Thursday, June 28, 2018

Happy With my Debate Performance

I'm very happy with my performance today for the "debate" on the Lars Larson show. The hour went by very quickly -- I felt we had barely begun when the show was already half over.

I expected to be more nervous, but wasn't nervous at all. I've never done much of this kind of thing. I actually enjoyed it. I wish it went two hours.

Obviously a show like this isn't well set up for a serious debate of the science of climate change. I knew that going in, and I knew I was being set up as a sacrificial lamb. But that wasn't how I thought of myself, and it's not how I feel now that it's over.

Towards the end of the hour things started to get a little heated, especially during the commercials. Mostly by me. Two things got to me:

- the claim that James Hansen's 1988 prediction was all wrong. It wasn't, once you come what actually happened to his assumptions. But the details, on which science turns, don't matter much in today's forum.

- the setup question about the Medieval Warm Period. It wasn't global, and I said so. Neither Lars or Wiese believed me. But, from the abstract of this big study done by several dozen scientists:
"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age."
-- "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia," PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
It's almost like facts didn't matter -- despite Lars saying he goes by the facts and the law. (Speaking of the latter, his show's Executive Producer said I would be asked to sign a document giving them the right to the video, but in fact I was never asked to sign any documents, let alone to the video taken after the debate had concluded. I don't regret anything I said there, but I expected to be asked if it was going to be released to the public. No one asked.)

My opponent, Chuck Wiese, an ex-meteorologist in Portland, didn't offer much in the way of science. He is a hard-core denier who thinks CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. That's just ludicrous, of course, and by the end I could barely contain his rejection of settled and well-understood science. And, for better or worse, I let myself loose to argue about how absurd that position was. For example, here is Wiese speaking in 2008 to/for a candidate for the Oregon state senate. If you watch, you'll see Wiese use blackbody formulas on atmospheric CO2. Today I asked him, off camera I think, what was the definition of a blackbody, and he said it absorbs all radiation incident upon it, but then said BB formulas applied to CO2 near its 15 micron absorption. Which is wacky, of course -- you can't use BB equations in a small part of the spectrum, it's the whole spectrum or nothing -- so the Planck Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Wien's displacement formula do not apply to something that only absorbs in a small part of the spectrum or at discrete points of the spectrum. He didn't have any reply to that, let alone a scientific one. I kept challenging him to publish his claims in the peer reviewed scientific literature -- his response was to repeatedly call me an "idiot" -- then he finally claimed that he had published, at, a blog run by an even worse denier. What can you do?

Nor could he tell us what natural factors were causing modern warming. Because none are known.

So anyway, that's that. The planet keeps spinning, CO2 keeps absorbing, and the planet keeps warming. Because physics says it must.


Phil Clarke said...


"As I asked Chuck (esp) and Lars, what natural factors are causing modern warming?
Neither had an answer. Does anyone here?
(Include data and proof, or don’t bother.)

June 28, 2018 11:25 pm
Chuck Wiese
That is a another lie, Appell. I stated specifically on the program that with the OLR rising rather than decreasing as GHG science requires, that the current warming is being caused by an external energy source. That would be the sun given past research that showed the cloud albedo between 1984-1997 declined .6%, equal to 2.3 WM-2, and has remained about the same since. That equals roughly the same output energy measured by the satellites as the warming surface has responded. You only hear what you want to, Appell.
Long-term global distribution of earth’s shortwave radiation budget at the top of atmosphere, N. Hatzianastassiou et al, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss (2004)"

So Chuck is blaming 50 years of GW on a 13-year decline in albedo (aka global brightening), and cites Hatzianastassiou et al (2004) in support, adding

"For someone who claims to be literate in climate research, you sure aren’t up to speed"

I wonder if Chuck is aware of Hatzianastassiou et al's later papers in 2005 and 2011, the latter finding that the earlier trend reversed around the turn of the century, leading to global dimming of between -0.44W/m2 (NH Land) and -5.62 W/m2 (SH Ocean). SH temperatures simultaneously warmed markedly. To quote Huxley, this would seem to be an example of "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

To quote the conclusion:

"Our findings on post‐2000 GDB can have implications for evaporation and the hydrological cycle as well as for global warming since it has been shown (Wild et al., 2007) that solar dimming masked greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, while the subsequent brightening in the 1990s led to accelerated global warming. Therefore, the post‐2000 dimming and associated inter‐hemispherical differences, documented in this study, are expected to have similar effects that need to be systematically monitored and further investigated in the future."

