Climate Debate begins: Sceptic v. Sceptic

Four days ago I posted an article publicising one by Christopher Monckton at WattsUpWithThat because the first salvo of comments at WUWT made me despair that the comment thread there would produce any enlightenment. I was wrong. Though Monckton very kindly came to my article at Cliscep to try and clear up my confusion, and ATTP and Geronimo expressed their views in some detail, the discussion never really took off here.

On the other hand, a real dialogue on a fundamental point of climate science has broken out under the Monckton article at WUWT leading to an intense debate between sceptics and, er, sceptics.

I advise everyone to go there and look at the comments by Ristvan, Scottish Sceptic, Nick Stokes, ferdperple, and …and then there’s physics, among others. The thread is the length of a short novel, with 800+ comments, so I’ll try to provide a “best of..” in the following paragraphs.

A useful point to start is with Scottish Sceptic (March 19, 2018 at 12:23 pm) who claims that “it’s not reasonable to use an absolute temperature for a differential feedback.” Nick Stokes agrees and does the maths. Monckton replies at length and is supported by ferdperple. Alan Tomalty objects to Monckton’s formulation that a temperature (which is a measurement, not an entity) can create a feedback, but generally supports Monckton’s argument, providing a fascinating short 4 billion history of the atmosphere.

Some other objections (e.g. Mike Jonas March 19, 2018 at 12:39 pm) point out that Monckton is not justified in using exact numbers. Monckton points out, correctly, that his examples are illustrative, using the assumptions in the literature, and don’t have to be numerically precise to make his point. (The idea that an illustrative example has scientific value even if the figures are woolly seems to be one that engineers and computer people have difficulty in accepting.)

Roy W. Spencer (March 19, 2018 at 1:18 pm) makes what I think is the same point as Scottish Sceptic when he says:“The effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere (~255 K) is not a forcing and so cannot have a feedback.” And Nick Stokes comes back to the fray with: “The objection is that 255K is not an input. In the electrical analogy, it is the DC, or bias voltage. It isn’t a signal.” Roy W. Spencer (March 19, 2018 at 2:02 pm) makes the same kind of objection as Mike Jonazs when he says: “But you still have to use equations. If you can’t quantify it, you don’t really understand it.”

ferdberple (March 19, 2018 at 9:22 pm) takes the debate on to a philosophical plane with his observation that: the problem lies in the use of the word “forcing”. It is a nonsense word invented for climate science to try and hide the fact that mathematics is not their strong suit.”

A second useful discussion breaks out halfway down the thread, following the comment by Monckton of Brenchley (March 19, 2018 at 4:00 pm) in reply to …and then there’s physics, involving Kurt, Nick Stokes, ferdperple, Serge Wright etc.

There’s much less of scientific interest in the second 400-odd comments, though there are interesting additions by Michael Gronemeyer (March 20, 2018 at 4:24 am) Peter Langlee (March 20, 2018 at 6:35 am) and BobG (March 20, 2018 at 12:21 pm). (There’s a lot of interesting comments also on the court case, and the strategy for sceptics to adopt, and here too Monckton provides valuable replies.)

Here’s the first important finding. Practically all the comments from the warmist side have been disruptive ones, from e.g. Chedder, Rob Bradley and Frank. (The ONLY sensible objections from warmists I’ve seen were from ..and then there’s physics, may his name be praised.) Though the trolls are annoying, they have been useful, since Monckton takes time to reply to them fully, ands his reformulations can be enlightening. (Monckton even replies politely to a spambot.)The trolls also provoked this comment from phil salmon (March 21, 2018 at 12:27 pm)

Monckton’s article has forced some warmists (painful though it must be for them) to actually say the word “nonlinear”. That at least is progress of a sort. Would they be able to go still further from their comfort zone and say “chaos”?

A profound disagreement about the meaning of key terms in climate science has broken out, with intelligent opinions trenchantly expressed on both sides, and the representatives of “the science” are nowhere to be seen.

As Monckton never tires of pointing out, the question at stake is a very simple one. Either he and his coauthors, or the whole of climate science, have made a very basic error. Nick Stokes and Roy Spencer think it’s Monckton. Others are not so sure, and some even change their mind in the course of the discussion:

ferdberple (March 19, 2018 at 8:54 pm)

Nic [Stokes] (and Monckton): I’ve gone through the arguments and after a long walk with the dog to think things through I believe Monckton is correct, with a small quibble…

The discussion gets very technical, particularly when the analogy with feedback in electronic circuitry is involved. But at the core is a fundamental debate about the meaning of “forcing” “feedback” ”signal” etc. with Stokes, Spencer etc. accusing Monckton of wanting to redefine terms, and Monckton insisting that his interpretation of the meaning is the only correct one, and that the experiments set up by his engineer colleagues provide empirical support for this claim. This is of course a matter of key importance, since at the very least, even if Monckton is wrong, he’s demonstrated that climate science has been conducted for forty odd years on a very shaky theoretical basis, since no-one has bothered to examine the meaning of key concepts.

