Sour milk, sourer grapes and the unnatural greenhouse effect

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I am most grateful to Bob Irvine, in a recent column here, for repeating a point that I have tried to make many times, to squeaks of futile protest from assorted busybodies and concern trolls: the total feedback response until 1850 should not, as at present, be allocated solely to the directly-forced reference warming from the naturally-occurring, noncondensing greenhouse gases.

It must be distributed in some fashion between that natural reference sensitivity, on the one hand, and, on the other, the emission temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.

As things now stand, official climatology describes the 32 K difference between the 255 K emission temperature and the 287 K observed global mean surface temperature in 1850 as the “natural greenhouse effect”.

It is assumed – see e.g. Lacis et al. (2010) – that a quarter of this 32 K, or 8 K, is natural reference sensitivity, while three-quarters, or 24 K, is natural feedback response.

Therefore, it is imagined that for every 1 K of reference sensitivity there will be 4 K final or equilibrium warming, or, to put it another way, that the closed-loop gain or system-gain factor is 4.

In that event, after feedback the reference sensitivity of just over 1 K to doubled CO2 concentration would become final warming of 4.1 K – and that, indeed, is the current mean midrange estimate in 21 sixth-generation models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project:


How, then, should the “natural greenhouse effect” be apportioned? At present, climatology’s over-prediction of Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2, the standard metric in global-warming studies) arises due to two mutually-reinforcing errors of logic and of physics.

First, the 255 K emission temperature is supposed to be the surface temperature without greenhouse gases, yet – bizarrely – climatology calculates it by assuming today’s albedo of 0.29, which largely comes from clouds, a greenhouse gas.

As far back as 1994, the redoubtable Professor Lindzen pointed out the illogic of this approach. He corrected it and found emission temperature to be 274 K. That fact reduces the “natural greenhouse effect” from 32 K to just 13 K, of which 8 K is natural reference sensitivity as before, leaving only 5 K as the total feedback response.

Climatology’s second mistake, first perpetrated by the accident-prone James Hansen at NASA in 1984, is to assume that the total feedback response is attributable solely to natural reference sensitivity.

Well, it isn’t. Elementary considerations establish that feedback responds not only to perturbations in temperature but also to the input signal itself, which, in the climate, is the emission temperature or some hefty part thereof.

In effect, puir wee Jaikie forgot the Sun was shining, and failed to recall the wise maxim that the feedback response that is sauce for the goose (natural reference sensitivity) is sauce for the gander (emission temperature).

At two-thirds of today’s 1363.5 W m–2 insolation, the entire tropics on an ice-ball Earth like the Jovian cryosatellite Europa, with albedo 0.62 (Veverka 1982; Pappalardo et al. 2009, Ashkenazy 2016) would be just above freezing, though global mean surface temperature would be less than 198 K.

Even under these conditions, some feedback response would be evident, but it would be small and will here be disregarded.

At four-fifths of today’s insolation, implying mean surface temperature of 207 K, the tropics and perhaps some of the subtropics would be ice-free, and feedbacks would be operating vigorously enough to produce a significant response.

Therefore, some 67 K of the 274 K corrected emission temperature would be capable of driving a temperature feedback response.

How, then, should the 5 K total feedback response be distributed between the 67 K active part of emission temperature and the 8 K natural reference sensitivity?

Illustratively, let us assign only 3 K feedback response to the 67 K active part of emission temperature and the remaining 2 K to the 8 K natural reference sensitivity.

In this example, the true natural greenhouse effect is not the 32 K that is currently imagined, but just 8 + 2, or 10 K. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 32 / 8, or 4, as climatology profitably imagines, but only 10 / 8, or 1.25.

Accordingly, Charney sensitivity would not be 2.5 K, as Charney himself imagined in 1979, nor 3.35 K, as the CMIP5 models imagined in 2013, and certainly not the 4.05 K imagined by the CMIP6 models. It would be less than 1.3 K.

Ah, yes, said the physics professor from Düsseldorf who chaired a meeting at the local agricultural research station where I presented this strikingly elementary arithmetic at the weekend, but what about the possibility that unit feedback response may increase with temperature?

In the above example, the unit feedback response to the 67 K active part of emission temperature is 3 / 67, or 0.045. But the unit feedback response to the 8 K natural reference sensitivity is 2 / 8, or 0.25, which is 5.6 times greater.

There is no particular reason why the unit natural feedback response should be so many times greater than the unit feedback response to the sunshine. But even then there will be very little warming. The professor found this method satisfactory.


How rapidly does the ratio X of the unit natural feedback response to the natural feedback response to emission temperature increase as estimated Charney sensitivity increases?

