By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Nature (2020 (586), 335) has now openly and definitively given up any attempt at scientific or political objectivity. A semi-academic editorial reads: "Joe Biden's trust in truth, evidence, science and democracy makes him the only choice in the US election." Pass the chunder bucket, Alice!
Nature's criticism of President Trump ignores the steamy piles of highly politicized Yahoo boos that wet the article, and focuses primarily on its removal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and the World Death Organization.
So let's look at today's Paris Agreement and the Chinese virus on another day. What difference has Paris made? What difference have decades of interstate manual labor made and trillions upon trillions of tax dollars? The blunt answer is, “Nada. Zero. Post Code. Zilch. Bupkis. "Or (sin of cultural appropriation)" Unh-unh! "
Let's assume that the totalitarian politicians who are the main worshipers at the Altar of Thermageddon were really serious about making the planet colder. First and foremost, they would ensure that the contributions of coal, oil and gas to total global energy consumption decline sharply and continuously. But here's what actually happened in the quarter century of hot air at global gabfests from 1993 to 2018. Coal, oil, and gas accounted for 88% of total energy consumption in 1993 and – wait – 87% in 2018. Enjoyed!
The world's heads of state and government would have also reduced overall energy consumption – after all, we are told that otherwise we are threatened with extinction. As BP's graph shows, total energy consumption rose by two-thirds in just that quarter of a century, despite five IPCC reports and endless political statements from scientific institutions and once-respected magazines like Nature about turning off the little standby lights on our televisions .
But certainly the heads of state and government of the world have at least made sure that most of the new energy consumption is subject to the restrictions of the Paris Climate Agreement. Uh no.
Around 90% of the new contributions to energy growth in 2018 were made in countries exempt from the Paris Agreement (or in the US, which are entitled to leave).
And these leaders would certainly have tried to verify that the anthropogenic global warming rate originally projected by the IPCC, equivalent to one-third of a degree per decade and confidently pushed forward in its first assessment report in 1990, has actually occurred. But no.
The airborne half of the above graph shows this, assuming that Wu et al. (2019) rightly stated that around 70% of recent global warming has been anthropogenic. The true anthropogenic contribution to global warming of 1.63 degrees / century from August 1990 to July 2020 was only 1.15 degrees / century, or just over one – third of the equivalent rate predicted by the IPCC of 3.4 degrees / century.
The all-at-sea half of the graph shows that despite this three-fold overestimation of medium-term warming compared to mere observation and measurement, the currently projected equilibrium climate sensitivity is actually greater than the previous projections. As nature would know if it was still related to science, having proven your original predictions in the real world to be a threefold exaggeration by making even more exaggerated predictions would not double you.
The lower left corner of the all-at-sea portion of the graph shows how much equilibrium climate sensitivity actually would have had to be predicted to be consistent with the observational-derived sensitivity. The true equilibrium sensitivity is approximately 1.25 degrees, not the 3.7-3.9 degrees predicted in the current (CMIP6) general circulation models. And 1.25 degrees are not enough to be harmful to the network.
Curiosity is at the heart of true science. The real scientist doesn't say “I believe!” Like nature does. He says: "I wonder!" and then: "I wonder?" Because he is in awe of the universe. He is fascinated by it. He is full of amazement. But then he observes or measures something that he cannot explain at first. Then the exclamation mark becomes a question mark. Why were the original medium-term warming predictions proven by mere observation in the real world such a huge exaggeration? Why weren't the later predictions of equilibrium sensitivity divided by three to align with the observed medium-term warming? Why were they pervertedly elevated instead?
The objective scientist, whose allegiance is wholly truthful, would not bother for a moment what Mr Trump or Mr Biden or a schoolchild or a jail statement from agitprop science associations thought about global warming. He would wonder if climatology had made a systemic error so serious that it led to these overpredictions. He would dig a little historically and read a little theoretically, and that's what he would find.
He would discover that Svante Arrhenius (not a meteorologist but a chemist) had estimated in Table VII of his paper on global warming in 1896 that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the air would cause 5 to 6 degrees of warming, a prediction which includes the current models & # 39; high-end predictions.
However, if he digs a little further, he finds that Arrhenius, who was not a climatologist and was able to change his mind when faced with evidence in 1906, had published a second paper on the subject ten years later, this time in 1906 German, in which he revised his estimate as follows:
What translated means:
"I also calculate that halving or doubling the CO2 concentration corresponds to a temperature change of –1.5 ° C or +1.6 ° C."