If there was anyone in the world seriously interested in the philosophy of science, they’d be following this debate with dropped jaws, (to borrow Monckton’s image) but there isn’t, so they aren’t. (Or, as Aristotle would have it, they aren’t, therefore there isn’t.)

The fact that Monckton replies to almost every objection means that you get the same argument reformulated dozens of times, which can help understanding greatly (or, as a cognitive psychologist would put it: provide positive reinforcement for one’s cognitive biases.) The process recalls Plato’s dialogues, in which Socrates comes back time and time again to the same point, with different analogies or examples. (The fact that people sometimes actually change their minds after listening to the argument provides another similarity to Plato.)

Which brings me to the second important finding, which I’ll leave to Monckton to explain in a reply to Pierre DM (March 21, 2018 at 10:28 pm) who was defending Monckton against the charge that he’d accepted too many of the unwarranted assumptions of climate science:

Pierre DM March 21, 2018 at 10:28 pm

Wow, over 700 responses with only a handful of replies addressing Monckton of Brenchley’s real question. The argument is ingeniously framed to accept all the junk science the warmest have to offer with the disagreement coming down to one assumption that introduces a large irreconcilable error. By accepting all junk science there is little wiggle room for the warmest’s obfuscating the argument…

Monckton of Brenchley March 22, 2018 at 4:36 am

Pierre DM sums up my own feelings exactly […]

The virtue of our discovery (after years of searching) is that at root it is very simple. The only reason why the head posting is as long as it is is to nail shut the rat-holes by which the usual suspects would otherwise gallop away and escape. Because I have adopted the approach of holding my nose and accepting for the sake of argument various elements in the official climate-change case, several of the trolls have begun attacking that case because it seems to be the only way to avoid having to deal with the argument in front of them. To them I have replied that the concept of accepting many – if not most – of the other side’s premises for the sake of argument (albeit without warranty) is a long-established method in disputation.

Finally, perhaps the dopiest of all the arguments against what we have discovered is that it is simple. One of the many problems arising from the abandonment of universal Classical education is that most people no longer know any of the philosophy of thought. Occam’s Razor says “essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” – there’s no need to bolt on complexities unless they are really necessary. The truth is that the error we have discovered right at the heart of climatological physics, which arose because feedback math had been borrowed from control theory but without understanding it, is a simple error. And therein lies not its defect but its merit. A far larger number of the commenters here than I expected have grasped the nature of the error. They have understood it. More than this: they have recognized the not always honest attempts of certain parties here to derail it by frankly unscientific methods as the flannel they are.

Does this mean we are right for certain? Well, science does not often allow its practitioners to declare that they are right beyond all doubt. All that can be said at this stage is that we think we are right and that nothing in this thread has led us to think otherwise. But my mind remains open, and we shall see what the formal peer reviews have to say.

I can’t judge whether Monckton is right or not, but, like Humpty Dumpty, I know a nice knock-down argument when I see one.

73 thoughts on “Climate Debate begins: Sceptic v. Sceptic

  1. It will be interesting to see what Lucia and the blackboard think of this.
    She and her blog community have some of the sharpest most discerning eyes available.
    When Jo Nova’s husband got distracted into a basic math error Lucia’s community unpacked the problem quickly.
    I think I will go visit over there in the next day or so and see if Monckton’s idea holds up.
    Also, Steve Mosher, annoying writing style aside, is also one of the sharpest tacks in the box. I will look for his comments as well.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. HUNTER
    Please report back. There are so many interesting sites, and no-one has time to survey them all. Of course, your project is an appeal to authority, but life is short and Lucia and Steve write so much better than the IPCC, so they’re more authoritative in my book. (I’m only half joking.)

    Note that the trenchant criticisms of Monckton come from the likes of Nick Stokes and Roy Spencer, who are as sharp as anyone at the Blackboard. A point Monckton makes is that his “correction” to the climate science is so basic that anyone knowledgable about the subject – believer or sceptic – is likely to reject it at first sight. That’s why it’s important to work through the discussion. The equations and the references to electronics are a barrier to many of us, but the discussion is essentially philosophy of science, involving the definitions of terms like “forcing” and “feedback.”

    Like

  3. I’m a bit confused by this concept of an emission temperature having a feedback. I tend to agree with what Roy Spencer says:

    The effective radiating temperature of the atmosphere (~255 K) is not a “forcing” and so cannot have a “feedback”. Maybe you mean it “involves” a feedback?

    A system which is in equilibrium (as earth at 255K) may be so as a result of the operation of feedbacks. Almost certainly this is the case. But it seems an odd thing to say that the actual emission temperature itself generates a feedback. When the system is perturbed (e.g. by GHGs) then extra feedbacks come into operation until a new steady state is achieved.