The answer is shown in the graph. The curve of X against Charney sensitivity rises very rapidly if Lindzen’s estimate of emission temperature is correct. If, on the other hand, one takes the estimate of ~290 W m–2 solar forcing in Müller 2011 on the assumption that without clouds the albedo would halve to 0.145, the growth in X with Charney sensitivity is a little slower.

However, by the time one reaches 2 K Charney sensitivity – only two-thirds of the current models’ low-end projection – X has already risen to an unjustifiably high 17.

This rapid rise in X provides an incrementally more powerful constraint on Charney sensitivity: the more global warming one predicts, the self-evidently sillier the prediction becomes.

As to the maximum tenable value of X, far be it from me to prescribe it. However, given that it is here calculated after we have carefully removed the inactive part of emission temperature below 207 K, I submit that it cannot much exceed 5.

That means Charney sensitivity – and, a fortiori, the shorter-term transient climate response – cannot be anything like the egregiously overstated values on which scientifically illiterate governments worldwide are basing their heroically insane policies.

I end with an account of a maladroit and ultimately failed attempt by the malicious soi-disant “Greens” to have our meeting banned outright.

Together with the Social Democrats, the “ex”-Communist Leftist party and – to its eternal shame – the ruling once-Christian formerly-democratic party of the shady, East German Reichskanzlerin Angela Murky, the Reds (er, “Greens”) got in touch with the agricultural institute in Kleve and ordered it to cancel the meeting.

These thugs and bullies threatened the Institute that they would organize a mass demonstration so violent that even the placid herd of experimental cows at the Institute would be driven to yield sour milk. For the sake of the cows, said these passionate stewards of all things environmental, the meeting must be canceled.

However, Alternative für Deutschland, the center-right party that had invited me to speak, had anticipated the wannabe terrorists by tying down the institute with a written contract. When the institute tried to back out of the contract into which it had freely entered, the party went straight to court.

The court ordered the meeting to proceed, wryly commenting that the best way to protect the innocent cows was not to cancel the meeting but to make sure that any demonstration was peaceful.

In the end, just two disconsolate protesterettes from Fridays for Fascism (or some such title) turned up. Anyway, it was a Saturday. Their knowledge of what day of the week it was had proved to be no better than their knowledge of climatology. Mindful of the judge’s warning, the two brats protested silently. The cows chewed their cud unterrorized.

Two “Greens” attended the meeting and sat right at the front, twitching their egg-stained beards, muttering to each other and checking my references on their cellphones as I talked. As the very simple arithmetic that spells doom for the Thermageddon cult inexorably unfolded, they twitched and twittered and Tweeted less. They fell still and silent.

At the end, they said to the organizer of the event, who was sitting next to them, that I had made five logical errors in my presentation. “What errors?” he asked. Answer came there none.

“Why don’t you challenge Lord Monckton by asking him questions about his supposed errors?” Questions came there none. The two Trots slunk away dejected into the balmy late-October night. Good news for the planet was not good news for Them.

Often and often have my speaker-meetings been canceled as a result of criminal intimidation such as that which most of Germany’s political parties here saw fit to attempt. This is the first time the organizers have plucked up the courage to go to court to uphold freedom no less of speech than of contract.

In Germany, at last the worm is turning. While I was there, farmers demonstrated against the relentless attempts by the numbskulls in the Bundestag to destroy their industry in the name of Saving the Planet. Hint: The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago and it doesn’t need to be Saved again.

At the regional elections in Thuringia, Alternative für Deutschland – founded only six years ago – took 25% of the vote, beating the shocked unchristian antidemocrats into third place. Ending the climate scam was AfD’s principal policy, ranked alongside its policy of allowing the voters to demand referenda on this and all matters on which the classe politique refuses to do what the electorate wants.

As for the “Greens”, they got barely 5% of the vote. Just about everyone is fed up with the cripplingly costly Energiewende, which has carpeted the once-beautiful valley of the Ruhr with solar panels and bird-bashing, bat-blending, bee-bothering windmills – 14th-century technology to fail to address a 21st-century non-problem.

The party is not going to take the intimidation from the goons in the other parties lying down. It is preparing a criminal complaint of intimidation against those who used threats of force, widely circulated in the regional news media, in the hope of either shutting down the meeting or frightening people into deciding not to come.

Despite the thugs and bullies and their poisonous attempts at intimidation, almost 100 brave souls attended.

Three cheers for the judge who was not cowed by the totalitarians. The climate Communists and Friday Fascists are no longer going to get a free ride. Stamping out free speech had cataclysmic global consequences a century ago. It is not going to be tolerated again.

via Watts Up With That?

October 29, 2019 at 12:30AM


One thought on “Sour milk, sourer grapes and the unnatural greenhouse effect”

Leave a 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