Monckton's math error

[Crick]

In Monckton, Legates, Soon and Brigg's "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". MLS&B set a maximum value they allow for closed-loop gain (the feedback factor g) is 0.1. This is a value they get from process engineering methods for the analysis of electronic circuits. It has no applicability to climate modeling and artificially and erroneously restricts warming response.

If you'd care to see a fair collection of other Monckton claims illustrating his propensity for knowingly publishing technical falsehoods regarding climate change visit
RealClimate Monckton makes it up

 

[Billy_Bob]

In Monckton, Legates, Soon and Brigg's "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". MLS&B set a maximum value they allow for closed-loop gain (the feedback factor g) is 0.1. This is a value they get from process engineering methods for the analysis of electronic circuits. It has no applicability to climate modeling and artificially and erroneously restricts warming response.

If you'd care to see a fair collection of other Monckton claims illustrating his propensity for knowingly publishing technical falsehoods regarding climate change visit
RealClimate Monckton makes it up

As usual Crick get ti wrong and the spin masters over at SKS EPICALLY FAILl.

They use statistical numbers which are valid in BOTH the engineering world and the climate science world because it is SCIENCE (in engineering the values must work with empirical evidence, that thing called theroy falsification). This is just another ploy to separate climate science from real science and make it above the scientific method and falsifiability.

The desperation of these people is priceless.

 

[Crick]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

PS: that did not come from Skeptical Science

Try instead: The designers of our climate and Then There s Physics

 

[Crick]

Other commentary on the MSLB paper:

Was China 6-8 K warmer in winter 6000 years ago Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

 

[Billy_Bob]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

You dont get it do you. Feedbacks MUST operate within empirical observations, which means they do not go below 0.01 even in our atmosphere.. Yes you are an EPIC FAIL and Monckton is right.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Other commentary on the MSLB paper:

Was China 6-8 K warmer in winter 6000 years ago Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

Have you even read this paper? OMG... Massive assumptions and no evidence to support them..

 

[Crick]

To which paper do you refer? If you are referring to "Was China 6-8k warmer...", what massive assumptions do you believe unevidenced?

 

[IanC]

In Monckton, Legates, Soon and Brigg's "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". MLS&B set a maximum value they allow for closed-loop gain (the feedback factor g) is 0.1. This is a value they get from process engineering methods for the analysis of electronic circuits. It has no applicability to climate modeling and artificially and erroneously restricts warming response.

If you'd care to see a fair collection of other Monckton claims illustrating his propensity for knowingly publishing technical falsehoods regarding climate change visit
RealClimate Monckton makes it up

I just read the RealClimate piece. The author was pissed off at Monckton's version of IPCC numbers for CO2. Apparently it wasn't a prediction, just a hypothetical projection.

For someone like crick, who states that forced corrections to warmers' papers don't matter, nitpicking over a few percent of CO2 out to 2100 doesn't really seem like a game changer.

 

[flacaltenn]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

PS: that did not come from Skeptical Science

Try instead: The designers of our climate and Then There s Physics

Until you SEE an oscillatory or ringing behavior of the climate due to CO2 forcing --- the assumption is completely reasonable. You just didn't appreciate the sarcasm involved in the solid statement of linear systems behavior.

However -- Monckton is wrong about 0.1 and process engineers -- because that's likely to be (in simple + feedback) an OVERDamped system if it contains storage and delays. And Overdamped systems are too slow to respond to some processes they might be trying to control.

Anyway -- point IS --- The + feedback is HIGHLY unlikely to be closer to 1 than it is to 0.1 because of the empirical evidence..

 

[IanC]

Other commentary on the MSLB paper:

Was China 6-8 K warmer in winter 6000 years ago Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

I just skimmed that article. It seems like someone is willing to throw a proxy reconstruction paper under the bus if it helps to rebut Monckton.

Personally I agree that most proxy papers are crap. But it always seems to come down to who's ox is being gored.

. They accepted without checking a result they thought favourable to their argument.

Interesting quote. I think it applies to many warmers' papers. Has Mann corrected the upsidedown Tiljander proxies yet? Of course not. In fact they are still being used in new papers.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

PS: that did not come from Skeptical Science

Try instead: The designers of our climate and Then There s Physics

Until you SEE an oscillatory or ringing behavior of the climate due to CO2 forcing --- the assumption is completely reasonable. You just didn't appreciate the sarcasm involved in the solid statement of linear systems behavior.

However -- Monckton is wrong about 0.1 and process engineers -- because that's likely to be (in simple + feedback) an OVERDamped system if it contains storage and delays. And Overdamped systems are too slow to respond to some processes they might be trying to control.

Anyway -- point IS --- The + feedback is HIGHLY unlikely to be closer to 1 than it is to 0.1 because of the empirical evidence..

