12 ICCC Monckton Presentation – March 2017

I know it’s a year old. Somehow I’d missed this one. Probably as I’d already known sensitivity was low (just look how shooting upward temperatures at the end of each Ice Age Glacial get slapped back down as strong negative feedback punishes the peaks).

But there’s more to this than the title implies.

There’s a math section toward the end that’s all about feedback loops. In it, Lord Monckton looks to have caught a “whopper” by the IPCC and their fellow travelers. He explores the formal mathematical underpinnings of feedback loops as first written up by folks in electronics, finds they use absolute voltage, points out the IPCC uses Delta-Temps, and proceeds to show if you use the correct math climate sensitivity plunges.

IMHO, his foundation is firm. Engineers doing feedback calcs and making products get it right using the actual V, not a delta V. Climate can not be any different.

Before that, though, he explores some of the reason for why colleges and universities are so ideologically Left Wing. He lays out a compelling history and sites sources (who just happen to have published a book saying that they actually did do what it is claimed they did).

Monckton also lays out a few ideas on “who to influence”.

So this isn’t just a tech talk with calculus, it’s also a political talk.

About an hour long and well worth it. At several points I hit “pause” to read detail on the slides.

IMHO, he’s got it right. The feedback / climate sensitivity he finds matches what I’d expect from observation of the world over a few decades.

The one negative I’d put out there is that some folks really ought not wear a baseball cap. It just does nothing complementary for them…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to 12 ICCC Monckton Presentation – March 2017

  1. seabrznsun says:

    I absolutely intend to watch the video. One reason I will is because I find listening to a British accent enjoyable. As usual, much of the technical jargon will fly over my head. But I’ll get the point.

    Something I’ve always found that keeps me sane in the tsunami of “climate change” garbage hitting everyone all the time has been sci-fi author, Michael Creighton of ‘The Andromeda Strain’, comment. He said ‘Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?’ – Crichton
    I found the quote on this site:

    Once again, thank you for all you do to provide interesting and enlightening things for your following.

  2. E.M.Smith says:


    You are most welcome. I was letting the “play next” feature of YouTube run on a series of ICCC presentations. Several were noteworthy and I was thinking that a pointer to them might be a good posting; then this one came along and it was a bit of a ‘wow’ moment. That is basically how I do things. Wander through a lot of papers, videos, news, whatever; and when something causes my “Wow!” response, make an article of it. Essentially editing for interesting.

    There’s a couple of key “takeaways”. One is just that the “Lurch To The Left” of media and colleges was an infiltration and capture operation originated out of the KGB and the person who started it has published a book saying what he did and how. It was NOT just a “bird of a feather” accident. Nor is there any doubt to the existence of the operation. Conservatives were deliberately barred access and any Marxist was hired with approval. ONE veto on a hiring committee can be enough to get the ball rolling. That needs to be fixed, pronto.

    Another is that there is a well established and proven theory of feedback (including the math of it) that comes from electronics (where it was worked out). Monckton looks at that and discovers a very interesting thing. (Do note that ALL feedback systems must conform to this math). It requires that the forcing be in absolute values ( actual voltage for electronics, actual temperature for climate). Yet the various climate models use DELTA-T not T. That is clearly and provably wrong. The result is that then the “Climate Sensitivity” (the Beta or feedback coefficient) is made a couple of orders of magnitude too high to balance the (wrong) equation. Use the correct math, and the Climate Sensitivity drops way low and the MAX warming possible even with crazy assumptions is about 1.5 C EVER. That is a “very big deal”.

    Looking at it, it is pretty clear his logic and math are correct. (I just wonder how many folks will glaze over at it and then the Warmistas will just spout some nonsense and ignore it.) He does move through it a bit fast, so “pause” is your friend. It needs a “user and layman friendly” interpretation…

    There’s other bits in it that are good. Like his display of how it is all the “feedbacks” not the actual CO2 warming that make for scary numbers. And more. But they are smaller points.

  3. philjourdan says:

    I admire his analytical capability, but I do not think even a pheasant hat could help with his looks! So why not wear a baseball cap? It does not hurt! :-)

  4. Steven Fraser says:

    He’s posted on this recently at Watts…

  5. gallopingcamel says:

    I love Lord Monckton’s ability to deflate the tires of climate alarmism. He is right but his mathematics based on feedback theory is wrong.

    “Consensus” climate scientists use “Junk Science” to weave fairy tales of doom and death. The scientists I respect (e.g Monckton) refute the “Consensus” while failing to reject the underlying falsehoods.

    Lindzen, Choi, Spencer, Monckton and many “Lukewarmers” discuss “Climate Sensitivity” as degrees Centigrade per doubling of CO2. They imply that the Arrhenius (1896) hypothesis with its logarithmic CO2/temperature relation is valid despite all evidence to the contrary.

