collapse' of the wave-function bothered Einstein, and it's a legitimate concern. I took a class in QM simply to get a handle on this putative "collapse," and was very surprised to find out that it was simply an "axiom." Yes, that's right, another "assumption." Permit me, now, to go back to the "dice" example so that I can push it forward a little bit. Let me point out that if one had a extremely high-speed camera, that instantaneously took notice of its coordinates and that of the incoming light, then you could film the 'roll of the dice' and, with a high-speed computer using the coordinates (including time) of the crap dice in mid-air, you could probably come up with an algorithm that would predict the actual roll while the dice were still in a "superposition," i.e., while in mid-air. Now they're doing something very similar to this with high-speed pulses of light measured in the femtoseconds, or smaller. And when they do this, then they can actually begin to predict "which-way" behavior while not disturbing the entangled state. (I've read these things over the last year-and-a-half or so, so I remember them imperfectly. But they're there for you to look into at your leisure.) This has the possibility of changing our view of QM at a more fundamental level. But, backing away from the "little" picture, the big picture is is that there is more than just a small analogy between fluid flow and QM. And, backing away even more, Monckton's appraisal of "forcing" could easily end up giving climate modelers a better understanding of how the model should be set up. I don't think it's good science to simply dismiss him out of hand. [[BTW, your comments (at least some) are now up]] PaV

Here is one I saved. PaV:

But that doesn’t mean that within the gamut of QM, CM is not at work, but not fully understood. QM introduces probabiities. Do probabilities exclude CM? Now, is the rolling of dice something that falls outside of CM?

No, as far as we know, QM is not reducible to some classical theory. The EPR paradox and subsequent refinements in the form of Bell's inequalities and such have demonstrated that QM is quintessentially non-classical. You might want to read David Mermin's article "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" that explains in simple terms the strange outcomes of quantum measurements for entangled states. The results of such measurements violate the very basic notions of classical locality. The paper is not very long and pedagogically written. Mermin is an excellent teacher and something of a philosopher. skram

Ask Barry, I am sure he knows. skram

skram: I found four of your comments in the "spam" category. Have no idea how they got there. You might consider how you posted, and maybe there was a problem there that you'll want to avoid going forward. Those comments should have already appeared, and they haven't; so, I don't know what to do next exactly. We'll see. PaV

PaV:

But that doesn’t mean that within the gamut of QM, CM is not at work, but not fully understood. QM introduces probabiities. Do probabilities exclude CM? Now, is the rolling of dice something that falls outside of CM?

No, as far as we know, QM is not reducible to some classical theory. The EPR paradox and subsequent refinements in the form of Bell's inequalities and such have demonstrated that QM is quintessentially non-classical. You might want to read David Mermin's article "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" that explains in simple terms the strange outcomes of quantum measurements for entangled states. The results of such measurements violate the very basic notions of classical locality. The paper is not very long and pedagogically written. Mermin is an excellent teacher and something of a philosopher. skram

PaV, My comments seem to be in moderation, on and off. I may or may not be able to reply. skram

skram: A little bit more:

That is the trajectory actually followed by the particle. At the quantum level, theoretically all trajectories must be taken into account; in practice, one can keep those trajectories whose action deviates from the optimal value by no more than one quantum of action (Planck’s constant hbar).

This is simply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle that you're invoking. But QM operates at a level 'above' the UP. Below this level, yes, we're left to guess. There's no way of probing it--as of now (who knows what discoveries await). But that doesn't mean that within the gamut of QM, CM is not at work, but not fully understood.

Note that one can restore the classical situation from the quantum one by simply narrowing the choice of trajectories to just the minimal one. There is, however, no way of going back from the classical to quantum situation as there is no hint of hbar in the classical description.

QM introduces probabiities. Do probabilities exclude CM? For instance, you're in Las Vegas at a Craps Table. The dice are thrown. You have no way of knowing what the roll will turn up. Before the roll, the eventual outcome is in a "superposition" with amplitudes equal to the odds of particular numbers coming up. When the 'roll' takes place, the 'superposition collapses' into the actual observance. Given enough 'rolls of the dice' the actual 'amplitudes' will emerge. Now, is the rolling of dice something that falls outside of CM? PaV

skram: For the time being, I'll only respond to this statement:

The similarity would be relevant to the paper of Monckton et al. if you could demonstrate that you can take some hydrodynamic phenomenon and, based on that, make progress in quantum mechanics. (Or vice versa.) Would you like to demonstrate that this is even possible?

Implicit in your argument here is that "climate" science is a well-established as QM. But, of course, this is not the case. One can use QM and calculate out to an accuracy of 10 significant digits. It is highly accurate. And, then, there is "global warming," and its attendant "models." We, of course, know that these 'models' are WAY off. Monckton's is not. It is the global warming hysterics you have a case to make; not me. PaV

PaV, I no longer have the ability to post comments at UD. Ask Barry why. Best regards, skram skram

Well, we do know that “very minor” could mean “as high as 5 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Because "5 degrees Fahrenheit", wrt CO2 and warming, exists only in imaginationland. Joe

Of course, Joe, I can post multiple papers supporting the hypothesis. skram

skram, If you can't support your trope then don't post it. There isn't any evidence that a doubling or tripling of CO2 will produce a 5 degree F increase in temps. I can post papers- plural- that dispute that. Joe

Piotr:

If you read it you misunderstood it.

That is your uneducated opinion.

The oceans take up about 30% (I think ca. 35% would be more accurate) of the excess CO2 emitted by the human civilisation, thus reducing somewhat the greenhouse effect. Most of that CO2 supposedly ends up dissolved in the cold, deep waters of the oceans, and it used to be thought that even as the Earth warms a little, those waters will release the dissolved CO2 very slowly, delaying its effect on the climate (though not stopping the warming).

I never said anything to the contrary.

However, the exchange between the deep waters and the ocean surface turns out to be more dynamic than previously thought.

Yes, I know. CO2 still is NOT the problem, Piotr. You chicken-little alarmists just crack me up. Joe

Well, we do know that "very minor" could mean "as high as 5 degrees Fahrenheit." It's important to define your terms. Thank you for doing so. P.S. Hi all, this is probably the last comment from me. Barry has started deleting my comments and the new ones aren't showing up. So long! It's been nice chatting with ya. skram

No it doesn't skram. We all know that you can't support the crap you post. Joe

Of course it does, Joe. We now know what you mean when you say

CO2 is NOT the problem as it is a very minor player in the climate scheme.

skram

#151 Joe, If you read it you misunderstood it. Here's what it says, in a nutshell:-- The oceans take up about 30% (I think ca. 35% would be more accurate) of the excess CO2 emitted by the human civilisation, thus reducing somewhat the greenhouse effect. Most of that CO2 supposedly ends up dissolved in the cold, deep waters of the oceans, and it used to be thought that even as the Earth warms a little, those waters will release the dissolved CO2 very slowly, delaying its effect on the climate (though not stopping the warming). However, the exchange between the deep waters and the ocean surface turns out to be more dynamic than previously thought. That means that the oceans cannot trap as much excess CO2 as they did in the past, and they release some of it back into the atmosphere. Both the CO2 level in the atmosphere and its concentration in the oceans (causing their acidification) have increased -- in accordance with Henry's Law, by the way. The excess comes from human activity, and the mitigating effect of the oceans is becoming much weaker than before. Piotr

That has nothing to do with it, skram. If you had some intelligence you would be able to understand that. Joe

You did characterize a 5-degree warming as a "very minor" thing, did you not, Joe? skram

It is your imagination, skram as there isn't any evidence to support your claim. Joe

It's not my imagination, Joe. It was you who said that a 3-kelvin warming is a very minor thing. skram

skram:

Very minor indeed: an extra 5 degrees Fahrenheit is surely nothing to worry about!

LoL! Your imagination is nothing to worry about! Joe

Joe:

Again- CO2 is NOT the problem as it is a very minor player in the climate scheme.

Very minor indeed: an extra 5 degrees Fahrenheit is surely nothing to worry about! skram

Piotr, I have asked you straight-forward questions too and you have refused to answer them. Make your point, Piotr. I read the report AND the paper, Piotr. Again- CO2 is NOT the problem as it is a very minor player in the climate scheme. CO2 released by the ocean adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is my only point- that and it lags the warming. Joe

#149 Joe, King of One-Liners I asked you a straightforward question. Did you read the press report, or only the title? Do you really know what it's about? Why do you think it confirms what you wrote -- that (sez Joe) the growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the effect of sun-induced warming, and not the cause of warming? Has the concentration of CO2 in the oceans been increasing or decreasing in recent decades? Don't be ashamed to admit your ignorance: it's the first and necessary step towards knowledge. Piotr

#147 Piotr- If you have a point then make it. If all you have are head games then never mind. Joe

PaV:

But how is this any different from the calculus of variation? You have two end points, and, in between, the path can be anything. The calculus of variation, of course, leads to Hamiltonian theory, which is fully classical.