    Like

  4. JAIME JESSOP
    Your objection is exactly the one made by many of the commenters. I cited “temperature is not a signal..” “Only a change of state can be a forcing” “temperature is not a forcing, so can’t have a feedback” “temperature is a measurement, not an entity” etc. I’m not competent to give an opinion on the science, but I found Monckton’s explanations, patiently reiterated, convincing.

    A weak point in his argument might be just the point that makes the biggest rhetorical impression: “How does the system distinguish between a °K of the 255.4 °K of emission temperature which officially generates no feedback at all, and a °K of the next 8°K of warming which causes 24°K of feedback?” (He formulates it differently a dozen times.)

    Given Monckton’s classical background, it might just be one of those paradoxes, like the Cretan liar, and Zeno’s Paradox of the arrow that never reaches its mark, which is still puzzling philosophers over two thousand years later. But that needs to be demonstrated. The fact that critics of the consensus like Stokes and Spencer leap to the defence of the orthodox view, and that the less thoughtful defenders of the consensus can’t even be bothered to discuss the subject, points us to the heart of the problem, I think, confirming the intuition of Ben Pile and others that the source of the rot is not in the established “facts” as enshrined in the “science,” but elsewhere, in the sociology of science, in academia, in the way intellectual enquiry is conducted in the modern world. Whether Monckton is right or not, the fact that defenders of the consensus can’t or won’t answer his critique establishes its value, even if it’s shown to be false. Why is no-one with an academic career asking these questions? Answer: because to do so would be death to an academic career. This is serious.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. STEWGREEN
    As you say, sides don’t matter. Stokes (and Roy Spencer, who is a member of the climate science establishment) are lumped in with us denialists because they don’t conform. A precise account of what’s going on would speak of climate conformity, belief in the 1.5°C danger threshold, the infallibility of the IPCC etc. My point would have been more accurately made if I had said that only those who are able to think for themselves were present at the discussion, and that includes …and then there’s physics, who may yet turn out to be our Paul of Tarsus. Ever thought of taking the road to Damascus, Ken?

    Like

  6. I am not convinced by Moncton et al. yet, but am still open to the argument. There is confusion around the 255K presented as a temperature, rather than the internal energy input by the sun which manifests as temperature. And that solar energy is not a fixed baseline incapable of inciting feedbacks. In reality, the solar input is a daily wave at any location, nothing at night and peaking mid-day, to say nothing of the variations from equator to poles and over the seasons. This may be another case in climate matters where averages mislead observers as to the dynamic functioning of the system. The solar input is always fluctuating at any point of impact, and thus can certainly produce feedback effects.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Geoff, Lord Monckton’s response to Spencer is this:

    “In answer to Roy Spencer, I have addressed his points further up this thread. Briefly, a temperature feedback is not a feedback in response to a forcing but a feedback in response to a temperature. If the conditions precedent to a feedback response subsist in a dynamical system, any temperature in that system will induce a feedback response. Thus, the 255.4 K emission temperature induces a feedback response.”

    Monckton is clearly saying that a feedback exists in response to temperature only, as distinct from those which result from an external forcing, which induces a CHANGE in temperature. I cannot grasp his logic and he appears to be unable to communicate the logic of his argument to a wider audience. I’m not saying it necessarily IS an illogical argument, only that I (and many other traditionalists) are unable to perceive any logic and that Christopher appears to be unable to communicate it clearly to his sceptical audience. I can clearly see the logic of Roy Spencer’s second response:

    “It seems to me you are trying to redefine feedback, Christopher. Feedbacks in the climate system are by definition in response to a *change* in surface temperature from its time-averaged value while in a state of energy equilibrium. If an energy imbalance is imposed upon a system originally in energy equilibrium, the average temperature will change. This is true of the human body, a car engine, the temperature in your house — everything.

    So, adding CO2 to the atmosphere (at least theoretically) reduces the rate of energy loss to outer space, thus upsetting energy equilibrium, leading to warming, which then tries to restore energy equilibrium. I think we agree that in the absence of any other changes in the climate system except temperature, the warming from 2XCO2 would be around 1 deg. C for energy equilibrium to be restored.

    But presumably there will be other changes, and all of the other changes that occur (clouds, etc) are the “feedbacks” that then cause the warming to be either more (or less) than that 1 deg. C base line value.

    Setting aside the argument of whether climate change should even be phrased in terms of the forcing-feedback paradigm, are we in agreement regarding what I just said? I guess I’m trying to get you to phrase your argument as simply as possible starting from where the above is either right or wrong, in your opinion.”

    I cannot see a response from Lord Monckton to this specific comment from Roy Spencer, which is a shame, because Spencer elucidates (for me at least) the main points of contention with Monckton’s argument, whereas Monckton just repeats his assertion that it’s not logical to assume that 255.4K induces no feedback response when ‘the next 8K induces a response of 24K’.