This revised forecast is very well within the range of the observation-related equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.25 ° C to doubled CO2, which my team found.
The inquiring scientist (but not the truthful nature) would dig a little further. He would find that Guy Stewart Callendar (not a meteorologist but a steam engineer) had written a paper in 1938 making his own predictions, which are summarized in this graph:
In 1938 the concentration of CO2 was about 300 parts per million by volume, which is shown in Callendar's graph as 3 parts per 10,000. The concentration today is 415 parts per million by volume. In the Callendar graphic this means a warming of about 0.8 K.
The real scientist would be curious to see how much warming has actually occurred since Callendar's 1938 work. He would find that there had been a 0.78 degree warming in the HadCRUT4 dataset from August 1938 to July 2020: d. H. Very well in line with Callendar's prediction.
The scientist (but not nature, of course) would then ask how much global warming Callendar would predict if the CO2 concentration doubled from 300 ppmv in 1938. The number can be read from the graph: it is 1.5 degrees, which corresponds not only to the revised calculation by Arrhenius, but also what we see today based on the observed warming and the officially estimated radiative forcing and the measured imbalance in earth energy should expect from 1850 to 2020. But 1.5 degrees is far from the 4 degrees of climatology.
The scientist would read Callendar's conclusion with astonishment and delight:
“In summary, burning fossil fuels, be it peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet deep, in addition to providing heat and electricity, should prove beneficial to mankind in several ways. For example, the small increases in mean temperature mentioned above would be important at the northern edge of the cultivation, and the growth of conveniently located plants is directly proportional to carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case, the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely. "
The questioning scientist would by now wonder how it came about that today's climatologists not only predict three times as much warming as Arrhenius and Callendar, but also say that the modest rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees, which Callendar correctly predicted had turned out to be bad rather than good, which Callendar had expected. He would wonder why non-climatologists like Arrhenius and Callendar were so much better at climatology than climatologists. He would start reading the newer climate literature, this time with astonishment and dislike.
The scientist (but not nature) would note that in 1984 – a reasonable year – James Hansen had written a paper in which a 4 degree warming, nearly three times Callendars or Arrhenius & # 39; 1.5 degrees, was in response double CO2 in the air was predicted. He would soon find out why Hansen's prediction was nearly three times that of his two esteemed predecessors.
Hansen had adopted the mathematics of temperature feedback from control theory, a now mature branch of engineering physics that was undeveloped at the time of this writing by Arrhenius and was in its infancy when Callendar's 1938 article was published. Hansen had come to the conclusion that the feedback would double or triple the low direct warming due to twice the CO2 concentration, mainly thanks to more water vapor in warmer air.
One of the earliest papers to formalize feedback theory was written in 1934 by the formidable Harold S. Black of Bell Labs, then in New York. For example, the idea of negative feedback had come to Black one morning when he was on the Lackawanna Ferry going to the labs to work. He wrote the equations on his copy of the New York Times, then a newspaper, and Bell Labs kept that copy to this day.
The hardworking scientist (but not nature) would read Black's article and come across the first character in that article.
The scientist (but not nature) would think a little. He would recognize that e is marked as "signal input voltage" at the top left), that the triangular object is the signal amplifier, that there is then a loop in the circuit, the feedback loop, which modifies the signal through the feedback circuit and then routes the amplified and then feedback-moderated input signal to the output node (amusingly marked with E + N + D ”) on the right side:
Then the real scientist would return to Hansen's 1984 article. In it he would find a long discussion about feedback. He would find all the terms unfamiliar because Hansen understood so little of feedback theory that he confused the terms. The scientist would do some homework and find that Stephens (2015) had estimated that without greenhouse gases there would be no water vapor and therefore no clouds, so that far less solar radiation would be harmlessly reflected into space than today, when the cloud covers the primary mirror for this irradiance are. Just look at the picture through half-closed eyelashes and you will immediately see Stephens' point:
There! You did an experiment. That's more than most climatologists ever do.
The scientist would do a calculation to find out what the emission temperature would be at the earth's surface without all of these greenhouse gases and clouds. He would find that it was about 267.6 degrees absolute. He would see that the impressive MIT professor Richard Lindzen had already written a paper in 1994 in which he said that the emission temperature could even be as high as 274 degrees absolute. But let's be nice and work with the smaller figure.
The scientist would then look up the global temperature in 1850 and find that it was 287.6 degrees absolute. He would conclude from this that the natural greenhouse effect – the difference between the emission temperature of 267.6 degrees excluding greenhouse gases and the measured temperature of 287.6 degrees in 1850 – was 20 degrees.