The difference is not between QM and calculus of variation, it's between classical and quantum mechanics. There are some things in common between quantum and classical treatments, but then there are some crucial differences. They can be seen in both the standard Copenhagen treatment as well as in Feynman's formulation inspired by that paper by Dirac. In the Lagrangian classical approach and in Feynman's picture, we compute the quantity called action for every conceivable trajectory (path) of a particle. At the classical level, we select the one trajectory that has the lowest action and throw away all the others. That is the trajectory actually followed by the particle. At the quantum level, theoretically all trajectories must be taken into account; in practice, one can keep those trajectories whose action deviates from the optimal value by no more than one quantum of action (Planck's constant hbar). Note that one can restore the classical situation from the quantum one by simply narrowing the choice of trajectories to just the minimal one. There is, however, no way of going back from the classical to quantum situation as there is no hint of hbar in the classical description. The similarity between classical and quantum exists in the standard Copenhagen picture, but the transition from the quantum to classical is less intuitive, so I won't go into it.

Where we get into quantum theory is where we begin dealing with Plancks’ constant. You’ve already stated that. But there is more than the possibility that underlying Planck’s constant is some kind of flux, and which may in the end simply be the effect of some form of a classical field. IOW, something is going on ‘classically’ in between the ‘standing’ nodes of the wave equation.

This is some vague speculation that goes nowhere.

I know the orthodox position. I cannot “prove” the orthodoxy wrong. However, the similarity between QM and hydrodynamics was my original point. This point still stands, as irritating as this might sound to the “orthodox” ear.

The similarity would be relevant to the paper of Monckton et al. if you could demonstrate that you can take some hydrodynamic phenomenon and, based on that, make progress in quantum mechanics. (Or vice versa.) Would you like to demonstrate that this is even possible? skram

#145 Joe, Have you read it all, or just the title, like StephenB? Piotr

Aurelio Smith:

Excellent paper you link to there, Joe.

Thank you

Not sure where you think it supports your claim that CO2 increase is a good thing.

It supports my claim that cleaner air leads to more sunlight reaching the earth's surface which leads to global warming. Not sure where you think I said it supports my claim that CO2 increase is a good thing. The fact that plants need CO2 and we need plants supports my claim that CO2 is good. The fact that history demonstrates that warm periods are the prosperous periods for humans and living organisms in general also supports that claim. Glaciers melt primarily due to the soot that rests on them and absorbs the sun's radiation. Soot covered snow melts even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. The climate changes and when the Sun takes its usual lullaby people will be screaming for increases in CO2, even though it ain't going to help because CO2 is such a small factor. But the plants will love you for it! Joe

Hi Piotr- My apologies but I am going by what the experts said: Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought Joe

Zachriel: They weren't meant to be the same claim. I was trying to show independent ways of conjoining CM and QM. As to Dirac, I was throwing out the year from memory. It's actually 1952, I believe. I've looked for the paper I remember reading, but can't find it. I think I just found it. It's from 1945 and titled: "An Analogy Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics". From the paper:

There are two forms in which quantum mechanics may be expressed, based on Heisenberg’s maticrces and Schrodinger’s wave functions respectively. The second of these is not connected very directly with classical mechanics. The first is in close analogy with classical mechanics, as it may be obtained from classical mechanics simply by making the variable of classical mechanics into non-commuting quantities satisfying the correct commutation relations. . . . .[the 1st sentence, which is basically what I've said above] . . . [and the ‘next to last’ sentence] The method enables one to discuss trajectories for the motion of a particle in quantum mechanics and thus makes quantum mechanics more closely resemble classical mechanics. . . .

PaV

PaV: I know that the Schrodinger equations can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. PaV (quoting): In the autumn of 1932, [Dirac] found another way of [developing quantum mechanics by analogy with classical mechanics] Those are not the same claims. Zachriel

skram: I found this looking around:

“In the autumn of 1932, [Dirac] found another way of [developing quantum mechanics by analogy with classical mechanics], by generalising the property of classical physics that enables the path of any object to be calculated, regardless of the nature of the forces acting on it. “[At the heart of this technique are two quantities.] The first, known as the Lagrangian, is the difference between an object’s energy of motion and the energy it has by virtue of its location. The second, the so-called ‘action’ associated with the object’s path, is calculated by adding the values of the Lagrangian from the beginning of the path to its end. In classical physics, the path taken by any object between two points in any specified time interval turns out... to be the one corresponding to the smallest value of the ‘action’... “Dirac thought that the concept of ‘action’ might be just as important in the quantum world of electrons and atomic nuclei as it is in the large-scale domain. When he generalised the idea to quantum mechanics, he found that a quantum particle has not just one path available to it but an infinite number, and they are – loosely speaking – centred around the path predicted by classical mechanics. He also found a way of taking into account all the paths available to the particle to calculate the probability that the quantum particle moves from one place to another... “Normally, he would submit a paper like this to a British journal, such as the Proceedings of the Royal Society, but this time he chose to demonstrate his support for Soviet physics by sending the paper to a new Soviet journal... Dirac was quietly pleased with his ‘little paper’ and wrote in early November to one of his colleagues in Russia: ‘It appears that all the important things in the classical [...] treatment can be taken over, perhaps in a rather disguised form, into the quantum theory’” (Farmelo, pp. 215-6). G. Farmelo, The strangest man, 1988.

PaV

skram: Instead, it explores every conceivable path. The amplitude of propagation (the propagator) is computed by adding the amplitudes of every possible path with the phase equal to its action in the units of h-bar. This is completely non-classical. But how is this any different from the calculus of variation? You have two end points, and, in between, the path can be anything. The calculus of variation, of course, leads to Hamiltonian theory, which is fully classical. Where we get into quantum theory is where we begin dealing with Plancks' constant. You've already stated that. But there is more than the possibility that underlying Planck's constant is some kind of flux, and which may in the end simply be the effect of some form of a classical field. IOW, something is going on 'classically' in between the 'standing' nodes of the wave equation. I know the orthodox position. I cannot "prove" the orthodoxy wrong. However, the similarity between QM and hydrodynamics was my original point. This point still stands, as irritating as this might sound to the "orthodox" ear. PaV

He’s not concerned with h-bar, but, rather, with ‘integral’ solutions. That’s why he focuses on the stationary solutions to the HJE.

We could derive the Time Independent Schrodinger Equation by differentiating the wave equation (Psi=e^i(kx-omega t), e=exponential, i = imaginary number,k=P/hbar. with respect to x twice and substituting that in the Energy equation Me_Think

PaV:

I have Shankar’s book BTW. You’re failing to note, however, that Feynman’s Path-integral approach is basically a classical approach, though, as you say, it’s completely comformable to the Copenhagen Interpretation, for what that’s worth.

You're mistaken, PaV. Feynman's path-integral formulation is a full-blown quantum theory. A particle does not follow a definite trajectory minimizing the classical action, as it would in classical mechanics. Instead, it explores every conceivable path. The amplitude of propagation (the propagator) is computed by adding the amplitudes of every possible path with the phase equal to its action in the units of h-bar. This is completely non-classical. I will comment on Schroedinger's earlier paper tomorrow. skram

skram: You've failed to address the quote from Schrodinger's very first paper, a quote that encompasses his approach to quantum mechanics. He's not concerned with h-bar, but, rather, with 'integral' solutions. That's why he focuses on the stationary solutions to the HJE. He might have later on began to understand his approach in terms of geometric versus wave optics, but that is not how he started out. He, of course, includes h-bar in his definition of operators. But Born simply assumes that his notion of a commutation relation involves h-bar as well, something he simply defines. So how is that anyway different. I have Shankar's book BTW. You're failing to note, however, that Feynman's Path-integral approach is basically a classical approach, though, as you say, it's completely comformable to the Copenhagen Interpretation, for what that's worth. PaV

Interesting discussion. For what its worth here are my two cents: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Shape from Sound: Toward New Tools for Quantum Gravity - 2013 Excerpt: To unify general relativity and quantum theory is hard in part because they are formulated in two very different mathematical languages, differential geometry and functional analysis.,,, http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i12/e121301 Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm bornagain77

PaV:

Schrodinger, OTOH, started with classical mechanics and solved for the stationary solutions of a wave equation. It works too. So, he derived QM from classical mechanics, and not the other way around.

No, there was no wave equation to begin with. There was a hunch by de Broglie that particles behave as waves. The question was: what is the wave equation satisfied by particles? To answer that, Schrödinger looked to optics, where the wave equation is known and the laws of geometrical optics can be obtained from it. Reasoning that the eikonal could be the analogue of mechanical action, Schrödinger postulated (rather than derived) his celebrated equation. There is no way to derive—in the logical sense—the Schrödinger equation from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The missing ingredient is Planck's constant, which does not exist in classical physics. skram

PaV:

The paper uses Feynman’s formulation. And it uses the HJE. And using them together he gets QM. Why is this so hard to see or accept?

Feynman's path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics is equivalent to the standard Copenhagen version. One can be derived from the other. It is thus not surprising that the Schrödinger equation can be derived from Feynman's formulation. You don't need the Hamilton-Jacobe equation to do so. See any modern textbook on QM, e.g., Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Ch. 8.5. However, you cannot start with the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and obtain Schrödinger's. There is no hbar in the former. There is, of course, hbar in Feynman's formulation. skram

skram:

Monckton, in any case, is not an expert in either engineering or climate science. Expecting that he can fix a field is complete nonsense.

I'm not expecting him to "fix" a field. But I think he's entirely capable of "fixing" an assumption. We talk about QM today because they're "assumptions" worked. The IPCC assumptions don't match reality; Monckton's model and assumption seems to do exactly that. PaV

skram:

However, to say that QM was derived from classical mechanics (as you seem to indicate)—that doesn’t seem right. QM is not derivative from classical physics. It is a whole new game.