    Like

  8. RON CLUTZ

    I am not convinced by Monckton et al. yet, but am still open to the argument.

    And then the rest of your comment reproduces three of the arguments used to defend Monckton: that:

    There is confusion around the 255K presented as a temperature, rather than the internal energy input by the sun which manifests as temperature.

    That:

    solar energy is not a fixed baseline incapable of inciting feedbacks

    And that:

    In reality, the solar input is a daily wave at any location, nothing at night and peaking mid-day, to say nothing of the variations from equator to poles and over the seasons.

    All three of your points support his idea that there is no a priori reason that a degree K of the baseline temperature should not have the same effect as a degree of the “extra” feedback-induced temperature.

    One of the commenters I cited mentioned your third point. I can’t remember which, and I deliberately didn’t insert links for every single commenter, since I think people should consult the thread to understand the argument. I’ve simplified their task by reducing the 800 comment thread to a manageable list of a hundred or so useful comments, to be read in context. (Not that other comments on the legal and moral aspects weren’t also interesting.)

    Here’s the general point I’d like to make. I spent a few hours in the slightly boring task of extracting the essential from a chaotic blog comment thread. There are thousands of social scientists who claim to be fascinated by the subject of blogs and their influence, but who would never bother to do what I’ve done. Of course, they couldn’t, because their academic careers wouldn’t allow them to even mention the existence of the world’s most popular science blog. Can you imagine a social scientist working in the field of climate science belief control even admitting that there might be dissension among climate scientists? This kind of content analysis is precisely the kind of thing they could never do without risking their careers.

    We are not established academics and can’t even consult most of the peer reviewed papers without the help of academics with access via their Athens thing. [Athens the city that invented the idea of academic freedom, the one city where ordinary citizens could interrogate the boffins, is now the name of a gateway that separates the Brahmins, the Pharisees, from the rest of us. End of rant]

    So it’s up to us to get the information out there. I bet only a few of WUWT’s million readers got to the end of the thread. If I can persuade a dozen more to make the effort, I’ll have done my job.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. JAIME JESSOP (23 Mar 18 at 10:37 pm)

    Monckton is clearly saying that a feedback exists in response to temperature only, as distinct from those which result from an external forcing, which induces a CHANGE in temperature. I cannot grasp his logic and he appears to be unable to communicate the logic of his argument to a wider audience…

    As I point out in my reply to Ron Clutz above, the essential point behind Monckton’s paper is that the concepts of forcing and feedback are ill-defined, or not defined at all, in climate science, which leads to what Monckton sees as a basic error in the calculation of feedback to temperature change.

    It doesn’t come out clearly in his exposé of his paper in his article, because he’s concentrating on the peculiar circumstances of his paper: that it is in peer review, and that the normal procedure prevents him from revealing its contents until accepted for publishing. But the exceptional circumstances of it being accepted as evidence in the California court case allow him to reveal its contents now.

    As I said to Ron, the essential points of his defence are to be found in his replies to critics in the 800 comment thread. I’ve tried to simplify the task of evaluating his argument by indicating two main nodes in the thread. But you still need to read a hundred or so comments, including about 50 by Monckton, to enter into the spirit of the thing. He repeats his argument many times, in slightly different ways, and Nick Stokes (among others) returns many times to the fray. Nick relies heavily on the argument from analogy with electronic circuitry. The discussion is confused because Monckton’s paper (though not his argument on the thread) relies heavily on its claims that his theoretical findings are supported by empirical experiments involving electronic circuitry, and Nick’s counter-arguments involve references to the behaviour of feedbacks in electronic circuitry. ,It’s never clear to an electronic ignoramus like me whether the electronic circuitry argument is being used as an analogy or a knock-down argument.

    One of Monckton’s supporters (I can’t remember which) makes the point that at every point in the earth’s history feedbacks are acting. To the geologist or the historian, the four billion years swaddled in inert gases are quite different from the four billion years of increasing greenhouse gases, which in turn are different from the 0.000000001 billion years of manmade climate change. But to the physicist?

    Actually I think that’s my point. But no matter. Read Monckton’s replies to critics and see if anything makes you question certain certainties.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. We have waited so long for an Engineer Judge. Yay!!!
    It should be remembered that Chris has agreed ‘ad argumentum’ to a lot of dubiosity in order to get the warmista trapped up the gully and to close the gate. Superb, but not something they will admit to soon. Who cares, the trap is sprung, as nature springs a few more eg the ‘Quiet Sun’.
    I would expect Roy S to come round eventually. Not that minor details matter too much for he has helped greatly…..

    Like

  11. Can you imagine a social scientist working in the field of climate science belief control even admitting that there might be dissension among climate scientists?