The scientist (but not nature) would notice that Hansen estimates the emission temperature to be only 255 degrees absolute, which implies a natural greenhouse effect of 32 degrees. He would immediately see that Hansen, like countless others who write in climate magazines, had assumed that today's albedo of about 0.294 would be without greenhouse gases, while Stephens said it would be half that. Hansen had therefore estimated the natural greenhouse effect to be 32 degrees, a mistake that in itself overestimated the natural greenhouse effect and thus the warming effect of greenhouse gases in general by 60%. However, this is by no means the most serious mistake in this and countless subsequent climatological studies.
The true scientist who had determined that the 1850 emission temperature was high enough to be only 20 degrees below temperature would wonder how much feedback Hansen attributed to the emission temperature. The scientist (but not nature) would look for a quantification – or even a mention – of the feedback response to the input signal. In climate, the input signal, e in Black's diagram, is the emission temperature. And the emission temperature, at 267.6 degrees, is 50 times higher than the directly forced warming caused by the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases.
The scientist (but not nature) would be horrified to find that Hansen had given no feedback reaction at all to the considerable emission temperature, but had assumed that the entire feedback reaction component in the natural greenhouse effect was exclusively 50 times as much – smaller direct ones Warming from the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases. He would wonder if Hansen's extraordinary mistake had been repeated throughout climatology. And he would find that it had.
For example, the scientist would find that Lacis et al. (2010) had copied Hansen in an influential but fatally misdirected article when he imagined that the difference between surface temperatures with and without greenhouse gases in 1850, the natural greenhouse effect, was 32 degrees. Lacis said 8 of the 32 degrees were direct warming from pre-industrial greenhouse gases and 24 degrees were natural feedback, mainly from more water vapor in warmer air. Lacis therefore believed that the unit's feedback response – the additional warming for each degree of direct warming from greenhouse gases – was 24 ÷ 8, that is, 3. Because of this, climate models today still predict a degree of direct warming from double CO2.Just like Hansen and later Lacis and many others, there would be a climate sensitivity of up to 4 degrees for the final warming or equilibrium climate. They naively assume that the feedback reaction is linear with temperature.
The scientist (but certainly not nature) would find out the true position. He would find that 6.1 degrees of the 19.9 degrees natural greenhouse effect was direct warming from pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases, resulting in a feedback reaction of only 0.7 degrees. The 24 degrees presented by Lacis and countless others were 33 times too great. That is two orders of magnitude. It is a gross mistake.
The remaining 13.1 degrees of true natural greenhouse effect of 19.9 degrees was the feedback reaction to emission temperature that climatologists had neglected. At this crucial point in their calculations, climatologists had forgotten that the sun was shining. They had mistakenly added the large feedback reaction to solar heat to the actually very small natural feedback reaction to direct pre-industrial greenhouse gas warming and counted it incorrectly as if it were part of it. And so today they came to predict a large, rapid, and dangerous warming rather than a small, slow, harmless, and net beneficial warming.
The pre-industrial unit's true feedback reaction per degree of direct forced warming from the pre-industrial unit's non-industrial greenhouse gases was 0.7 ÷ 6.1, or only 0.12. The unit feedback response of 3 presented by climatologists was 25 times too large, or today's unit feedback response of 15, which we believe is about 0.19. A direct warming of 1.06 degrees by double CO2 results in an equilibrium sensitivity of 1.06 (1 + 0.19) or 1.25 degrees. That is only a third of the 4 degrees climatologists use. And that is the end of their "emergency". As we've seen, it turns out that human-made warming in the real world since 1990 is only a third of what they predicted this year. With your mistake corrected, there will be far too little global warming to cause net damage. Climate concerns arose entirely from a mistake in physics.
Let's take a schematic look at the cluster fork of climatology – a mistake so titanginous that it has been hidden from the public the whole time. The upper field (a) shows the climatological division of the overrated natural greenhouse effect into only two components: the direct warming of 8 degrees by the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases and the absurdly large imaginary feedback reaction of 24 degrees to it.
The lower panel (b) shows the corrected division of the actual natural greenhouse effect from 19.9 degrees into not two but three components, starting with the largest: the feedback reaction of 13.1 degrees to the emission temperature, which climatologists had overlooked. See how small the feedback reaction to direct warming from pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases becomes.