I wonder why Chuck failed to mention that the team he cited in support of his hypothesis went on to falsify it? Maybe it is he who needs to get 'up to speed'?

I would drop this clarification into the thread over at WattsUp, but my posts are nearly always censored there. I admire your willingness to engage, but I fear the Dunning-Kruger field is strong in that swamp.

2011 paper here

Unknown said...


You won't answer this on Anthony's blog, so I will ask it here and I will be more precise so you can understand the question. I'll cross post this to WUWT so that you will be less inclined to censor it.

At the Earth's 288K average temperature, it emits about 390 W/m^2. If 1 W/m^2 of forcing nominally increases the surface temperature by 0.8C as the IPCC claims, then the surface emissions increase by slightly more than 4.3 W/m^2. You can verify this with the SB LAW and the IPCC AR's, which are sufficient references.

For the surface emissions to increase by 4.3 W/m^2, the surface must be receiving 4.3 W/m^2 more to replenish these emissions, or else the surface will cool. This is a consequence of COE which on it's own is a sufficient reference.

1 W/m^2 of the replenishment energy comes from the W/m^2 of forcing. What is the origin of the other 3.3 @/m^2?

To keep you from going down a rabbit hole, I'll let you know what's not the origin.

Feedback can not be the origin, for if 1 W/m^2 of input resulted in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback, COE tells us that all Joules are the same, thus each of the accumulated 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing must also result in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback, which would result in a surface emissions over 1000 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature close to the boiling point of water, which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, the reference Hansen and all that followed used for feedback specifies a stability criteria which can be distilled down to stability as long as the feedback is <= the forcing and 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback is clearly much greater than the forcing, thus represents an unstable system. Acceptance of COE and the reference used by Hansen for feedback are the only references required to see why it can't be feedback.

Latent heat, convection and other energy transported by matter into the atmosphere can not be the source either. If you subtract out the return of latent heat and thermals from Trenberth's 'back radiation' term, all that's left is the power replacing the BB emissions of the surface consequential to its average temperature. If you can say what effect the energy transported by matter, plus its return to the surface has on the average surface temperature and its average emissions other than the effect they are already having on that temperature and its emissions, you might be able to make a point, but once more, COE stands in your way.

George White
aka co2isnotevil

PS. While I use a handle that's not my name, I am in no way shape or form being anonymous and any 10 year old who can run 'whois' from the command line can figure out who I am.

Unknown said...

@Phil Clarke

Chuck Wiese
Anthony: Yes, I’ve seen this. When you look at the spectrally integrated OLR you see dips right around and after Mt. Pinnatubo’s eruption in the early 90’s and again with the super El Ninio of 1998. But in each case, the OLR recovered and is emitting more radiation than the effective earth temperature calculated by about 2 Wm-2 than at the beginning of the record. That’s not far from the warming seen by the satellites but more importantly contradicts GHG warming because the OLR was calculated by failed models to decrease by 3 Wm-2 by now. So the GHG signature of warming is missing from the beginning of the record and the record implies that additional external energy has reached the surface from sunlight and is the driver of the warming.

Phil Clarke said...

"If 1 W/m^2 of forcing nominally increases the surface temperature by 0.8C as the IPCC claims, then the surface emissions increase by slightly more than 4.3 W/m^2. You can verify this with the SB LAW and the IPCC AR's, which are sufficient references."

Please provide references: quotes or at least page numbers.

The relevant numbers would seem to be transient climate response, that is, the surface temperature increase predicted by the IPCC at the time of a doubling of CO2, and the associated forcing.

The forcing is 3.7 W/m2 and the IPCC estimate of TCR IS 1C-2,5C. Even the low end of that range is inconsistent with 1 W/m2 resulting in 0.8C warming.
Please indicate where you got these numbers, bearing in mind that you are no longer in the WUWT bubble. Thanks.
Then we can move on to applying SB to a non black body. This could be fun.

Phil Clarke said...

"But in each case, the OLR recovered and is emitting more radiation than the effective earth temperature calculated by about 2 Wm-2 than at the beginning of the record. That’s not far from the warming seen by the satellites but more importantly contradicts GHG warming because the OLR was calculated by failed models to decrease by 3 Wm-2 by now."


Phil Clarke said...