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3042314.htm

    NAOMI ORESKES: Well, this thing about the peer review process being closed, that’s just false. Because I’ve reviewed the scientific literature on climate change, and there’s all kinds of debate going on.

    Amusingly, this admission comes just a few minutes after Oreskes’ favorite lie: that rumors of an ongoing debate among scientists are simply the Tobacco Strategy at work.

    NAOMI ORESKES: Well, it worked because many people are fair-minded, and if they think that scientific debate is still ongoing on a question, then they think it’s reasonable to keep an open mind, and premature to demand government action or regulation of some sort.

    Apparently the maxim “pick a lie and stick to it” is too complex for Naomi.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Geoff,

    whatchoo mean nobody is interested in the philosophy of science? I’m obsessed with it. But just reading your selfless efforts to digest that thread for us is enough to make me die a little on the inside, where I store my soul.

    The only way I know to honor the above post is to avoid reading the WUWT thread myself—at all costs—so that your sacrifice won’t have been in vain.

    As you point out—even more damningly than you realize, I think—they’ve spent decades elaborating the Potemkin facade of a ‘science’ atop terms nobody bothered defining first. Why go anywhere near such a semantic cl*st*rfuck if I can help it?

    I’m happy that you found some illumination there, Geoff, but I can only assume it’s thanks to a freakishly hi-resolution scotoreceptor array in your retina. The Cat-People walk among us!

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Hi, Geoff.
    Not been here before, but applaud your honourable efforts to make some sense of that fascinating thread over at WUWT. For someone of limited command of these things such as myself, it is very worrying to find that such an apparently fundamental matter is largely ignored by those who ought to be able to explain it definitively. Same with my pet views on climate change (not unrelated to Monckton’s post). It leaves you wondering whether the powers that be (a) haven’t got an answer and keep schtum, or (b) the answer is so blindingly obvious that it needn’t be stated. Which is it? I judge that even the best brains on both sides are having trouble with the definitions.

    I have tried to put my understanding of the thing in layman’s language over at Roy Spencer’s blog, and felt it would bring out some useful comment. But only the indefatigable and very smart Nick Stokes gave a thoughtful response. So far I haven’t been able to draw out Dr. Roy or even Lord M himself on the matter. Maybe somebody here would like to take a look, and put me right as to my interpretation?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-293912
    comment at 3.42pm

    Like

  14. Geoff. May I on behalf of a great many others I’m sure thank you for your efforts to summarize and make some sense of this mega WUWT thread. I have made several efforts to follow it but still have far to go. My attention span is not what it was and I lack the necessary background to understand much of it. Nevertheless from comments made by you and others here I seem to be slip-sliding into his Lordship’s camp. I have an argument, which I have yet to see elsewhere, but will reserve making a fool of myself until I have read everone’s arguments. But I thank you for making the task so much easier (not making a fool of myself).

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Re Hunters first comment (sorry for the distraction, OT, etc.)

    We replied to Lucia on partial derivatives, so if you are under the impression that David got that wrong in any way, see: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-day-with-partial-derivatives/
    and then, http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-week-on-partial-derivatives/.

    As David says: “No retraction or apology from Lucia though. No one reading Lucia’s two posts would know that I was correct about differentials all along and Lucia was wrong; they’d get quite the opposite impression.”

    Liked by 2 people


  16. X-axis: surface temperature,
    Y-axis temperture offset for 3.7 W/m2

    Following the discussion with Lord Monckton on WattsUpWithThat. I calculated the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature needed to adjust for a forcing of 3.7 W/m2.

    It turns out that the hotter the surface, the less temperature increase is needed to offset the forcing.
    https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/localised-instant-climate-sensitivity-for-2xco2/

    [Typos corrected Hans. I thought you’d written ‘Lord Monckton of Wattupwiththat’ – an honorific which sounded better than the disputed Viscounty! –rd]

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Very nice post, Geoff. Two comments to further the discussion.
    1. Jamie (and others), the Bode formulation of ECS as 1/(sum of feedbacks) is well established in climate science as well as in electronic circuit amplifier design. For example, Prof. Lindzen of MIT (whom I met when he kindly critiqued the climate chapter of my ebook The Arts of Truth, which in truth is somewhat Brad Keyesian) uses it. I illustrated Lindzen’s uses in the chapter. Even though it most definitely is not in climate models, where ECS is an emergent property, it none the less must be valid when applied to the climate as a whole. To simplify, the underlying Bode math says that if the effective radiative temperature is 255K (remember, LW radiation originates at or close to [cloudtops] the surface, not the ERL0, then the underlying surface temperature must be warmer if there are GHG present.
    BTW, this new paper is quite a bit of a turnaround for Monckton, with whom I have had extensive online arguments, specifically about his irreducibly simple equation, which is neither irreducible nor simple–see my guest post on that at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc–and about Monckton’s previous criticism of Bode feedbacks, which were just wrong because empirically the no feedback ECS to CO2 can be calculated to be anything from 1.1 to 1.2 (AR4 1.1, Lindzen 1.2, my own best calculation 1.16) and the Bode net feedback on top of that must be somewhat positive but Bode f <~0.75. So Monckton's previous attempt to use Bode to derive ECS ~1.1 was erroneous. I showed how and why.
    2. For those interested in the details as I am, Roy Spencer graciously posted (yesterday) Monckton's long and considered response to Roy's criticism comment at WUWT.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. We can further note a point of comparison between the Moncton brief and the Happer/Koonin/Lindzen brief regarding temperature sensitivity to human CO2. The two briefs employ completely different approaches, but produce similar statements on this issue.