Born basically postulated a new commutation rule, which functions like a Poisson Bracket, yet doesn't commute. It was a very good guess, but still a guess. Schrodinger, OTOH, started with classical mechanics and solved for the stationary solutions of a wave equation. It works too. So, he derived QM from classical mechanics, and not the other way around. His starting point, if you remember, is de Broglie's wave formulation of momentum. This is the connection between QM and classical mechanis: the de Broglie relation. PaV

skram: The paper uses Feynman's formulation. And it uses the HJE. And using them together he gets QM. Why is this so hard to see or accept? PaV

skram: The paper you cite of Schrodinger is from December of 1926. In November of 1926, Schrodinger's "Collected Papers" had already been published. What I'll be quoting comes from the very first paragraphs of Schrodinger's very first paper on QM found in those collected papers:

Now we do not look for a solution of equation (1') [modified HJE], but proceed as follows. If we neglect the relativistic variation of mass, equation (1') can always be transformed so as to become a quadratic form (of "psi" and its first derivatives) equated to zero. (For the one-electron problem this holds even when mass-variation is not neglected.) We now seek a function Psi, such that for any arbitrary variation of it the integral of the said quadratic form, taken over the whole co-ordinate space, is stationary, Psi being everywhere real, single-valued, finite, and continously differentiable up to the second order. The quantum conditions are replaced by this variation problem.

[The bold is my emphasis; the italics is Schrodinger's] PaV

PaV:

Again, QM is “analagous” to the HJE, and thus, to flow equations. I didn’t say that QM=HJE; rather, that they are analagous. One can then make correlations between analagous systems. This was part of my argument. It still stands.

Analogies only go so far. Knowing how something works in optics and then telling people in mechanics what to do isn't a great recipe for success. It did work for Schroedinger, but that's an exception, not the rule. Monckton, in any case, is not an expert in either engineering or climate science. Expecting that he can fix a field is complete nonsense. skram

PaV:

Have you read Dirac’s book on Quantum Mechanics? I suppose you have. There are all kinds of ‘assumptions’ that he makes in order to get a working system for QM.

No question about that. They had to figure out how quantum mechanics works using hints from classical mechanics, experiments, and analogies with optics (where wave optics had been constructed in a somewhat similar way). However, to say that QM was derived from classical mechanics (as you seem to indicate)—that doesn't seem right. QM is not derivative from classical physics. It is a whole new game. skram

PaV:

Why don’t you look at this paper? You’ll see that what I said is correct.

You're wrong. The derivation isn't from HJE (that's classical mechanics) but from Feynman's formulation of quantum mechanics via path integrals. Exactly what I said. skram

skram: So no, you can’t derive quantum stuff from classical. You have to make some guesses and be lucky. Have you read Dirac's book on Quantum Mechanics? I suppose you have. There are all kinds of 'assumptions' that he makes in order to get a working system for QM. Have you read Born's 1926 book on his theory of QM? Probably you haven't. But if you do, then you'll see that Born more or less "postulates" the canonical equation, and, along the way, make some other assumptions. They, obviously, turn out to be correct; but, assumptions they were. So, you could just as easily say that QM comes from the HJE with the assumption that the eigenvalues of spectral light obey a commutation relation that is non-zero. Again, QM is "analagous" to the HJE, and thus, to flow equations. I didn't say that QM=HJE; rather, that they are analagous. One can then make correlations between analagous systems. This was part of my argument. It still stands. One last bit: I have my own intuitions about QM, and, in the final analysis, the correct theory will be a flux theory. Time will tell. I'm not young enough to likely see this, but you might. PaV

skram: Why don't you look at this paper? You'll see that what I said is correct. Derivation of the Schrodinger equation from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in Feynman’s path integral formulation of quantum mechanics PaV

Joe, The mere fact of a paper's publication does not establish its precedence over an earlier paper. Harde's paper does not seem particularly authoritative. It has been published in a journal that does not have much of a history: it started publishing last year only and has so far published just 12 papers. I wouldn't bet on the reputation of this journal. skram

Joe, Piotr- are you saying that warmer oceans do not release more CO2 than cooler oceans? What is your point? Aye, there's the rub, Joe. It all depends on the solubility of CO2 in water and the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (before and after warming). If the temperature has risen by 1K and the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere turns out to be higher by 40%, what does it tell us about the concentration of CO2 in the ocean? I've given you some hints, so please do the calculations and show us your results. You can also admit that you are scientifically illiterate and have no idea how to approach this problem, in which case your naive, uninformed opinion can be ignored. Piotr

Clean air and warming Joe

Who established that Hermann Harde (a laser physicist, not a climate scientist) is right and a panel of expert climatologists is wrong?

It's called "peer-review". Who established the IPCC is right? The IPCC.... Joe

Aurelio Smith is about as cowardly as one can get. Typical. Joe

skram:

In what sense has it been “superseded?”

It came after the IPCC paper. Joe

In what sense has it been "superseded?" Who established that Hermann Harde (a laser physicist, not a climate scientist) is right and a panel of expert climatologists is wrong? skram

The clean air act has allowed for more sunlight to reach the earth's surface which warms the earth. The earth then radiates this heat which gets absorbed by the green-house gases and gets scattered throughout the local atmosphere. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Joe

skram cites a paper that has been superseded by a paper I cited and thinks it has something Joe

Joe:

Very minute, as I said.

An increase of 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) is "very minute?" OK. skram

Piotr- are you saying that warmer oceans do not release more CO2 than cooler oceans? What is your point? Or are you upset because the warming has appeared to have stopped? Joe

skram:

Here is a peer-review report that says CO2 doubling produces a temperature increase between 1.5 and 4.5 kelvins.

Very minute, as I said. Joe

Joe, do the calculations if you can. Hint: use the Van 't Hoff equation and Henry's Law to estimate how much (if any) CO2 will be released to the atmosphere from the ocean depending on the temperature (assuming, for example, that the mean temperature increases by 1K). Present your results. It shouldn't be a difficult task for an expert like you, who is so much smarter that professional climate scientists. Piotr

Joe:

I posted a peer-reviewed paper that says CO2 doubling = only about a 0.6C increase.

Here is a peer-review report that says CO2 doubling produces a temperature increase between 1.5 and 4.5 kelvins. skram

skram:

So increasing CO2 does cause warming?

It could- it all depends as CO2 is a very minute player in the climate scheme. Joe

skram:

I said that changes in the concentration of the CO2 do not affect the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface.

Why did you say that as it relates to nothing that I posted?

Lindzen says that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere and he has an estimate for the amount of warming.

I posted a peer-reviewed paper that says CO2 doubling = only about a 0.6C increase. Joe

So increasing CO2 does cause warming? :) skram

Low climate sensitivity to CO2 CO2 doubling to cause about 0.6C change- very minimal. Joe

Joe:

So more sunlight reaching the earth’s surface won’t cause warming? Is that really your stance, skram? Really????

I didn't say that. I said that changes in the concentration of the CO2 do not affect the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface.

skram- stop asking questions until you support your load about Lindzen- or retract it.

To do that, I need to know what exactly you mean by "very minute." Lindzen says that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere and he has an estimate for the amount of warming. You say that the warming is "very minute." That isn't very specific. How minute? What exactly do you mean by that? skram

skram- stop asking questions until you support your load about Lindzen- or retract it. Joe

So more sunlight reaching the earth's surface won't cause warming? Is that really your stance, skram? Really???? Joe

Joe:

Propaganda- with the amount of CO2 we are releasing we can only be responsible for a very minute temperature change.

Can you be specific what you mean by "very minute?" What value of climate sensitivity does that translate into? How many kelvins per CO2 doubling? skram

skram you have reading issues. I never said that CO2 blocks sunlight. I never implied it. It's as if you are arguing with someone else and thinking you are arguing with me. Joe

Joe:

The clean air acts have allowed more sunlight to reach the surface. The sun heats the oceans which then release CO2.

A cute, but entirely pointless theory. CO2 does not block visible light. Therefore an increase in its concentration does not impede the warming of the earth's surface by the hot sun. CO2 blocks certain portions of the infrared spectrum (that aren't blocked by water vapor). Therefore an increase in the CO2 concentration reduces the amount of heat given off by the warm earth. Thus the overall effect of a CO2 increase in the atmosphere is to make the earth warmer. Write that down. skram

skram- I dare you to tell me what he said I was wrong about Joe

Well skram, I bet he can read- unlike you... Joe

The clean air acts have allowed more sunlight to reach the surface. The sun heats the oceans which then release CO2. The "warming" has been minimal and wouldn't even be detected if we didn't have sensitive equipment to make the measurements with. And last summer we had snow for the first time since the 19th century. The point being is it isn't as black and white as you want to make it. There are many factors that drive the climate and the climate changes regardless of us. Joe

To be more specific, Richard Lindzen thinks you're a nut. skram

skram, Obviously you have reading issues as what you posted is not contrary to what I said. Joe

Joe, here is someone on the sceptic side who clearly says you are wrong:

Among the many climate skeptics who plaster the Internet with their writings, hardly any have serious credentials in the physics of the atmosphere. But a handful of contrarian scientists do. The most influential is Dr. Lindzen. Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate. The New York Times, April 30, 2012.

skram

As evidence strongly supports anthropogenic greenhouse warming, projected warming is the concern.

Propaganda- with the amount of CO2 we are releasing we can only be responsible for a very minute temperature change. The Sun is still the main driver of our climate and always will be. The orbit and axial tilt are other factors that are also greater than our CO2 contribution. AND the Earth has been warmer in the past when we were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Joe

The larger point of this trip into history is that I disagree with your bottom line:

So the original point I made to Me_Thinks still stands.