I take your point on an over dampened system, such as earths atmosphere/oceans, being very slow to and unneeded to respond to the changes we have seen so far. Water vapor is key to this and acts as a dampener not an exciter as the IPCC and climate models claim. 0.1 is more likely than 1.0 is as Monckton points out. (My earlier post I put one to many zeros in )

I dont think Monckton is wrong, maybe over simplifying it, but not wrong in the general point. Empirically were at 0.47 and if cooling continues that will drop significantly in the next five years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The data Jiang et al use are a compilation of January, July and mean annual temperatures reconstructed from palaeoclimate archives. Pollen data are interpreted as indicating warmer winter temperatures in the mid-Holocene. Winter temperature is certainly important for some species, for example frost intolerant species, but my work on Chinese pollen makes me suspect that it is difficult to make good winter temperature reconstructions as precipitation is such an important driver of vegetation in China.

The article uses a paper that admits it is worthless because it has no way to create the winter time temps or how to accurately quantify summer time temps due to minute pollen changes..

The assumptions made are pure conjecture with no quantifiable way to reconstruct or test.

Where is your basis in facts Crick? I guess "best guess" is now okay to prove anything and replaces the scientific methodology.

Jiang et al. (2012).

 

[IanC]

So you agree with crick's link that Monckton shouldn't have used that paper as a reference?

I do too, but it seems as if that is the way climate science is done. Pick out the pieces you like and ignore the rest.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you agree with crick's link that Monckton shouldn't have used that paper as a reference?

I do too, but it seems as if that is the way climate science is done. Pick out the pieces you like and ignore the rest.

Citing poor science is wrong on both sides of the fence. Unless that is the point of citing it.

ETA: Where did Monckton cite Jiang Et Al?

 

[IanC]

So you agree with crick's link that Monckton shouldn't have used that paper as a reference?

I do too, but it seems as if that is the way climate science is done. Pick out the pieces you like and ignore the rest.

Citing poor science is wrong on both sides of the fence. Unless that is the point of citing it.

ETA: Where did Monckton cite Jiang Et Al?

I don't know. Surely crick wouldn't have linked to an article using Jiang to rebut Monckton if it wasn't actually cited by Monckton?

Did you look? I haven't got Monckton's paper up anymore.

 

[Crick]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

You dont get it do you. Feedbacks MUST operate within empirical observations, which means they do not go below 0.01 even in our atmosphere.. Yes you are an EPIC FAIL and Monckton is right.

Source please. Feedbacks in the atmosphere operate at much higher values.

 

[Crick]

In Monckton, Legates, Soon and Brigg's "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model". MLS&B set a maximum value they allow for closed-loop gain (the feedback factor g) is 0.1. This is a value they get from process engineering methods for the analysis of electronic circuits. It has no applicability to climate modeling and artificially and erroneously restricts warming response.

If you'd care to see a fair collection of other Monckton claims illustrating his propensity for knowingly publishing technical falsehoods regarding climate change visit
RealClimate Monckton makes it up

I just read the RealClimate piece. The author was pissed off at Monckton's version of IPCC numbers for CO2. Apparently it wasn't a prediction, just a hypothetical projection.

For someone like crick, who states that forced corrections to warmers' papers don't matter, nitpicking over a few percent of CO2 out to 2100 doesn't really seem like a game changer.

Just what is all that supposed to mean? What is your opinion of limiting the feedback factor to 0.1 on electrical engineering design grounds?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Vostok Ice Core shows zero feedback over its several hundred thousand year history

 

[Crick]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

PS: that did not come from Skeptical Science

Try instead: The designers of our climate and Then There s Physics

Until you SEE an oscillatory or ringing behavior of the climate due to CO2 forcing --- the assumption is completely reasonable. You just didn't appreciate the sarcasm involved in the solid statement of linear systems behavior.

However -- Monckton is wrong about 0.1 and process engineers -- because that's likely to be (in simple + feedback) an OVERDamped system if it contains storage and delays. And Overdamped systems are too slow to respond to some processes they might be trying to control.

Anyway -- point IS --- The + feedback is HIGHLY unlikely to be closer to 1 than it is to 0.1 because of the empirical evidence..

Even given what you say, it could be five times higher than they're allowing.

 

[flacaltenn]

The feedback factor is restricted to 0.1 because - as they state - no process engineer would design a circuit not intended to oscillate with a greater feedback. Guess what? The climate was not designed by a process engineer. EPIC FAIL

PS: that did not come from Skeptical Science

Try instead: The designers of our climate and Then There s Physics

Until you SEE an oscillatory or ringing behavior of the climate due to CO2 forcing --- the assumption is completely reasonable. You just didn't appreciate the sarcasm involved in the solid statement of linear systems behavior.

However -- Monckton is wrong about 0.1 and process engineers -- because that's likely to be (in simple + feedback) an OVERDamped system if it contains storage and delays. And Overdamped systems are too slow to respond to some processes they might be trying to control.

Anyway -- point IS --- The + feedback is HIGHLY unlikely to be closer to 1 than it is to 0.1 because of the empirical evidence..

Even given what you say, it could be five times higher than they're allowing.

Could be. But if thats the case, your perfectly matched correlation between CO2 and temperature would be a coincidence. Since higher values of POS feedback would see ringing and transients on 30 years periods or whatever the "natural frequency" of the system tended to be. At least Monckton shows familiarity with systems theory behind how all things work.. Kinda refreshing aint it?