    Moncton (on the anthropogenic feedback factor): “We derived the pre-industrial feedback fraction theoretically and found it to be of order 0.08. We separately derived the industrial-era feedback fraction empirically and found it to be of order 0.05. What these results, obtained by distinct methods, appear to indicate is that the feedback fraction is so small that any nonlinearities are de minimis.”

    Happer et al (overview summary): “Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows.”

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Happer doesn’t think that the observed rise of CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning. That is what his 1% statement really is about.

    Like

  20. Hans, there is more to it than that, according to the Happer et al. brief. In responding to the judge’s question 8, they say this:

    Adding greenhouse gases can warm the Earth’s surface by increasing the escape altitude. To maintain the same cooling rate to space, the temperature of the entire troposphere, and the surface, would have to increase to make the effective temperature at the new escape altitude the same as at the original escape altitude. For greenhouse warming to occur, a temperature profile that cools with increasing altitude is required.

    “Over most of the CO2 absorption band (between about 580 cm-1 and 750 cm-1 ) the escape altitude is the nearly isothermal lower stratosphere shown in the first figure. The narrow spike of radiation at about 667 cm-1 in the center of the CO2 band escapes from an altitude of around 40 km (upper stratosphere), where it is considerably warmer than the lower stratosphere due heating by solar ultraviolet light which is absorbed by ozone, O3.

    Only at the edges of the CO2 band (near 580 cm-1 and 750 cm-1 ) is the escape altitude in the troposphere where it could have some effect on the surface temperature. Water vapor, H2O, has emission altitudes in the troposphere over most of its absorption bands. This is mainly because water vapor, unlike CO2, is not well mixed but mostly confined to the troposphere.”

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/cal-climate-tutorial-the-meat/

    Liked by 2 people

  21. An insight into the Happer et al. brief can be found in a speech last year from Richard Lindzen: Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change. He concluded with this:

    “I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. ”

    “The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? ”

    “Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

    The whole speech is edifying and can be accessed here: http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

    Liked by 4 people

  22. From Geof Chambers @24Mar18@12:03am:

    It doesn’t come out clearly in his exposé of his paper in his article, because he’s concentrating on the peculiar circumstances of his paper: that it is in peer review, and that the normal procedure prevents him from revealing its contents until accepted for publishing. But the exceptional circumstances of it being accepted as evidence in the California court case allow him to reveal its contents now.

    The concept of authors being forbidden to reveal the contents of papers that are under peer review, seems bizarre. Does that have anything to do with the validity of the scientific literature? It caused a hassle for McIntyre while he was trying to have a hockey Stick response published in Nature. Some decades ago, US patent applications were kept secret, but that didn’t forbid the inventors from disclosing them.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Rud,

    Bradley, Bradley and Keyes demand to know where they can obtain a copy of your admittedly “Brad Keyesian” ebook (ipsissima verba sua) for litigious purposes our own amusement.

    Anticipating your promptest answer, Mr Istvan.
    Raymond S. Bradley (Partner)

    Liked by 5 people

  24. Bradley, Bradley, and Keyes, your demand has cowed me into submission. Even off my iPad this Sat evening here up over, where I usually comment–and for the second time today onto my Mac computer because of your darned website iPad issues. Ah, the personal sacrifices to avoid BBK lawsuits…

    Go to Amazon Kindle, author Rud Istvan, ebook The Arts of Truth. You will upon a $7.99 subpoena charge (Amazon lowered the price from my $9.99 to cheat me out of a $1 buck royalty…) find your ipsissima verb sue.
    I even used the preface to completely trash the motto of my 3x alma mater. With illustrations. BTW, my later ebook, Blowing Smoke, foreword Judith Curry, is probably more relevant to your BBK legal pursuits. Just reflects two more years of reflection (yup, you can run mirror sarcs with that one).

    A bit more seriously for those here, I wrote a long penultimate AoT Climate chapter illustrating all the previously discussed ‘arts of untruth’. Prof Lindzen himself reviewed it at my request in his office three weeks before he went MIT emeritus. Longest 6 hours of my life. Truth is, he actually read and critiqued the entire ebook. Ouch. An example of what he accomplished is the long Svalbard footnote to the continental drift example of the recognition chapter. Ask Prof. Lindzen for comments, you better know everything, cause he will challenge everything.