We were able to compute this feedback response numerically after first prescribing the three nonlinearities in the feedback response curve with temperature. These non-linearities are caused by the increase in specific air humidity prescribed by Clausius-Claperon with atmospheric temperature (only in the atmospheric window) and below the middle troposphere, at the level of which, contrary to all predictions of the models, no such increase occurred); the increase in the Planck sensitivity parameter with temperature; and the rectangular-hyperbolic response of the system gain factor (the ratio of equilibrium sensitivity to the directly forced warming that triggered the feedback reaction) and thus of all equilibrium climate sensitivities to the feedback fraction (i.e. to the equilibrium fraction sensitivity represented by feedback response).
After we had derived the feedback reactions to the emission temperature and to the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases, we were able to calculate the feedback reaction with the temperature forwards, taking into account the previously defined growth curve, and thus derive the true equilibrium climate sensitivity for a doubling of the CO2 concentration compared to today. It is 1.25 (1.05, 1.5) degrees. However, if one were to assume that the anthropogenic aerosol forcing would continue to be negative in the same ratio to the greenhouse gas forcing as it is at present, the effective equilibrium climate sensitivity, the extent of global warming actually occurring, would only be 1.05 (0.9, 1.2) degrees .
Well Mr. Trump (but not nature) knows all of this because I sent him a message to explain it. A week later, he took the United States out of the pointless but debilitatingly expensive Paris Climate Agreement. He was right about that. He was chosen to put America first. He did that. Indeed, he has shown a commitment to democracy that goes far beyond what the now totalitarian “democrats” offer. With every expenditure he actually did what he promised. He has brokered a more solid, solid peace between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors than 20 years in which stupid Tony Blair swimming around in a pleasant palace in the region had achieved. He has withdrawn US troops from various pointless wars in distant places. He has blamed China and others for asymmetrical trade deals that penalized the rust belt workers who turned to him in droves in 2016.
Climatology itself is also gradually becoming aware of its monstrous flaw – the flaw that has led to such a startling and costly overprediction of past and future global warming. Because my team submitted a paper about it in trade journals. Neither of the two journals to which the current paper was submitted could determine that our central point was wrong: namely, since there is actually a large feedback reaction (and one that we can now respectably quantify) to the emission temperature that has so far The large feedback reaction to the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases presented here must be correspondingly smaller. And so on up to the present and beyond. The feedback reaction and thus the warming of the greenhouse is much less than climatology could imagine.
The reviewers hadn't managed to land a slap on our paper. They still refused, not because it was wrong, but because it was right. The second time, I asked the editor to read the reviewers 'comments and responses, and to let us know if in any material respect we had not responded to the reviewers' unimportant and largely unfounded criticisms.
The editor replied that we had given him full satisfaction on all counts, but that his co-editors were not prepared to allow such a paper to appear under such circumstances.
I had already consulted a high-level police contact after our previous and similarly unfounded refusal. He had advised us to submit the paper three times and to be rejected three times due to clearly dishonest reviews. He would then turn on anti-fraud so I could let them know. We are now polishing the final version of what has now become substantial and solid paper, and if treated lightly we will put the entire bulging file in front of Mr Plod, who, in my experience, is much smarter than the average academic fraudster thinks.
I wrote to the editor asking for permission to forward the correspondence to the fraud police and Interpol in due course. He agreed to the promptness and said it was high time to investigate the fraudulent aspects of climate science. Interestingly, Interpol already has a climate change fraud department – and is not investigating skeptics.
When we finished our work, I wrote to the editors at Nature to ask a pre-submission request. My letter just said that my team had worked for several years on a major mistake that had resulted in a significant overestimation of the projected equilibrium climate sensitivity, and that given the significance of the result, we wondered if nature would be interested. The editor immediately wrote back, saying that nature was not in the least interested. That answer will go to the fraud police in due course.
Meanwhile, nature no longer cares about democracy or peace in the Middle East, or about bringing brave soldiers home from Obama's vanity wars, or making sure America's workers have a fair chance to work, or about climate science than Joe Biden does. The world has been fortunate to have Mr Trump for the past four years. Let's hope it's even happier to have him for another four years, tormenting the communist press and entertaining the rest of us while America stays great and the world free. Nature will hate that. Well.
And so about the Chinese virus. But not today. I will come back to this in a few days. Because I had the virus, which is why I've been out of action for the past few months. And what I have discovered is fascinating and will allow the pandemic to have no more damaging effects than the annual flu in a month if the various benefiting interests that sustain the now increasingly absurd global response can be neutralized to one A few simple and inexpensive steps. Watch this room. It will be worth it.