    The Arrhenius hypothesis says that CO2 and temperature are related by this equation:
    ΔT = 5.43 log(2) (395/280) = 2.7 K. The Arrhenius prediction of sensitivity does not match observation and Monckton wants to fix the problem by replacing the 5.43 Arrhenius estimate by 0.70.

    The Arrhenius hypothesis is false. Carbon dioxide affects temperature in two ways and neither of them involves logarithms.. When you add CO2 to the atmosphere the temperature will rise owing to the increase in pressure. Adding CO2 also affects the Cp of the atmosphere. Both of these effects are small and it is nonsense to suggest that “Feedbacks” are a factor.

  6. E.M.Smith says:


    While I agree with you that the base hypothesis is wrong, it can also be of benefit to “assume for the moment your opponents position” and then still show they have screwed up and are wrong…

    It’s a debate tactic… I’m happy to win the debate on the opponents (wrong) premisses…

  7. cdquarles says:

    Plus, Arrhenius’ equation comes from gas in a bottle in a lab. Arrhenius didn’t know about Raman spectra, either. I wonder if Arrhenius even considered what happens to either the light or the gas at the point of contact between those and the walls of his bottle.

    Back when I was on the debate team, you could either accept your opponent’s premises ‘as true for the sake of argument’ or you could attack the premises. In this case, I agree with our host that showing that the argument fails due to contradiction within its premises is often easier to demonstrate than showing that the premises themselves are wrong. In the case of Carbon Dioxide and ‘global warming’, their arguments fail on both points.

    In the open atmosphere, carbon dioxide added may or may not change the pressure (for carbon dioxide that comes from carbon in the atmosphere already, that just shifts the composition and not necessarily the pressure. Pre-formed carbon dioxide that gets injected will change the pressure, locally; until that carbon dioxide diffuses away or gets consumed by plants or scrubbed by water. Given the low concentration of carbon dioxide overall (after all sources and sinks kinetics are accounted for), we likely can’t even measure the changes in pressure or heat capacity. One thing adding IR active species will do, though, is move the actual lapse rate away from the dry one and toward the moist one (thus the ‘hot spot’ at altitude) but that does not mean that the surface temperature has to change at all.

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    Arrhenius understood that planets lose heat by radiating it into space but as you point out he did not have the detailed knowledge we have today.

    The Arrhenius hypothesis simply does not explain past temperature variations and is therefore (according to Feynman) wrong. If “Climate Scientists” were real scientists they would try to fix the problem but they won’t because they want us to believe that CO2 is going to cause some kind of catastrophe.

    There is at least one radiative-convective model that is in close agreement with observations on all seven bodies in our solar system that have significant atmospheres.

    If you can’t be bothered to wade though my blathering here is a link to the Robinson & Catling model that includes sufficient detail for anyone to replicate their work. Real science can be replicated and falsified if not in accord with what is observed.

    Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

  9. richard verney says:

    Lord Monckton claims (with not a small amount of hubris) that CAGW alarmism is over as a result of his finding.

    Even if his paper is correct, he is being extremely naive if he considers that CAGW and the IPCC can be brought down with just one paper.

    Even should his paper pass peer review (which no doubt will be an uphill struggle), it is overwhelmingly likely that the IPCC will simply ignore the paper in AR6, or it will be relegated to a footnote as one of the papers that supports a Climate Sensitivity below 1.5 degC per doubling, of which there are already quite a few such papers, or alarmists will argue that it is irrelevant since models do not use Climate Sensitivity at all, and their projections are simply emergent outcomes from the basic physics used without there being an assumed sensitivity for CO2.

    After all, we all know that CAGW is not science but politics. As such it will not be brought down by some inconvenient scientific fact.

  10. philjourdan says:

    @Richard Verney – I agree. If CAGW was about science, one paper is all it takes to disprove it. But it is about politics, so no amount of papers will convince the faithful.

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    It is unfortunate that Socialist political dreaming gets in the way of real science. Just as they rewrite history and economics to fit their agenda, socialists even rewrite the facts of science to reflect their dream world. Their efforts remind me of the mental gymnastics of the Catholic Church to justify their view of the world thru the prism of their religious dogma…pg

  12. R. de Haan says:

    Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 continue to be executed via EU mandates and regulations in Europe and all the Member States comply. The have won for now because they have made their brain washed electorate believe it was all their idea. And the influence of Trump you may ask?
    Well Trump is bashed and made fun of at any possible opportunity, day in day out.

    Now that is how democracy and freedom is lost.

  13. R. de Haan says:

    Obviously Lord Monckton wasn’t finished yet:
    If NWGrasroots is the appropriate platform to bring this more recent feat of World Class News, I don’t know but the guy remains as fascinating as always.

Comments are closed.