    BB&K, best regards from up over to down under. And, to BeththeSerf down under. And JoNova down under. And many other Upside down Down Unders. My goodness, maybe I am actually upside down up over… And as we sometimes Wisconsin ‘unedejicated’ Harvard grad part time farmers say, a Hoot.

    Liked by 5 people

  25. ristvan says: 25 Mar 18 at 12:56 am
    ” Ask Prof. Lindzen for comments, you better know everything, cause he will challenge everything.”
    Does Prof. Lindzen agree with the claim that all matter must spontaneously emit EMR flux proportional to K^4 ? I claim such spontaneous flux is strictly limited by any opposing radiance at every frequency and in every direction! Thank you. 🙂

    Like

  26. mothcatcher says: 24 Mar 18 at 10:03 am

    I have tried to put my understanding of the thing in layman’s language over at Roy Spencer’s blog, and felt it would bring out some useful comment. But only the indefatigable and very smart Nick Stokes gave a thoughtful response. So far I haven’t been able to draw out Dr. Roy or even Lord M himself on the matter. Maybe somebody here would like to take a look, and put me right as to my interpretation?

    I Have read your post(s), and commend your reasoning. You seem to accept “because the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is so short, it cannot potentiate its own warming”. Again that word “WARMING” with no one ever saying what such might possibly mean! Earth’s airborne atmosphere continuously retains 3cm of precipitable water, sufficient for 9 days of average precipitation back to the surface! Much of this H2O in in the form of a colloid state (cloud, snow), at least on the dark side of the Earth! How much cycles from daytime WV to nighttime colloid has not even been estimated but involves 2500J/gm H2O; clearly the very greatest accumulation and storage of inSolation flux that this planet has anywhere. Monckton’s analysis is correct, but only if the atmosphere actually as some sort of feedback mechanism which also has never been described. Spencer’s analysis is correct because the 255K value is but the very minimum EMR emission temperature required to exit inSolation back to low radiance space!
    No one at all has ever tried to discover just how planet Earth actually does whatever it automagically does!! 🙂
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  27. Hans Erren says: 24 Mar 18 at 1:31 pm
    “Following the discussion with Lord Monckton on WattsUpWithThat. I calculated the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature needed to adjust for a forcing of 3.7 W/m2.”
    Can you please explain what you may mean by “forcing”? Is that some atmospheric CO2 EMR flux claimed to be emitted @14microns in the direction of the higher 14 micron “radiance” of Earth’s surface? Why such a claim? Has such ever been observed or measured? 🙂

    Like

  28. This Earth’s very compressible atmosphere, mostly N2 and O2 consist of linear molecules with an “isentropic exponent” of 7/5 1.4! This accounts for the non-condensing temperature lapse of -10°C at pressure greater than 15kPa as demanded by the gas Laws under Earth’s compressive (for gas) gravitational forces!
    Atmospheric H2O in all phases can lower that gravity lapse to -5°C because of continual transfer of inSolation flux in and back out to space as latent heat of evaporation with NO needed temperature change!
    The entire 33°C Climate Clown anomaly called “Greenhouse Gas Effect” is but gravitational lapse! With the variable amount of airborne water; there is no need for Earth to emit EMR flux from any of Earth’s incompressible surface! You have been so had! Bend over again please! 🙂

    Like

  29. From: Clusterfuck, Snafu and Phuckit
    To: Raymond S. Bradley (Partner)
    Bradley, Bradley and Sites

    Our clients, who for the moment wish to remain incognito (but are nobel laureates with stupendous influence and a history of litigation) demand you cease and desist from aiding and abetting the peddling of misleading e-“science” nonsense to the masses via Amazon. We note that the author (a self acknowledged Wisconsin ‘unedejicated’ part time farmer) has been described as producing several “Brad Keyesian twaddle” ebooks. We trust that we need not pursue this aspect further.

    Anticipating your answer soonest, Mr Bradley.

    Golf on Tuesday? You’re buying.

    Liked by 5 people

  30. ” Our clients, who for the moment wish to remain incognito (but are nobel laureates with stupendous influence and a history of litigation) demand you cease and desist from aiding and abetting the peddling of misleading e-“science” nonsense to the masses via Amazon.”
    Dats good’; but only if you wish to protect the reputation of your preferred “laureates” . OTOH have you any evidence of any ‘science’ promoted by your acceptance of academic ‘meteorology’ as science rather than only ‘fraud’! 🙂

    Like

  31. WILL JANOSCHKA says: 25 Mar 18 at 5:14 am
    “Can you please explain what you mean by forcing?”

    Take a look at the outgoing infrared spectrum. A funnel of 3.7 w/m2 is blocked from outgoing to the universe. As the radiation is still coming in from the su, there is an energy balance deficit at the top of the atmosphere of 3.7 W/m2. A temperature rise at the surface is needed to restore the energy balance. That is the theory.

