Scroll To Top

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Lordy! Christopher Monckton's miracle - there never were and never will be any ice ages!

Sou | 5:33 AM Go to the first of 26 comments. Add a comment

In case you missed it, Christopher Monckton has been writing a series of articles proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the earth has never slipped between glacial and interglacial conditions. He's now up to Part 3 (archived here) of who-knows-how-many-parts in the series.

One thing that stands out is that in his Part 3, Christopher ignored corrections people made to his multiple errors in his previous (Part 1 and Part 2) articles.

There were more than 300 comments on Christopher's Part 2, so he just must be right :)

He continues in his latest article, where he claims that the scientist's estimate of climate sensitivity is too high. He wrote:

The CMIP5 models’ value is 3.2 K, which is a 92.5% exaggeration compared with the value 1.661 K found here. As we shall see later in the series, even this corrected central estimate is substantially too high.
Given that the planet has already warmed by more than 1 K since industrialisation, and CO2 hasn't yet doubled let alone come to any sort of equilibrium, one can only marvel at the miracle that is to occur in coming decades.




Ice ages and hothouse Earth are but a myth ... Christopher has proved it


Christopher put up one of his pictures and said that process engineers never design systems that can get out of control and slip into another state, so why would God, who is cleverer that process engineers, do so. Well, he didn't mention God by name, but he did write:
Now, the mere fact that process engineers often try to impose an upper bound on feedback where it might lead to instability does not prove that climate feedbacks in the region shown in Fig. 1 as unstable are impossible. However, it suggests that they are unlikely; and, in the next article, we shall demonstrate that, in the climate, feedbacks do not occur in that region, and that they only appear to do so owing to a substantial error in climate feedback analysis.
Christopher had two Figure 1's. I think he was referring to his second Figure 1 but I can't be sure of that (given there are two of them). We'll say it's the figure below. The region shown as "unstable" in his Figure 1 is what he calls a region of instability and higher.


Given that the climate can never enter a period of instability, that means that what scientists thought were ice ages must have been mere figments of their collective imaginations. And when deniers say that the world was so much hotter umpteen zillion years ago, they were obviously not even wrong. I say that because Christopher Monckton has proved (beyond a shadow of doubt) that our planet cannot enter a period of instability, therefore it cannot shift from one type of climate regime to another.


Praise the Lord (Monckton) and hallelujah!


One person commenting credits Christopher with saving the world from climate change disaster.  lgp wrote how grateful he is to young Christopher for preventing ice ages and hothouse climates:
September 6, 2016 at 10:21 am
We have 4.5 billion years of observational evidence wherein the climate has NEVER driven into the unstable region. Monckton should take credit for that.
Nick Stokes echoed the praise for this miracle that Christopher has wrought and called for the world at large (or the dim corners of it at any rate) to give thanks:
September 6, 2016 at 10:40 am
“Monckton should take credit for that.”
Many thanks from a grateful populace. 
I'll let you tell the world of this miracle granted by the good Lord, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

Image credit: Gabby's Playhouse (with permission).




26 comments :

  1. I seem to recall that a few years ago the usual suspects published a paper that 'proved' the earth's climate was stable. They did this by first assuming the climate was stable.

    But ice ages abound at WUWT. They have told us that the planet is warming because we are coming out of an ice age, and they have told us that we are about to enter an ice age. And now there are no ice ages. Confused? you won't be after the next episode of WUWT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But, but, but WUWT needs the catastrophic ice age cooling talking point, they need CO2 emissions to ward off the next ice age, which will start really really soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some idiot at WUWT:

    We have 4.5 billion years of observational evidence wherein the climate has NEVER driven into the unstable region. Monckton should take credit for that.

    Snowball Earth. Probably several times.

    Dear God but these clowns need to read a textbook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recall Chris wandering in the Oz outback with Ian Plimer discussing dolomite deposition on some TV show. The claim was that CO2 was high AND there was Snowball Earth. Pity the dates did not match up. Details have never bothered Ian since he strayed from his work on Broken Hill.

      Delete
    2. CO2 was high during the Marinoan glaciation. It was CO2 that broke the climate system out of the albedo-locked icehouse. Volcanism continued unabated but the biogeochemical CO2 sinks were 'switched off' by a global shell of ice so the atmospheric fraction of the gas slowly built up over ~10Ma. Termination of SE states is just more evidence that CO2 is an efficacious greenhouse gas.

      Delete
    3. I'm slow, I'm still trying to figure out: if they have "4.5 billion years of observational evidence" who was the observer all that time ago. Even God has only been around for about 6,000 years according to his own publicity.

      Delete
  4. I have been *contributing* to some of Monckton's threads in the current series.
    Whilst doing some prep for the latest, I searched for a comment I made to his not accounting for OHC. I didn't see the direct response by (whoever) but caught Monckton agreeing with him/her and saying ... (something like) "anyway 0.1C/century is trivial". To which I replied that: no, considering the mass of the oceans and the SH of water vs air it amounts to 4C/year if applied to the atmosphere.
    Those 3 posts have now been disappeared.