Analogies between different fields can be useful, but they are by no means straightforward. Knowing how something works in engineering gives no guarantee that superficial analogies (as yours are) to other fields will provide immediate and reliable answers (as you seem to suggest). This is particularly true when the devil is in the details, as is the case with the physics of climate. "Lord" Monckton does not possess deep knowledge of either engineering or climate physics. Defending his doodles that pretend to explain how climate works is not a good bet. skram

PaV:

And, IIRC, Schrodinger—who you know very well wanted to couch QM in a classical guise—used the HJE in his original papers.

Let's have a look at Schrödinger's paper, "An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules," Phys. Rev. 28, 1049 (1926). Here is a free copy on the internet archive. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation is there as Eq. (3). However, as I said above, Schrödinger does not derive his equation from it. If that could be done, it would have been done well before him. Instead, he draws a parallel with optics. Geometrical optics (optics of rays) has the mathematical structure similar to that of classical physics. Like particles, light rays follow well-defined trajectories. There is a quantity called eikonal that is similar to mechanical action. Wave optics cannot be derived from geometrical optics, but geometrical optics can be obtained from wave optics by taking the limit of zero wavelength. The eikonal turns out to be related to the phase of the light wave. So Schrödinger brilliantly guesses that the relation between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is the same as that between wave optics and geometrical optics. And that just like the eikonal can be derived from the phase of the light wave, action can be derived from the phase of de Broglie's particle wave. Now he had to guess what the wave equation should be in order to yield the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for action in a certain limit. The answer is not unique. To see why, let's look back at optics. There, too, geometric optics can be obtained from more than one wave theory of light. You can write down a scalar wave equation as is done on this Wikipedia page. It would have the right geometrical limit, but it would still be the wrong theory of light. It would not describe polarization phenomena. The right—vector—wave theory comes from Maxwell's equations. So no, you can't derive quantum stuff from classical. You have to make some guesses and be lucky. skram

PaV:

I know that the Schrodinger equations can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Do you know why? Because Dirac wrote a paper on it.

No, the Schrödinger equation cannot be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. That would amount to deriving quantum physics from classical. It cannot be done. Planck's constant (present in the Schrödinger equation) simply does not exist in classical mechanics (Hamilton-Jacobi equation is a product of classical physics). It's the other way around. One can start with the Schrödinger equation and obtain the Hamilton-Jacobi equation from it by taking the limit of zero Planck's constant. See this Wikipedia page for example. That is precisely how it should be: quantum mechanics contains classical mechanics within it. skram

skram: Thank you for pointing out the distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics---that conjugate canonical coordinates don't commute. I know that the Schrodinger equations can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Do you know why? Because Dirac wrote a paper on it. And, IIRC, Schrodinger---who you know very well wanted to couch QM in a classical guise---used the HJE in his original papers. So the original point I made to Me_Thinks still stands. PaV

Me_Thinks: Whatever you say seems hollow given that the simple model conforms to actual temperature and the sophisticated, complex models do not. Monckton is addressing a basic assumption of those complex models, and, using his own interpretation of how 'forcing' should be looked at, gets the more correct answers. How do you "KNOW" your assumption about the 'forcing' is right? It would help if the models you support came up with the right answers. PaV

DATCG: Maybe the original “printed” book has the qualifier. Maybe it does not. The reasonable presumption is that it does, but we'd be happy to look at evidence to the contrary. Even today, regional effects are difficult to predict. However, the overall heat of the climate system continues to increase. DATCG: Their model in 1984 failed. Proclamations of “clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent” failed. There have already been important climate effects. DATCG: We’re still within climatic norms. As evidence strongly supports anthropogenic greenhouse warming, projected warming is the concern. Zachriel

Zachriel, you quoted... "Hansen et al. 1984: We are left in the very unsatisfactory position of having clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent but not having the knowledge or tools to specify these effects accurately." Their model in 1984 failed. Proclamations of "clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent" failed. There have always been important and imminent climate change in past and today. We're still within climatic norms. His model and other models put forth by Mann, Jones, IPCC were far to aggressive in their initial predictions for global warming and failed. Thus the attempt at re-branding as "Climate Change." But people see through that. Their actions then caused distrust by the public at-large. Clean air, yes, clean energy, all for it. There's many reasons to drive efficient use of energy resources. I think there's middle ground to come together on. But not through the Chicago Climate Exchange. Thankfully, it folded and was sold. Hopefully not to be resurrected anytime soon. DATCG

Zachriel said, "PDF wasn’t even available in 1984. It’s ironic that the “original paper published in 1984? you cited has a timestamp of 2004, modified in 2006." Yes, that's why I asked about the "printed" book. There's a difference however in the PDF reference you gave me and the PDF I linked. The one I linked is a Scanned Image. If you looked closely you should've seen hand written notes on it and obvious miscellaneous information and copy marks on sides of the printed copy. It's a Scanned Image of the original paper converted to PDF. OCR's been around long time before PDF. Using OCR for scanned imaged to PDF is not new. It's practical. I referred to it to search for the qualifier. Maybe the original "printed" book has the qualifier. Maybe it does not. I don't know. We need the actual book, or scanned image of it. This Scanned Image of the original 1984 paper does not show it. DATCG

DATCG: And if you look, you will see it was updated in year 2000. PDF wasn't even available in 1984. It's ironic that the "original paper published in 1984" you cited has a timestamp of 2004, modified in 2006. DATCG: Can we trust the current models?

Hansen et al. 1984: We are left in the very unsatisfactory position of having clear evidence that important climate effects are imminent but not having the knowledge or tools to specify these effects accurately.

The distribution of the excess heat through the climate system is highly complex and chaotic. There is still significant uncertainty, including about climate sensitivity. Zachriel

Zachriel said, "It’s from “Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation”, Chapter 2, 1984." Thanks, actually that link and Chapter 2 was created in 1999. Checking the PDF creation time stamp... **** Created 7/28/1999 12:18:34pm **** **** Updated 7/24/2000 6:20:53pm **** And if you look, you will see it was updated in year 2000. Maybe the original printed version of the 1984 book has same worded qualifier? I do find it an interesting admission they state "computed climate changes should not be viewed as a reliable prediction for a doubled C02 world, because current climate models still poorly represent many parts of the climate system.” Did he or they state that in 1984 or 2000? And is that qualifier true today? What are the ramifications for current climate models if they "still poorly represent many parts of the climate systems." Not a few, but many. Can we trust the current models? The original paper published in 1984 by Hansen, regarding Climate Change and Antarctic sea ice loss does not list that specific qualifier, least not that I could find. But glad to see they admit it. Maybe you can search for yourself if you have time. Original Paper with Antarctic Graphs included by Hansen, et al. Interestingly when I first came across the same book you referenced, it is also hosted at Penn State with same date and time stamps. Where Michael Mann of hockey stick fame is located. Same book with 1999 creation date at Penn State, same date, time stamps DATCG

DATCG: And it actually makes it more absurd the lengths Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al., were driven to refuse access. They spent a lot of time and effort aggregating the data, and felt possessive about it. The data was always there, though, for anyone who made the effort. DATCG: McIntyre is one of the key figures who broke open this entire scandal with Mann’s hockey stick and “hide the decline.” There was no scandal outside the echochamber. Not only was no wrongdoing found, but the basic findings were supported by better data and methodologies. Zachriel

Zachriel, No, not ignoring your point(s). Your point is a good one. And it actually makes it more absurd the lengths Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al., were driven to refuse access. Why do you think they felt a need to hide, delete data? McIntyre was not allowed access. I quoted direct from Nature. They refused his request at that time. That's not in dispute. McIntyre is one of the key figures who broke open this entire scandal with Mann's hockey stick and "hide the decline." DATCG

DATCG: Can you please provide link and date of the paper you cited this quote from It's from "Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation", Chapter 2, 1984. http://papers.risingsea.net/Challenge_for_this_Generation.html Zachriel

Zachriel said, "While Hansen et al. showed West Antarctic ice loss, it was not a prediction." Can you please provide link and date of the paper you cited this quote from ...

Hansen et al., Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases: “Many aspects of the geographical distribution of the warming for doubled C02 are clearly related to changes in prevailing wind patterns. However, the detailed geographical patterns of the computed climate changes should not be viewed as a reliable prediction for a doubled C02 world, because current climate models still poorly represent many parts of the climate system.”

DATCG

Zachriel: The original data was always available to interested researchers who took the time to aggregate it. Today, the data is easily available. DATCG: Then no need to hide behind Freedom of Information Act or delete data files in Phil Jones email that I quoted above You ignored the point. Zachriel

Zachriel said, "The original data was always available to interested researchers who took the time to aggregate it. Today, the data is easily available." Then no need to hide behind Freedom of Information Act or delete data files in Phil Jones email that I quoted above...

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

That is precisely what Phil Jones advocated they do. Hide behind Freedom of Information Act, refusing to turn over data, or worse - DELETION was clear intention. It is deceptive behavior, not science. Until emails came out, we did not know the truth of their deception. Again...

“The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

"we don't have an obligation to pass it on." From Nature 2009...

"Although these data are made available in a processed format that shows the global trend, access to the raw data is restricted to academics." "The dispute is likely to continue for some time. McIntyre is especially aggrieved that Peter Webster, a hurricane expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, was recently provided with data that had been refused to him."