Chuck needs to deal with the fact that his hypothesis that global brightening is the cause of warming is contradicted by the findings of the very same team he cited, the team who assert that while albedo changes can amplify or, since 2000, dampen GW, they are small compared to GHG forcing.

He also needs to explain why a massive -5.62 W/m2 change over the SH Oceans from 2000-2007 was accompanied by a warming trend of 0.2C/decade over that area; as reported by the same team he relied on. If he is right, this surely should not be possible.

Unknown said...


It seems that you are unaware of either the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW or that the IPCC claims a sensitivity factor of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2. I suggest that you do some due diligence as it seems you won't believe any truth I tell you unless you discover it for yourself and this is all readily discoverable. You should also keep in mind that you are in bad shape in a debate when your opponent knows your position better than you do and in even worse shape when you don't understand your opponents position, especially if the bias is for ideological reasons.

You are also confused about the difference between the transient response and the long term equilibrium response. The response I'm talking about is the 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing which is the long term steady state response of the surface emissions to average solar forcing (390 W/m^2 of surface emissions per 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing). The long term steady state response is after all feedbacks, positive, negative, known and unknown have had their complete effect on the surface temperature. My point is that since each of the previous 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing uniformly contributes 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions. How can the next W/m^2 possibly result in 4.3 W/m^2 more emissions, or more succinctly, how the next Joule can be so much more powerful at warming the surface than the last one? If you think the last W/m^2 of forcing also added 4.3 W/m^2 to the surface emissions, you should work this backwards from 240 W/m^2 and see where you end up.

The 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing equivalent to doubling CO2 is not what's highly uncertain. What's highly uncertain and highly controversial is the sensitivity factor applied to arrive at the sensitivity to doubling CO2. When you multiply the 3.7 W/m^2 of EQUIVALENT forcing from doubling CO2 times the IPCC's sensitivity factor of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2, you get 3C +/- 1.5C. You are being misled by the many layers of obfuscation and indirection between the physical reality, the nature of the uncertainty and the resulting nonlinear, nonsensical sensitivity metric of degrees of warming per doubling of CO2. Of course, confusion is the purpose of it all, so based on your position, all of the indirection and obfuscation seems to be working as intended.

This isn't complicated, esoteric science, but is just basic knowledge that any scientist should have learned as part of any undergraduate physics curriculum. So, can you please answer the question about where the additional 3.3 W/m^2 replacing the emissions is coming from?


Tony Banton said...

"This isn't complicated, esoteric science, but is just basic knowledge that any scientist should have learned as part of any undergraduate physics curriculum. So, can you please answer the question about where the additional 3.3 W/m^2 replacing the emissions is coming from?"

This is what staggers me about "Sceptics".
Precisely - NO - it's not complicated!
Bizarre Dunning-Kruger hubris.
Why would you think that "basic knowledge" is not known by the thousands of climate scientists and physicists?
You either explain that by ...
They are all (97% -sarc) incompetent.
They are all committing a fraud.
They know more (the science) than you do.

So the illogic extends to your "basic knowledge" trumping those working in the field, because you learned it from an "undergraduate physics curriculum".
Staggering, really staggering.

Saying it is group-think is a bizarre cop-out given that science is about a consensus of observations and theory, not a consensus of opinion.
You turn lack of common-sense into a badge worn with pride, because you arrive at your "conclusion" and make the science fit that.
That you cannot see that and refute it, is of course a given.

In the end at places like WUWT, it is that, that any advocate of the consensus of observation and theory runs up against. The world doesn't work like that, especially not for the 150 years since the days of Arrhenius and Tyndall et al.
Oh, it is also a given that anyone standing firm on the science at WUWT will be abused and then be accused of abusing. (been there and got the tee-shirt).
That along with the down-the-rabbit-hole inhabitants, who get their science from there via the dog-whistle approach of Watts ... that all and every bit on science pertaining the AGW is a "claim" .... because, well we know.
Sorry but that is group think at it's finest, orchestrated by the master deceivers ... Monckton, Ball, Heller et al.
Such that (literally) ALL climate science that supports GHG theory is wrong. Seriously?
Try coming out of that rabbit-hole sometime, and applying some common-sense logic.

I have posted at WUWT .... but there is always the "with one bound he was free answer", when Ad Hom is not used - that it's all a fraud.
Which is why WUWT will be an echo-chamber of "denialists", and most assuredly not a place of science.

