Answer to a whigmaleerie about temperature feedback

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Some days ago, a prolix, inspissate whigmaleerie was posted here – a gaseous halation, an unwholesome effluvium, an interminable and obscurantist expatiation purporting to cast doubt upon my team’s conclusion that official climatology has misdefined and misapplied feedback and has thus made a mountain out of a molehill, approximately tripling the true midrange rate of global warming we can expect our sins of emission to engender.


We define emission temperature R0 as the 255 K global mean surface temperature that would obtain on Earth at today’s solar irradiance and albedo but before any greenhouse gases have entered the atmosphere and before any feedback begins to operate; B0 as the feedback response in Kelvin to R0; E0, the sum of R0 and B0, as the equilibrium temperature that would prevail after feedback has responded to emission temperature; ΔR0 as the 10 K reference sensitivity to the naturally-occurring, noncondensing, preindustrial greenhouse gases; ΔB0 as the feedback response to B0; ΔE0, the sum of ΔR0 and ΔB0, as the equilibrium sensitivity to the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases present in 1850; R1, the 265 K sum of R0 and ΔR0, as the reference temperature (not including feedback responses) in 1850; B1, the sum of B0 and ΔB0, as the total feedback response to 1850; and E1, the sum of R1 and B1, as the observed equilibrium temperature (including feedback responses) in 1850. The graph above, a detail from Fig. 1 of the whigmaleerie, shows B0 as 5 K and ΔE0 as 28 K, implying that ΔB0 is 18 K or thereby.

Relationships between this gallimaufry of variables constituting the equilibrium global mean surface temperature in 1850 are shown below, where a0, the ratio of ΔE0 to ΔR0, is the system-gain factor or closed-loop gain that transforms reference sensitivity ΔR0 before feedback to equilibrium sensitivity ΔR0 after feedback.


We define the unit feedback response as the ratio of the feedback response to the reference temperature or sensitivity that triggered it: or, in plain English, the amount of feedback-driven temperature or warming per degree of the pre-feedback temperature or warming.

The implication of the whigmaleerie’s Fig. 1 is that the unit feedback response ΔB0 / ΔR0 to the greenhouse warming to 1850 is 28 / 10, or 2.8, while the unit feedback response B0 / R0 to emission temperature is 5 / 255, or 0.02. The implication is that, in the widdershins world of the whigmaleerie, feedbacks are imagined – per impossibile – to respond 140 times more energetically to each degree of greenhouse-gas warming than to each degree of emission temperature. Nothing more need be said of the whigmaleerie, whose author had known of this central defect in his argument in advance, for I had explicitly drawn his attention to it before.


I shall leave the reader to work out the relationship between the feedback impact ratio X, defined in the above equation, and various real or imagined values of the system-gain factor a0. In that revealing relationship between the X factor and a0, the reader will discern why it is that the high equilibrium sensitivities profitably imagined by official climatology, which had erroneously defined feedback and had consequently not understood that feedback responds to equilibrium temperature, are untenable. Or watch the video of my lunchtime keynote at the forthcoming Heartland Climate Conference in Washington DC. It will blow your socks off.

via Watts Up With That?

July 22, 2019 at 07:00PM

One thought on “Answer to a whigmaleerie about temperature feedback”

Leave a Reply to uwe.roland.gross Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s