McIntyre is most likely one of the "MM's" Jones is referring to in above quotes. FOI request had to be made to get the raw data. There's a reason they were hiding raw data and Model Code. We know that today by Emails from Climate Gate. It is obvious they did not want to give opposing views opportunity to review the raw data and manipulation of data for their failed models. It's truly sad because Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al, undermined the scientific community's standing as being neutral observers and scientist the public can trust. I love nature contributing to the conservation of nature. Belonged to the Sierra Club well over a decade. There are reasonable steps we should take to reduce pollution and create cleaner energy. Been a solar energy enthusiast long before it was popular. I've invested in green energy stocks. I admire and cheer innovators like Elon Musk and followed Tesla since the start. But the actions of these climate scientist lead to distrust by the public. DATCG

The so-called greenhouse gases allow the radiated heat to stay around a bit longer. And it so happens that we need them. We need CO2. Also a warmer planet is a better planet so warming the cooler years is a good thing. The Sun is still the main driver. And soot on snow and ice will cause melting even in freezing temperatures. The point is by focusing on CO2 you are focusing on the wrong thing. The climate changes and will do what it does regardless of us. Joe

joe, If CO2 caused warming then each year should be warmer than the previous year as the CO2 concentration is increasing. Yet we do not see that. It can be warmer in two ways, warming the peaks or warming the troughs. An one hundred degree day with a low temp of eighty is warmer than an one hundred degree day with sixty. Now just apply that on a year basis, the cooler years are warming, there is a warming trend at the bottom. velikovskys

DATCG: Refusing to share data for years on purpose, seeking to delete data, it is no longer science. The original data was always available to interested researchers who took the time to aggregate it. Today, the data is easily available. DATCG: In 1984, Dr. Hansen predicted a large amount of ice loss in Antarctica as CO2 increases. While Hansen et al. showed West Antarctic ice loss, it was not a prediction.

Hansen et al., Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases: "Many aspects of the geographical distribution of the warming for doubled C02 are clearly related to changes in prevailing wind patterns. However, the detailed geographical patterns of the computed climate changes should not be viewed as a reliable prediction for a doubled C02 world, because current climate models still poorly represent many parts of the climate system."

Zachriel

More deleting... actual email...

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it! -- snip -- Cheers Phil(Jones)

Hide the data, hide the Model Code. This is not the behavior of good scientist. Especially involving decisions that lead to trillions of dollars in spending. Emails of ClimateGate DATCG

When Global Warming alarmist made wild predictions that failed, then intentionally manipulate data, "hide the decline" and refuse transparency they're not acting as scientist. Refusing to share data for years on purpose, seeking to delete data, it is no longer science. It is deception and abuse of science. There's a reason people became skeptical of human-induced Global Warming and for good reason. They could no longer trust the people in charge of carrying out their duties responsibly and honestly as scientist. The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science. "delete the file" - NOT science

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet. The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service.

"hide the decline" - NOT science...

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

"we don't have an obligation" - NOT science...

Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

DATCG

Jim Hansen's failed predictions over and over... Unfortunate history of poor Climate science at NASA

In 1988, Hansen told (sympathetic) journalist Bob Reiss that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 or 30 years (2008-2018). In 2001, he confirmed and reiterated that claim.

Hansen's Antarctic prediction...

In 1984, Dr. Hansen predicted a large amount of ice loss in Antarctica as CO2 increases. The image below(see link) forecasts 40% albedo loss in the Ross Sea (after a doubling of CO2) which corresponds to loss of white, reflective sea ice. Contrary to Hansen’s forecast trend, Antarctic sea ice has steadily increased – particularly in the Ross Sea.

As of this September 2014, "For an unprecedented third year in a row, Antarctica's sea ice is poised to smash a new record this month." CS Monitor Is Antarctic sea ice important?

First, it is almost always ignored by the CAGW press agents because the Antarctic sea ice reflects badly on several of their predictions about the effects of CO2 in particular and global warming in general. As observers of the global warming debate, you need to know what is happening all over, not just what the press agents want you to know, and what they don’t want you to know.

State of the Sea Ice 2015 DATCG

Andre, Svante Arrhenius discovered the greenhouse action of CO2 119 years ago and gave a rough formula for its effect (known as the "greenhouse law"), which makes it possible to estimate the radiative forcing resulting from changing CO2 concentrations. It's been basic physics for a century now. Piotr

Joe, Only if you don't understand the difference between heat and temperature, ignore the fact that the atmosphere stores only a small part of the total heat, and assume that heat is distributed uniformly in the Earth's system (that is, a thermal equilibrium is reached instantly). Piotr

If CO2 caused warming then each year should be warmer than the previous year as the CO2 concentration is increasing. Yet we do not see that. Joe

Andre, If you think CO2 produces no warming, shouldn't you be criticizing the Science Bulletin paper? Its authors argue that CO2 does lead to warming:

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.

What gives? skram

Me_Think Again There is absolutely no evidence that the rise in CO2 causes any warming. 0...... Andre

Andre @ 64, If you don't take the moving average of the global temperature, you will get the forbes article result. Even better than the moving average,is the Cowtan & Way (2013) kriging method (It even accounts for Africa, Antarctica and Arctic missing data) .It shows 0.11 to 0.12 C Global surface warming trend. Yes, Bill Nyle and Gore's experiment was a simple demonstration which was not thought out properly.That doesn't prove CO2 has no role in warming. You shouldn't expect simple lab experiment or a calculator to whittle down complex global warming phenomenon. Me_Think

There is simply no evidence that CO2 is the cause of warmer tempratures http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/ Bill Nye and Al Gore's failed experiment; http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/ Andre

PaV @ 59 CO2 is not the only driver of climate. There are a number of factors which affect the net energy flow into our climate. Stratospheric aerosols,solar activity,surface albedo etc. add to the radiative forcing. However the dominant radiative forcing is CO2. It is borne out by studying the probability Distribution functions of the various radiative forcings. Me_Think

PaV @ 54 The reason given for a 0.1 upper limit is this :[it is]the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits ! They are just suppressing the positive feedback.6 Kelvin temperature change(between glacial and interglacial period) in response to a forcing of 0.5 W/m2 is a response which cannot be explained without strong positive feedback in the climate system. It seems they are trying to match a set of narrow range historical data instead of coming up with a model which would work with varied climate system inputs. Me_Think

PaV:

Hamilton_Jacobi equations.

PaV, the Hamilton-Jacobi equations were introduced and have been used in classical mechanics. They don't play a major role in quantum mechanics. There is a good reason why not: coordinates and their conjugate momenta do not commute in quantum mechanics, so equations including both make things complicated. skram

PaV: if warming began in the 1800?s, likely before mid-century, then how do you account for that warming given that putative ‘man-made’ CO2 was next to neglible compared to current production? Because there is more than one driver of climate. This is Science 101. How to interpret data. It’s easy. It’s simple. Zachriel

Me_Thinks: Here's the NASA's Goddard Institute in Space Studies homepage: You'll notice the temperatures from around 1938 to 1977 are basically 'flat.' Seems just like the 'pause' we've now seen for the last twenty years. IOW, the current 'pause' might go on for another twenty years. Now consider that "man-made CO2" production started rising in the early 40's, and continued to rise until present day, with, perhaps, a lull during the 1970's because of OPEC and Jimmy Carter. Yet, through all of this rise in CO2, we see two extended flat periods. Basic Science 101 tells you that to correlate surface temperatures with CO2 levels over the past 75 years would be ludicrous. You can't even begin to be serious about "man-made" global warming. And, of course, the real kicker is this: if warming began in the 1800's, likely before mid-century, then how do you account for that warming given that putative 'man-made' CO2 was next to neglible compared to current production? This, again, is Science 101. How do interpret data. It's easy. It's simple. The only thing that makes it difficult is if you have an agenda you want to promote, either make yourself rich, make yourself famous, or make yourself secure at the educational institution you happen to work at. The above factors are the "real" causes of "man-made global warming"! PaV

skram: Hamilton_Jacobi equations. PaV

PaV:

General Relativity can be envisioned using hydrodynamic equations. The same is true for quantum mechanics.

Could you expound on that, PaV? Specifically, which equations in hydrodynamics correspond to which in quantum mechanics? I might use that in my teaching practice. skram

Andre, It was not us who brought up the prestige of the journal. It was the phys.org PR piece:

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

It goes on to hype the authors' credentials as well:

Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

The superlatives would be OK if the piece were written by an independent journalist, but it wasn't. There is no name attached to it. The publisher submitted it, and it was likely ghost-written by the authors. This kind of puffery is amusing, so we couldn't help but comment on it. If you want to discuss science, let's discuss science. In fact, I invited you to do so a few posts above, but you didn't seem particularly keen on that. skram

Let us not kid ourselves here, the only reason you guys are taking issue with the prestige of said journal is because it published something you don't like, had it been for something you endorse, we would not even be having this conversation. Andre

Me_Thinks: General Relativity can be envisioned using hydrodynamic equations. The same is true for quantum mechanics. When dealing with 'feedback' systems, perhaps the arena of physics where we know the most is in the area of electronics. This might be the kick-off point that Monckton uses. Then, employing this analogy, he finds an equation used in the 'complex' models that is the analogue of the Bode-System equations. He then uses what is known from the field of electronics to 'correct' that equation. In this case, you will never find directly, or literally, the "Bode-system equations," but, the knowledge gained in electronics in how to employ the BSEqns is then used to set a limit in the climate model based analogically on electronic feedback systems (I suspect one is dealing with heat and heat flow in both systems). Using this 'correction,' his 'simple' model comes up with a model that actually conforms to recorded data. This might explain Dr. Jan Perlwitz' statement. IOW, we need to parse what the good Dr. said. PaV

Andre:

Researchgate had no issue with the word prestigious used….