There are two people on there who are worth reading. Nick Stokes and Leif Svalsgaard.
Nick is regularly abused, but unfailing indefatigable and polite. Leif not so much but he slays the "It's the Sun stupid" fanatics. Why? because there is arguably no one who knows solar science better. Odd in a way because the way it usually works there is that the more expert you are the more contempt they have for you.
The Rabbit-hole is at least a tad shallower when they turn up.

Phil Clarke said...

Ah, from your wording, I assumed you were talking about the transient response. But you haven't explained the source of this number

"then the surface emissions increase by slightly more than 4.3 W/m^2. You can verify this with the SB LAW and the IPCC AR's, which are sufficient references."

I hope the editor does not screw up the algebra, the standard expression of a radiative forcing is

ΔF = (1 – α)S(ave) – εσT^4

α is the Earth’s albedo,
S(ave) is the average solar energy flux, approx 342 W·m–2,
ε is the effective emissivity of the planetary system,
σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and
TP is the average planetary surface temperature.

In the equilibrium state ΔF is zero, so

(1 – α)S(ave) = εσT^4

In the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, ε would be unity, and TP would be 255 K.

GHGs reduce the effective emissivity so requiring an increase of TP to about 288 K to maintain energy balance.

For ΔF > 0, a positive radiative forcing, the incoming energy is higher than the outgoing. To counterbalance this forcing, the surface temperature has to increase by ΔT to produce a planetary radiative flux that is ΔF larger than the incoming flux.

Increasing the GHG concentration reduces emissivity, so the temperature must rise to achieve a new equilibrium. You seem to be arguing that the resulting increase in emissions is greater than the delta F, which would mean that warming causes cooling.

Say what?

Robert said...

Above, you said

"Today I asked him, off camera I think, what was the definition of a blackbody, and he said it absorbs all radiation incident upon it, but then said BB formulas applied to CO2 near its 15 micron absorption. Which is wacky, of course -- you can't use BB equations in a small part of the spectrum, it's the whole spectrum or nothing -- so the Planck Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Wien's displacement formula do not apply to something that only absorbs in a small part of the spectrum or at discrete points of the spectrum."

That's not completely true - to get an emission spectra, you have to multiply the spectal lines by the blackbody envelope for the actual temperature. Therefore, both the Planck Law and Wien's displacement formula are important.

Robert Clemenzi

Layzej said...

Well done David!

(Soooooooo many commercials! No wonder the time flew by!)

Unknown said...


Your answer to my question was to denigrate me for asking it. You should be ashamed of yourself as this is not how science works. You can't dismiss hard questions as being irrelevant unless you can prove it and my question is unambiguously relevant. When a hypothesis is falsified, which is the result of the answer to my question, you need to modify the hypothesis. The hypothesis of an absurdly high ECS has been falsified in many other ways as well. You just need to approach this with your eyes wide open in order to see the truth as you are otherwise blinded by a fog of misinformation, disinformation, significant omissions and outright lies.

BTW, in the absence of GHG's, the planet's temperature would be closer to 272K, not 255K. The reason is that without GHG's (especially water), there would be no clouds or ice and the albedo would be the same 0.11 of the Moon. So yes, GHG's and clouds increase the surface temperature from 255K to 288K, but this can not happen without the corresponding cooling from 271K down to 255K.

You are blinded to this truth by the flawed definition of radiative forcing which effective cancels out the negative feedback like effect from cloud reflection. Instead, they try to roll these effects into a nebulous and physically meaningless, temperature feedback term which provided the wiggle room to make the sensitivity seem large enough to matter.

With GHG's added to the atmosphere, the EFFECTIVE emissivity drops from unity to about 0.62, thus the sensitivity, which is dT/dP is given exactly by,

dT/dP = 1/(4eoT^3)

which for T = 288K and e = 0.62 is about 0.3C per W/m^2 and less than the IPCC's lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2. Note as well the 1/T^3 dependence on the sensitivity is immutable and the IPCC's assumption of approximate linearity is supposed to fudge this non linearity away, however; the assumption is valid at only one temperature and no where near valid across the range of temperatures found on the planet. Note that if the planet had the same N2/O2 atmosphere as it has now with no GHG's, the AVERAGE temperature would be the same as it would be without any atmosphere, although the peak to peak variabilty would be larger. What does this tell you about the role N2 and O2 have on the radiative balance and the sensitivity?