    Millicent: Was that Monckton Soon et al 2015
    http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/722/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11434-014-0699-2.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2&token2=exp=1473199555~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F722%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11434-014-0699-2.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs11434-014-0699-2*~hmac=6f4efa9308d829687fb964ce2d9f2b7af0ba6665ccf0de3bf5e70e605f94e0b8

    Referred to that re being "peer-reviewed" when some idiot said that he was being peer reviewed on WUWT. FFS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that was the paper. The conclusion was the result of an assumption that was made. And that assumption had no justification other than it gave the result they wanted.

      Delete
    2. And as always, Monckton gets it utterly wrong. From Levitus et al. (2012):

      We have estimated an increase of 24 x 10^22 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36C (65F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth’s climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955.

      Note to fans of Moncker's wrongness, should any be visiting today:

      - ~0.1C since 1955, *not* 1900

      - That's the 0 - 2000m layer, *not* the full ocean

      - ~36C is anything but trivial

      I repeat: Monckton *never* gets it right. Find a better source.

      Delete
    3. I think Monckers and his fans are more by way of Leviticus than Levitus...

      Delete
    4. I think the genius of Monkers is his realisation that his audience is even more delusional and gullible than he his

      Wrap any daft argument around some fancy equations and faulty logic and that's pretty much it

      Unquestioning acceptance

      Delete
  5. It's hard to say if there was any logic in Chris' "mind", but since the Earth has recovered from hothouses and iceballs, he may insist these conditions are within the boundaries of stability. It would be as if the Earth merely suffered a few long-lasting summers and winters.

    The first problem with that logic is clear if one cares about the survival of a particular species, such as, for instance, humans, who would not last through these periods.

    The second problem is that this "analysis" does not account for unforeseen disturbances emanating from a previously unanticipated source. Earth's climate design did not (presumably) incorporate the effects of human intervention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DC, that would be the argument favoured by deniers equivalent to "a ball will bounce up and down without gravity", put forward by S Fred Singer, and promoted by Bob Tisdale (the earth gets hotter because it gets hotter, not from any forcing).

      However Christopher made the point in a comment: "The climate is near-perfectly thermostatic." which suggests he doesn't "believe in" ice ages or hothouse climates.

      Delete
    2. I'd say they all actually believe the Earth is homeostatic, not merely thermostatic. We is so the planet ought. It wants (or is designed) to provide conditions that sustain us. Everybody just knows that's true! Yet they'll be the first to mock any Gaia-type hypothesis.

      Delete
    3. Oh, okay, so it isn't that hothouse Earths and iceball Earths are within the bounds of stability, but it is that either they didn't actually happen, or thy won't happen any more how that we're here, since the Earth was, after all, created to sustain us.

      On the one hand, deniers often complain that us rationalists think humans are too powerful. The Earth is too big for us to hurt, they insist. What little CO2 we produce will get lost among the vast clouds of, well, clouds. But on the other, we are So Important that it was all made for us, special flowers that we are.

      Delete
  6. Reminds me a bit of the No True Scotsman fallacy. i.e. the climate will not enter an unstable phase.

    What about ice ages and hothouse planets?

    Those aren't true unstable climates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Need to be careful here. Cold and hot (and in between) climates are not unstable. They can last for a very long time.

      It's the change from one state to the other that demonstrates something must have caused an instability. The climate went from stable to unstable to a new stable. (Not talking about horses here :D)

      Delete
    2. The denialists always argue that a chaotic system cannot be described by mere parameterisation. They are too stupid to see that the climate models are far more sophisticated than that.

      Tipping points in our weather system is due to as Sou said flipping from one state to another.

      Lorenz Attractors into google may enlighten, where our very nice well behaved ordinary differential equations have chaotic solutions. Bert

      Delete
    3. Precisely how many deniers do you think understand differential equations???

      Delete
    4. Deniers stop studying calculus when they have to understand/use Green's Theorem. How can it be true if it is green. This Theorem is very useful for simplifying calculations for fluid flow.
      I think it is far easier to point out how much deniers just do not know rather than arguing with their gish gallops of nonsense. Also takes less time as the amount of crap they can and do generate is infinite. Bert

      Delete
  7. "Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny"....

    at FauxScienceSlayer.... more on Stuntman Monckton

    and Blog Bully Watts....and the FAKE debate....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph, this isn't your sort of blog. This is a climate science blog. As with your past comments, all future ones will be deleted. May I suggest you try elsewhere.

      Delete
  8. O/T Sou, but I thought you would get a kick out of Pierre Gosselin telling me it doesn't matter who writes his articles.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sou - Since you link to his blog in your sidebar you are presumably aware that Nick Stokes has his tongue firmly in his cheek? He seems to have mastered the skill of not getting blocked by Willard and his merry band of moderators:

    https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/banned-again.html

    Sadly such expertise eludes me. A recent example:

    http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/WUWT-20190909.jpg

    Some ancient history:

    "The Awful Terrible Horrible Arctic Sea Ice Crisis"

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.