Researchgate is merely a social network of scientists and a repository of their articles. It does not endorse or even check what is written in the articles. The word 'prestigious' appeared in a self-congratulatory editorial written by the Editor-in-Chief of Science Bulletin and published, needless to say, in the same journal. See here: doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0715-6. Surely we can take the word of the Editor-in-Chief that his journal is prestigious. :) skram

And Springer is based in Germany, and that's the land of BMW! :) You've got to try harder, Andre. Not every publication bearing an imprint of a reputable publisher is a prestigious journal. Take my own field (physics). Springer's Journal of High Energy Physics has an impact factor of 6.220. That's pretty good, not that far behind the prestigious Physical Review Letters (7.728). On the other hand, International Journal of Theoretical Physics has only 1.202, not so impressive. At any rate, the phys.org PR piece makes silly claims to fame. They can be easily debunked. skram

For your own sake Piotr stop hyperventilating! Springer runs Science Bulletin, Is Springer not prestigious? http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/115/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11434-014-0714-7.pdf?auth66=1422553780_ed61cd632bf73c0b7d56b1b9946071bb&ext=.pdf Researchgate had no issue with the word prestigious used.... http://www.researchgate.net/publication/270398443_Science_Bulletin_entering_a_new_era Andre

For God's sake, Andre, it they didn't want to try "The Tabloids" (top-prestige interdisciplinary journals like Nature, Science, and PNAS), there is no shortage of serious journals specialising in climate science, with IFs in the 4-5 range, where the editors are more interested in the quality of the papers than their "WOW!" value, and where solid peer-review is guaranteed. Why not send the article to one of them, and choose instead a Chinese one that is both interdisciplinary and relatively obscure? Why lie about its quality and prestige? (Yes, Andre, calling it "one of the top six, worldwide" is not an exaggeration, but a brazen lie.) Piotr

Andre @ 48,

Erm 0.18c only? Try again….

Tried again. Same result. Nothing in link to alter the figure. Me_Think

Me_Think Erm 0.18c only? Try again.... http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots http://t.space.com/all/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate#1 Andre

Piotr You are a very dishonest person. I told you why, they do not publish negative results, why are you ignoring that and then setup a strawman? Those Chinese journals don't reject negative results nor do they worship dogma. Andre

Andre: The top journals are a farce... I see. So if Nature is a farce, "the Orient's equivalent of Nature" is... uh... a Chinese farce? Piotr

Andre @ 37

So where you got the it’s constant from, only you will know! So can I call you a liar? Because that is what you’re doing!

Do you need a reason? However note that 'unchanged average' is not constant, you could say 'Constant Average' if you want to! Solar cycle contributes 0.18 C (Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung.) This is found by detrending the temperature data by removing the global warming trend. The change in the Sun’s yearly average total irradiance during an 11-year cycle is on the order of 0.1 percent or 1.4 watts per square meter, not much to claim that Global warming is due to Sun's activity. 'Anti-global warming alarmists' seemed to have frightened you - relax, we are not moving towards a Dalton minimum ! Then again, I may be lying :-) Me_Think

Andre, As I have said, this was a back-of-the-envelope calculation. It nonetheless gives an idea of the order of magnitude. That's how we physicists roll. But feel free to fill in the gaps. Do your own calculation. Use the earth's albedo (0.3) if you must. skram

But who says the earth is a blackbody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body Andre

Andre, Here is a key paragraph from the DailyTech article you have just cited:

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

I have no problem with this finding. Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. If solar radiation reaching the earth varies by 0.1 percent then the temperature of the earth (modeled as a black body) should change by one quarter* of that, i.e., by 0.025 percent. The earth's temperature is around 300 kelvins. 0.025 percent of that is 0.075 kelvin, or 0.135 degree Fahrenheit. *One quarter comes from the black-body radiation law, which says that the power radiated by a black body scales as the fourth power of its temperature. Now what? skram

Me_Think..... Now what? http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm Andre

Piotr, We can argue the semantics, you know what you meant........ The top journals are a farce because they discourage publishing negative findings... ever heard of the file-drawer effect? Top journals are plagued by it. Andre

#34 Andre, No, it isn't an instance of NTS. It would be if had I made a general statement like "No true scientist could present an analysis falsifying anthropogenic global warming", or "No true scientist would be able to publish a crappy article in a peer-reviewed journal". I am not even saying that the Science Bulletin is not a real peer-reviewed journal or that the authors (excepting C. "the Lord" Monckton, who is obviously just a comedian) are not real scientists. It is ridiculous to compare the SB with the top journals (whether climatological or with a general scientific profile), but this only shows how desperate the authors are to look respectable. I would say that we are dealing with a shoddy publication advertised in a hilariously bombastic press release. It's a statement concerning a particular case, not a generalisation. Piotr

If anyone needs a good laugh, this article is well worth reading: Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane - Matt Walsh - Jan. 28, 2015 http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/climate-change-deniers-are-completely-insane/ bornagain77

Me_Think These guys must be science deniers then! http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/543146/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1073&cookieConsent=A And this report just blows your man-made nonsense out of the water! http://www.commdiginews.com/featured/sunspots-2015-year-of-the-decline-32772/#C5bOxGjkt8HXeB2S.99 "If solar physicists are correct, solar activity could be very low for several decades to come. How that will affect climate change is anyone’s guess, but low sunspot activity has already been identified by the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as one of the main causes for the 15+ year “hiatus” from atmospheric global warming." So where you got the it's constant from, only you will know! So can I call you a liar? Because that is what you're doing! Andre

Andre @ 35

No, the data is not conclusive because we have evidence of natural processes causing the climate change, like the solar activity of the sun.

The solar radiative force causes imbalance which in turns causes global temperature change. The formula is : Solar radiative force = 0.7 x (TSI/4) TSI - Total Solar irradiance. Over the past 32 years, TSI has remained unchanged on average.(Wang 2005 and direct Satellite measurement)so we can conclude solar activity is not responsible for the global climate change. Apart from this, by using Fourier transforms, the influence of various natural factors is studied and after removing those trends, the anthropic global warming change is decided. Me_Think

Me_Think You have to make it clear when you talk about climate change sceptics...... Which one? Just like evolution you guys use fuzzy and use convoluted definitions to blanket everything. Is there climate change? Yes, it is a natural occurring cycle that's been documented since the 12th Century AD. Is there man made climate change? No, the data is not conclusive because we have evidence of natural processes causing the climate change, like the solar activity of the sun. There is no evidence that 120 ppm of CO2 increase is the cause of the change. In fact the increase in CO2 has actually helped with the recovery of Forests and plankton in the oceans. Be specific please, which one? Andre

Piotr You made the claim, the guys in question are not really this or that, and that the paper is not really comparable to Nature..... It is a no true Scotsman fallacy, like it or not! Andre

Andre, I didn't make any universal claim this publication could be an exception to, so NTS doesn't apply. Piotr

You can download the paper by clicking on pdf link. The model in one word:Bizzare. The model is based on process engineers designing electronic circuits ! and restricts the closed-loop gain (g) to 0.1. Page 130 (9 of the pdf) Section 8.3.2: They restrict the g[infinity] to 0.1 because it is the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions. If you restrict to 0.1 obviously equilibrium climate sensitivity will be about 1000 per co2 doubling. Me_Think

Piotr.... The no true Scotsman fallacy..... Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"). They are not really scientist and its not really a comparable journal falls nicely into the category...... Andre

PaV @ 23

Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare RED FACES all round among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences... Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t.

Dr Jan Perlwitz - Climate scientist at Columbia University, working at NASA GISS has written to get a response from the author and here is what he received : William Briggs forwarded this question to Monckton who sent me a letter in response. I don't want to cite details from the letter, since it was addressed to me personally, but I can say as much that Monckton talked about a number of things, but didn't really give an answer to my question about where complex climate models supposedly applied the Bode system-gain equation. Of course you could say Dr.Jan is lying - if he had a track record like the venerable :-) Lord Monckton Me_Think

Andre, You don't even understand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Warning: This is not a true Scotsman! Piotr

Andre @ 22,26 Haven't you read the first sentence of my comment @ 19 ? Me_Think

PaV @ 21

Back to the science. There has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months (RSS monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset, October 1996 to December 2014). Sea-ice extent globally reached a satellite-era maximum three months ago. Sea ice was supposed to have disappeared in the Arctic summer by 2013, according to Al Gore. It didn’t disappear (University of Illinois Cryosphere Today). Droughts were forecast, but the area of the Earth under drought has fallen for 30 years (Hao et al., 2014). Hurricanes and typhoons have neither increased in frequency nor intensity nor duration nor fraction of property value in harm’s way damaged (Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, Florida State University). Lives lost from weather events worldwide are declining (Prof. Will Happer, Princeton University). Area of the Sahara has shrunk by 300,000 km2 in 30 years owing to the greening of areas previously arid (Nicholson, 1981). Snow-cover extent in the Northern hemisphere shows no real change in 35 year

There are refutations and explanations for that (at least for the last 16 years) here I could copy-paste if you want. The entire website deals with FAQs on climate questions, so you could spend some time there to get answers to a lot of skeptical questions. A rational being would ask - With so much variables coming into play, how can a simple model be developed to explain climate change? Me_Think

I'm trying to follow the allegations your blog site makes but for some reason the links to the supposed evidence is dead.... example; http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf But I might as well take your approach and ask, what value do we get from the writings of a bunch od deluded Mormons that run the blog you cited? That's not fair is it? First refute the science! then take-on the character is a good start. Andre

skram:

“the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin)” is indeed a joke. With an impact factor of 1.365, this journal is dangling at the bottom of the academic food chain.