Yes, increasing GHG's does decrease the effective emissivity, but not by a whole lot and by how much is absolutely deterministic. In fact, the claim that the change in the effective emissivity caused by doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing really means that doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to increasing solar forcing by 3.7 W/m^2 keeping the system (CO2 concentrations/emissivity) constant. I will again refer you to the IPCC AR's for this, although they purposefully don't express this as clearly as I have.

They muck it up even more with their ambiguous definition of forcing, which is an instantaneous delta flux at TOT/TOA. This means that an instantaneous increase in solar energy (after reflection) is equivalent to an instantaneous decrease in the size of the atmospheres transparent window to LWIR. The implication being that like solar energy, in the steady state, all of the incremental absorption is returned to the surface to heat it, while geometry dictates that half must escape into space to achieve radiant balance.

Unknown said...


The proper measure of sensitivity is called gain, and is the dimensionless ratio of W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which is demonstrably quite linear over a very wide range of temperatures and at least mostly conforms to the linearity requirement set by forth by Bode as a precondition for using his feedback analysis.

The Earth exhibits a linear sensitivity metric of 1.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing which UNIFORMLY multiplies each W/m^2 of the 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing into the 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface. COE pretty much precludes the next W/m^2 from increasing surface emissions by the 4.3 W/m^2 required to affect an 0.8C rise in temperature as the next Joule is no more powerful at warming the surface by increasing surface emissions than any of the previous Joules.

You complaint about me saying the system is simple is the result of being misinformed. The simple fact is that from a macroscopic point of view, that is the behavior of the atmosphere at its boundaries, the system can be very accurately modelled as a gray body with an emissivity of about 0.62 and predictions based on this simple model match the satellite data to well within the margin of error in the data. The accuracy of this model is readily tested.

The definitive data (from GISS) proving everything that I have said is illustrated here:

The green line is the prediction using the SB LAW with on an emissivity of 0.62. The small red dots are the data points being tested, where each dot is the monthly average of the planets emissions along the X axis plotted against the average surface temperature along the Y axis for each 2.5 degree slice of latitude spanning about 3 decades of weather satellite data from pole to pole. The larger dots are the long term averages for each slice over the whole data set. The blue line is the prediction of the same data based on the IPCC's bogus sensitivity There can be no doubt about which prediction is more correct.

Phil Clarke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Clarke said...

This is just a restatement of the gibberish analysis presented here. Full of incorrect and unphysical assertions. It was thoroughly debunked in the comments by Nick Stokes and others.

Also see here and then follow the link entitled 'George White makes a fundamental mistake.'

These are full and sufficient references. No point rebunking the already debunked.

Frank Rosser said...

I am about half way through the discussion. They certainly did not make it easy for you with two against one like that. They were certainly not looking for the truth! Lots of pea under the shell switching around as it is called. An interesting show, never the less.

Frank Rosser said...

So Lars Larsen finishes up on... a Conspiracy Theory! Oh well these clowns never change.

Unknown said...


Considering Nick Stokes to be an authority is incredibly funny. He's never once come up with a valid argument to dispute anything I've ever said. He makes noise, but it's all readily discounted.

When Nick fails to follow up on my clarification about whatever misunderstanding he's echoing, it's not because he knows something and isn't saying it, but that he can't dispute what I've said to my face as he knows I will deconstruct any arguments he makes with indisputable logic and physics.

BTW, what link are you talking about as I would like to correct the many mistakes that must be evident in a hit piece like that.

Phil Clarke said...

Well, without getting into the weeds, Nick had (to give one example) a specific criticism about your abuse of dimensions, all you had in response was ad hominem, as here.

Ctrl-F for the text specified will do it for you. These are complete and sufficient references.

Unknown said...

I definitely don't abuse 'dimensions', but the IPCC surely does as they abusively claim linearity between a change in forcing and a change in temperature. BTW, there was no compelling argument against anything I've said in the science of doom thread you pointed out. Feel free to restate what you think to be a legitimate argument and I'll explain why it's not.

Note that specifying a change in forcing is more proper than the IPCC considering only a change at TOA to be the forcing, which in the steady state converges to zero. How can this be 'forcing' the system when in the steady state, the IPCC's definition of forcing is zero? Forcing must be continuous, not transient, otherwise, the planet will cool.

Per Bode, which is what the IPCC bases their analysis on and where their terminology came from, forcing is defined to be ALL of the input, not just a change to the input. In principle, this doesn't really matter since Bode's linearity requirement means that the absolute gain of 1.6 that 'amplifies' 240 W/m^2 from the Sun into 390 W/m^2 at the surface MUST be the same as the incremental gain acting on the next W/m^2, which the IPCC incorrectly refers to as the sensitivity.

The broken terminology used by climate science is there to provide the wiggle to claim that the next W/m^2 of forcing can be 3-4 times more powerful at warming the surface than the last W/m^2, thus violating COE in a stealthy manner. It's incomprehensible to me why this obvious truth is so hard for so many to see. I understand why you would miss this as the truth is so deeply obfuscated by the 'consensus', but once pointed out, it becomes so obvious how can you see anything else?

More to the point, you still haven't answered my question. I will repeat the question once more.

What is the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 above and beyond the forcing and that's required to replenish the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental emissions that must arise from the nominal 0.8C increase claimed to arise from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing.

I understand why you don't want to answer this question, because if you don't understand by now that the answer disputes everything you want to believe, you don't understand science and your opinion on the matter becomes irrelevant. Get over it and embrace the immutable truth.

Phil Clarke said...

Sorry, not following you down that rabbithole, the question has been answered in detail at SoD and indeed WUWT, - you simply refuse to accept your error even when it is laid out in detail rendering 'debate' a pointless waste of time. Anyone interested should read this and especially the comments by Nick Stokes and Jeff Patterson, starting with this from JP

The mistake he made is easily spotted. The units of the input are not the same units as the output which means the “gains” are not unitless. Converting both to energy equivalents of reveals no mysterious violation of COE.

A passive dissipative system whose internal dissipation decreases as a function of some sensed “output” state variable similarly in no way violates COE yet exhibits “gain” in the sense that the output equilibrium value can increase over some prior equilibrium point. This can be thought of as feedback if it helps and can be analyzed via Bode analysis, diff eqs or Laplace as they are mathematically equivalent. There’s nothing inherently wrong in applying Bode to climate systems but like any method, it must be applied correctly.

As Nick points out, the author is also wrong about the linearity constraint on Bode analysis. The whole point of Bode’s original paper was to show how a nonlinear system could be made more linear via negative feedback.

And ending

I started this discussion because your top post added to the already considerable amount confusion surrounding this topic. It is now clear that your ego prevents you from admitting your error. If you had integrity you’d withdraw this article in the public interest. As it stands, you’ve only sent the uninformed to battle with a gun filled with blanks. One can only hope that your pedantic prose will prevent others from promulgating your errors.

So I wish you luck in convincing the world that you have spotted an error in Hansen and Schlesinger somehow missed by the entire climate science discipline, you haven't convinced me.

Over and out.

Unknown said...


Science is self correcting and the truth will eventually emerge no matter what far left politics and its self serving media wants the truth to be. You must already understand that suppressing any truth, especially a scientific truth, is unsustainable and the deeper and more encompassing the lies supporting the suppression are, the harder the truth will be on those who accepted the lies.

You still haven't answered my question and instead refer to it as a 'rabbit hole'. This tells me that your subconscious knows that the answer disputes everything you want to believe, moreover; you have no scientific defense against the immutable truth my question reveals. Your only defense thus far has been a weak attempt to marginalize my expertice by citing the opinion of someone with no specific understanding the topic at hand. Nick Stokes is wrong about everything.

Nick is no expert on Bode and I can tell this with absolute certainty because I am. His denial that Bode's analysis requires strict linearity illustrates a lack of the most basic understanding of the analysis Hansen subverted to establish the primary theoretical rationalization for an ECS high enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. If you don't believe me, read the first paragraph of Bode's book and the 'theoretical' sections of AR1.

Bode's book is the ONLY reference related to feedback used by Hansen, Schlesinger and everyone else who has written any paper related to climate feedback, therefore Bode's definitions of terms, stated preconditions and assumptions are far more definitive than any climate science paper misinterpreting his work. Here are some specific reference in his book which you should attempt to understand.

Bode H, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design
assumption of external power supply and active gain, 31 section 3.2
gain equation, 32 equation 3-3
real definition of sensitivity, 52-57 (sensitivity of gain to component drift)
effects of consuming input power, 56, section 4.10
impedance assumptions, 66-71, section 5.2 – 5.6
a passive circuit is always stable, 108
definition of input (forcing) 31