Maybe he didn't publish it in the PNAS because the "Climatistas" wouldn't allow it. You know, censorship. I'm not going to respond to any of your further comments because there is not talking to someone with your mindset. But, if you get out of line---which you haven't so far---it will be time for you to "skram." IOW, I'll delete the comments. PaV

Me_Thinks: You've still not answered my question. Do you know how silly it looks pointing out all the "errors" of Monckton's paper when, at the same time, his model is in line with actual temperatures, and the IPCC models are not? PaV

Me_Thinks: Here's what Monckton says in response. I lifted this from a blog.

Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare RED FACES all round among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one of the world’s top learned journals. No rogue equation, no climate crisis. The equation seems quite harmless. Here it is: ?G_t=(1-?_0 f_t)?^(-1) It says the amount by which climate scientists multiply the direct warming from, say, CO2 to allow for “temperature feedbacks” – changes to the climate because it has warmed that make it warm still further – is equal to the reciprocal of 1 minus a third of the sum of all the feedbacks. They say the feedbacks, measured in Watts per square meter of the Earth per Celsius degree of direct warming, add up to 2. So the equation tells them to multiply by 3. Just 1 Celsius degree of warming from doubling CO2 in the air suddenly, wrongly, becomes 3 degrees. A non-event becomes a crisis. James Hansen – the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (who once said anyone who questioned his math should be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death) – had lifted the rogue equation, the Bode system-gain relation, from a 551-page tome by R.W. Bode about feedback amplification in electronic circuits, published 70 years ago. Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t. It applies only to certain systems whose output (in a circuit, the voltage) does not operate to bring the system back into balance after an overload. But in the climate rising temperature restores the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Warming acts against the feedbacks. It damps them down. Also, in a circuit, when the feedbacks reach a threshold value the current suddenly changes direction and goes around the circuit the other way. A positive current instantaneously becomes a negative current. In process engineers’ jargon, the current flicks from the positive to the negative rail. But in the climate rising feedbacks cannot flick temperature down when they were driving it up just before. Why does this matter? Because it means the true warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3 or 5 or 10 Celsius. All the scare stories have been wrong from the get-go. Scientists came up with these exaggerated predictions because, and only because, they were using the wrong equation. Take the misplaced equation out of your computer model – as the paper by four leading researchers in the Science Bulletin demonstrates – and the climate “crisis” melts away. And it’s the only thing that will melt away. Just three months ago, the world had more sea ice than for 35 years. Also, despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months. Now we know why. Not a single red cent need have been spent on making global warming go away. But in Paris this December world leaders – unless they and their advisers read the Science Bulletin – will approve a savage global-government treaty that will give the unelected UN unprecedented powers to tax and regulate elected governments in the name of Saving The Planet from Thermageddon. And all because of one wrong equation.

PaV

Me_Think... So? In a world of no objective morals or ethics is he not doing what we all ought to be doing? Whatever it takes to survive...... My point to you is this..... refute the science first then the man, your list of ramblings has NOT refuted the science, its only a charge sheet against his character! I can also make a charge sheet against yours if you like? Andre

I took the liberty of copying this from a blog where Monckton's science was questioned-----and where those responding to him were, as we would expect, disrespectful and childish.

I am scathing of some of the nastier as well as sillier comments here because I have discovered by experience that my hammering back at those who have no constructive points to make is noticed by unprejudiced third parties (not paid-up partisans like the Once-Upon-A-Time fairy), who enjoy seeing the intellectual feeble-mindedness of the climate Nazis (as an eminent climate researcher has called them) bluntly exposed. Back to the science. There has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months (RSS monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset, October 1996 to December 2014). Sea-ice extent globally reached a satellite-era maximum three months ago. Sea ice was supposed to have disappeared in the Arctic summer by 2013, according to Al Gore. It didn't disappear (University of Illinois Cryosphere Today). Droughts were forecast, but the area of the Earth under drought has fallen for 30 years (Hao et al., 2014). Hurricanes and typhoons have neither increased in frequency nor intensity nor duration nor fraction of property value in harm's way damaged (Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, Florida State University). Lives lost from weather events worldwide are declining (Prof. Will Happer, Princeton University). Area of the Sahara has shrunk by 300,000 km2 in 30 years owing to the greening of areas previously arid (Nicholson, 1981). Snow-cover extent in the Northern hemisphere shows no real change in 35 years (Cryosphere Today). Sea level fell from 2003-2009 and has barely risen in the past decade (Aviso Envisat; GRACE satellites). Just about every prediction of disaster made by the climate Communists has failed to come to pass. The few disasters that have happened (Sandy, Haiyan) were not caused by global warming - for the good and sufficient reason that for well over a decade, and perhaps two decades, there has not been any). Naturally, I was curious to find out why all the lurid predictions of the profiteers of doom had not come to pass. I spent several years looking at the models, talking to the modelers, consulting climate scientists in many specialisms and on both sides of the debate. It was curiosity that led me to construct my own admittedly very simple model. That model does not purport to replace the general-circulation models, but I should not be surprised if in future years it proves to be closer to the truth on global temperature trends than they, for one good reason. I have no financial interest in pushing the science in one direction or another, as the climate Communists do. I am not in an academic institution where the cloying pressure from the far Left to be "politically correct" - which in my experience means scientifically incorrect - is overwhelming. I have no interest in advancing a political view about the climate. I am genuinely curious as to why so many people on the climate-Communist Left have been so easily herded into thinking the same way, as though they had been assimilated by the Borg. In fact, let us call them the Borg from now on. They act like robots with a single, unthinking hive mind that defers to the collective (now excitingly rebranded the 97% consensus). They spend large amounts of time and very large amounts of money denigrating the reputations of those of us who dare to ask questions about the climate-Communist party line. They call me all manner of names and hurl all manner of insults as a substitute for addressing the scientific argument that they have long lost. And when I give as good as I get they burst into tears and rush behind Nanny's skirts and suck their thumbs and wail pathetically. Well, by now you will have appreciated that the Borg are not going to succeed in Assimilating me. If there are genuine scientific arguments against the concepts described in my paper, I shall be happy to hear that they have been organized into a proper mathematical and physical form as a comment or letter to the editor of Science Bulletin. I shall then reply in a proper mathematical and physical form, and the attempted rebuttal (if any) and my refutation of it (if I can refute it) will be published in the same issue of the Bulletin, in accordance with standard academic practice. Frankly, that would be a less babyish approach than that to which I have been subjected here. Now that the gauntlet has been thrown down, let us see whether a proper scientific challenge can indeed be mounted to our modest paper which is so very strongly rooted in what the proprietor of this blog calls "mainstream science" that at the time of writing his only criticism of note is that the material in the paper is plagiarized - i.e., used without due acknowledgement. I have dealt with that absurd allegation firmly and clearly. Let us see if there are any proper, adult, scientific challenges to what our paper puts forward.

PaV

PaV @ 18 They cherry picked and showed result that came close to their model.

.. these projections in the FAR back then weren’t done with general circulation models. They were done with an energy balance model for the atmosphere coupled to an ocean model that consisted of two boxes. Coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs were still considered to be too much in their infancy to be used for projections of transient climate change in 1990. Similarly in Figure 6, Monckton et al. again compare measurements only to the scenario from the FAR with the strongest forcing. They also use projections from the paper by Hansen et al. 1988 [3]. They again select only the scenario A, the one with the strongest forcing for the comparison. As for the measurements, Monckton et al. use the HadCRUT4 trend of the surface temperature over the last 63 years. A past trend is compared to future projections. This isn’t a valid comparison, because the combined climate drivers have had a specific variability over the past century, which can’t be just assumed to be the same in the future. Then they use the RSS satellite data set of recent 17 years for a comparison to surface temperature data, which is also wrong, since the satellite data are for the lower troposphere, not for the surface. One also wonders why the authors have specifically chosen the RSS data in the figure. It’s not the only satellite data set.

Me_Think

Andre @ 17, The Science behind the paper has been refuted in comment #3. Check out the 'lead author' credentials:

1. Monckton claimed to be a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC because he supposedly sent the IPCC a letter pointing out something that needed to be corrected in a draft report. At one point he said the claim to be a Nobel laureate was all a joke. 2. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. 3. Monckton lied about his personal circumstances to sell more of his Eternity puzzle, and admitted it. 4. Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament.) When people started pointing out that he doesn’t appear on the official list of members, however, he started saying that he is a member “without a seat or vote.” 5.John Abraham pointed out a large number of examples where Monckton cited scientific literature that actually refuted his points, or the authors of the papers said that Monckton had misinterpreted their results. 6.Monckton cited statistics about variations in the amount of incoming solar radiation to come to exactly the opposite conclusion from the authors he cited. 7.Lord Monckton totally botched his discussion of ocean acidification, revealing that he doesn’t understand ocean circulation, the significance of pH in aqueous systems 8.Monckton tended to erroneously use local temperature records in place of global ones, which is another thing he was criticized for in the Times. 8.Alden Griffith showed how Monckton has cherrypicked data when discussing trends in Arctic sea ice extent. 9.Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions. The CO2 projections were similar to the real ones, but significantly corrupted, and the temperature projections were the product of inputting the corrupted data into an equation not meant for this purpose. This has been addressed several times by Gavin Schmidt, John Nielsen-Gammon, Lucia Liljegren 10. He attacked mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity by a misapplication of the Stefan-Bolzmann equation. 11. He frequently uses an IPCC equation for the EQUILIBRIUM temperature response of climate models to calculate TRANSIENT temperature response. 12. Monckton has threatened to instigate academic misconduct investigations and/or libel suits against several professors who have exposed his misrepresentations including Naomi Oreskes,John Abraham,Scott Mandia. etc etc etc

More Here with links to relevant issues in the text Me_Think

Me_Thinks: I haven't read through all of your criticisms of their model. Just answer me this: who got temperatures right, and who got them wrong? Can you answer that question? PaV

Piotr And your display here is what we've had to put up with for years, dismiss the source (creationist, ID'er, opposing views) because if you do, you don't have to deal with the actual science. We know this tune, time to change the beat! Andre

Piotr I'll explain........ They are not really climatologists......... iow, "no true Scotsman" The Chinese journal is not really the equivalent of nature... iow "no true Scotsman" So instead of assessing the actual evidence, which you should do, as you are the claimed critical thinker, you dismiss it on your no true Scotsman fallacy. Sloppy to say the least. Try this trick! Refute the science first not the source, which is not what you're attempting here! I call that anti-intellectual, you? Andre

I don't see what "no true Scotsman" has got to do with it. Piotr

Piotr Again, no truer Scotsman? Again????? Andre

LOL, according to the press release (by Briggs), the Science Bulletin is

...the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science.

Perhaps "the paper's lead author", His Lordship, inspired this Oriental hyperbole. He himself calls it "the Orient's equivalent of Nature", as he "fires back" on critics: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/25/monckton-fires-back-point-by-point-rebuttal-at-warmist-critics-of-new-peer-reviewed-study-shoddy-rent-a-quote-scientists/ Piotr

SKRAM I do have to protest! In this world where we have come to celebrate mediocrity, is everything not prestigious these days? Andre

SKRAM There are lies, lies and more lies. But impact factor does not make a journal prestigious because the impact factor itself is deeply flawed, I've given two reasons do you need more? Andre

Andre, The piece in phys.org states that the paper has been published in a prestigious journal. Impact factor is a good way to check whether a scientific journal is prestigious. This one certainly isn't. I am not arguing whether a high impact factor is good or bad. skram

And impact factors are bad for science, 2 reasons really.... 1.)They discourage negative findings Littner, Y., F. B. Mimouni, et al. (2005). “Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 159(11): 1036-1037. 2.) They favour consensus science...... Jefferson, T., C. D. Pietrantonj, et al. (2009). “Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 338. Andre

Let me make another observation. Phys.org publishes brief synopses of research articles. I had one of my own research papers highlighted there. A journalist affiliated with phys.org contacted me about the article, I answered her questions on the phone, and she wrote a piece that was published on phys.org. Under her byline. This piece, curiously, has no byline. Instead, at the bottom, it says "Provided by Science China Press." This is not an article written by a journalist. It's a PR piece. And "Lord" Monckton as the first author? That's priceless! I'd like to know what he contributed to the article. skram

"the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin)" is indeed a joke. With an impact factor of 1.365, this journal is dangling at the bottom of the academic food chain. For comparison, the impact factor of the US analog—the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—is 9.809. PNAS is a prestigious journal. Science Bulletin is not. To put things in perspective, here are impact factors of the journals published by the Nature Publishing Group. skram

Poitr No truer Scotsman heh? Andre

...two maverick climatologists... Willie Soon is actually a astrophysicist, primarily, though he does prefer to publish in the area of atmospheric physics. Piotr

...the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin)... It's a joke, right? A bunch of people with poor credentials or no credentials at all (a journalist, a statistician, and two maverick climatologists on ExxonMobil's payroll) help a Chinese journal with an IF of just above 1 to start a new era under a new name. China is the world's largest producer of excess CO2, by the way. I'm particularly delighted to see Lord Monckton among the authors. He's so deluded that he believes he has a seat in the House of Lords and "the status of Nobel Peace laureate". They could have waited till the April issue. Piotr

The Chinese Academy of Science, which co-publishes the journal, forcefully distanced itself from the Heartland Institute in 2013 after the think-tank used the fact that the Academy had translated one of its reports to suggest broad support for its climate-skeptic views. They have used the 1969 zero Dimension energy balance Model used in conceptual study - it is not a 'new' model.In fact they have just rewritten the Roe (2009) derivation of the model. Moreover, From The Carbon Brief:

"I'm particularly concerned about three aspects at least in this study. First, they use temperature variations over the last 800,000 years as a constraint, but of course the feedbacks in a world with whole continents covered by snow and ice are very different from a world today."

"[The new] model asserts that there has been no warming below the surface layers of the oceans over the past few decades.

The entire premise for accusation that IPCC uses Bode System gain is wrong. IPCC does not use the Bode system gain model at all ! More from: Dr. Jan Perlwitz docs

First, that a temperature change between glacials and interglacials of 6 Kelvin, despite Milankovitch forcing, indicated that the feedbacks in the climate system were small. The authors just postulate this, as if this was self-evident. But it is not self-evident. The globally and annually averaged Milankovitch forcing between glacials and interglacials is smaller than 0.5 W/m2 [1] (for comparison, radiative forcing to CO2-doubling is about 3.7 W/m2. The second argument in the paper for a small positive or even net negative feedback, which the authors also use to postulate an upper limit of 0.1 for a parameter that is called “loop gain” and that prescribes the net magnitude of the feedbacks, is simply absurd.

cherry picking from IPCC report, as done by the 'simple model', is not science:

these projections in the FAR back then weren't done with general circulation models. They were done with an energy balance model for the atmosphere coupled to an ocean model that consisted of two boxes. Coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs were still considered to be too much in their infancy to be used for projections of transient climate change in 1990.

Similarly in Figure 6, Monckton et al. again compare measurements only to the scenario from the FAR with the strongest forcing. They also use projections from the paper by Hansen et al. 1988 [3]. They again select only the scenario A, the one with the strongest forcing for the comparison.

As for the measurements, Monckton et al. use the HadCRUT4 trend of the surface temperature over the last 63 years. A past trend is compared to future projections. This isn't a valid comparison, because the combined climate drivers have had a specific variability over the past century, which can't be just assumed to be the same in the future. Then they use the RSS satellite data set of recent 17 years for a comparison to surface temperature data, which is also wrong, since the satellite data are for the lower troposphere, not for the surface. One also wonders why the authors have specifically chosen the RSS data in the figure. It's not the only satellite data set.

Me_Think

Just like evolution, climate change has to be true. What is wrong with you IDiots? Mung

Real climate models are complex things that consider a variety of variables. One of the facts is that water vapor (also known by the very technical term "clouds") is MUCH more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2, and the models don't attempt to show cloud cover moving and changing on a daily and seasonal basis. At the same time, the effectiveness of CO2 is known to be nonlinear: doubling the concentration has practically no additional effect. There is also the FACT that CO2 is PLANT FOOD. The current CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is at the LOW end for supporting plant growth worldwide. CO2 increases are DIRECTLY related to increased growth of trees in tropical jungles and the vast forests of North America and Siberia. So the tiny increases at the end of the 20th century did WONDERS for rebuilding the forests. The LAST thing humanity wants to do is REDUCE CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also the problem that there are always errors in the data sets available, and the specific weather stations that report temperatures vary from year to year. Etc., etc., etc. See "Climate of Extremes" by Patrick J. Michaels. So there is as much work in scrubbing the raw data as there is in tinkering with your model. Everybody changes the data. Real climatologists openly explain what they changed and why. What the Warmists have repeatedly done is systematically adjust the data sets and grossly overstate the effects of CO2 (to the exclusion of ALL other gases) to produce a desired shift upwards, and then refuse to allow other climatologists to see the data they actually used. This has meant that non-Warmists have regularly complained that they can't get their models to produce results anywhere near what the Warmist models do. This is NOT the work of "crony capitalists". This is the work of the same kind of "scientists" in academia that promote Darwinism. There are HUGE amounts of GOVERNMENT money sloshing around in grants given to teams whose climate models produce scary results. So, as with Evolutionists, only approved Warmists are allowed to speak at conferences or be quoted by The Mainstream Media. The international conspiracy to create a World Government Carbon Control Board has apparently died because too much of the fakery has been exposed. But the US Government remains hellbent on installing Carbon Control boards for the purpose of collecting VAST amounts of new taxes and fees while choking off the production of electricity: the Feds are coming for YOUR air conditioner. If you want to read about real Climate Change, try "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan. Fagan doesn't attempt to explain WHY temperatures and rainfall patterns suddenly changed 5,000 years ago. He simply documents that they DID. The shift to warmer, milder weather over Europe and the Mid-East corresponds to the rise of Civilization. Fagan then shows what happens when Earth's climate goes through a cooling phase in "The Little Ice Age". Warmer is MUCH better than Cooler. mahuna