    With the graph above, you’ll see that with a local temperature increase at the surface of only 0.7 °C at an ambient temperature of 20 °C, you can restore the energy balance locally. Hence the local varying climate sensitivity.

    Like

  32. Hans Erren says: 25 Mar 18 at 9:28 am

    “WILL JANOSCHKA says: 25 Mar 18 at 5:14 am
    “Can you please explain what you mean by forcing?””
    Thank you for such kind response! Please let me interpret your chart for some understanding! The huge dip at 14 microns only means that spontaneous EMR emission to space originate at Earth’s tropopause. @220K Never at some lower opaque altitude. This ”radiance” temperature in that CO2 band has never changed since atmospheric CO2 reached 175 ppmv the very minimum for plant life on this Earth! Your chart offers much speculation of atmospheric EMR ‘radiance’ with my measured 82% cloud cover between 8-14 microns!
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  33. I just found out, thanks to Francis Menton, that a third skeptical brief was submitted to Judge Alsup in reference to his tutorial. The thrust apparently is to show that the temperature record does not support the claim that recent variability is anything out of the ordinary.

    The article by Francis Menton is Klimate Kraziness: A California Judge Holds A “Tutorial” On Climate Science posted at Manhatton Contrarian.
    http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-3-24-klimate-kraziness-a-california-judge-holds-a-tutorial-on-climate-science

    The conclusion of the work is that each of EPA’s “lines of evidence” has been invalidated by the best empirical evidence, and therefore the attribution of any observed climate change, including global warming, to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations has not been established.

    And, further on in our presentation:

    [T]hese natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. This research, like Wallace (2016), found that rising atmospheric concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the (14) temperature data sets that were analyzed. Wallace 2017 concludes that, “at this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, temperatures.”

    As they say, read the whole thing (here) http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180321_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-motion.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Interesting: At WUWT comments are now closed @968 posts! Monckton’s last reply #470: “The issue is simple: does emission temperature induce a feedback response? Feedback theory says it does. Our test rigs say it does. Mainstream science says it does. Mainstream climate science is at odds with reality. ”
    This mainstream “climate” non-science is always at odds with the physical science of measurement. HOWEVER: Monckton himself makes the fatal error of accepting the CC claim of radiative feedback!
    There is never any spontaneous EMR flux generated (emitted) in a direction of higher ‘radiance’; none has ever been detected nor measured!

    Like

  35. If the argument is simply about the meaning of words then this is not physics. Physics is about predicting the outcome of experiments, which in this case is the experiment of adding some CO2 to the atmosphere. Proper climate models do this predicting, with many simplifying approximations, the meaning of mere words does not come into it.

    Is this just an argument about possibly erroneous EXPLANATIONS/ANALYSES of what proper climate models do? If so then its interesting and useful, but it won’t change the price of fish in the slightest.

    Like

  36. The hype in Holland hase gotten this far that in two years time they want to outlaw new gas central heating units. Only electrical heat pumps will be instalked in new houses at ten times the cost of a gas HR boiler.

    Like

  37. Hans Erren says: 28 Mar 18:20:56

    Will you can measure radiative feedback with FITR.

    I think you meant Fourier transform infrared radiometer (FTIR). What is the make and model of your proposed FTIR that can detect any spontaneous IR flux in a direction of a higher sensor ‘radiance’ (temperature) at any wavelength?Even for wideband (bb)flux the proper equation by maximum possible one way emission is the Ludwig Boltzmann differential form (w/respect to temperature) of: Flux (W/m²)
    = 4σεT³ΔT! Such function must go to zero at ΔT = zero then reverse in direction! There is no spontaneous bidirectional EMR flux at any wavelength. NO RADIATIVE feedback! It is Static Gravitational compression that must yield higher atmospheric temperature at higher atmospheric pressure; nothing to do with CO2! 🙂
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  38. Can anyone find out if “any” arguments have been accepted by THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; especially the Happer-Koonin-Lindzen.pdf; which trashes all plaintiff argument! All is behind PayWall, with the greedy wanting US$65 to revel for what is in the public record! 😦

    Like

  39. Geoff Chambers says:23 Mar,18:23:08 pm

    There is confusion around the 255K presented as a temperature, rather than the internal energy input by the sun which manifests as temperature.

    There is even more deliberate SCAM about some vile concept of “internal energy”; somewhat related to temperature as (so called sensible heat)! Can you even define such nonsense? Is the static gravitational compression of Earth’s atmosphere as delta temperature considered as internal energy? Internal to what?
    InSolation Power flux manifests near Earth mostly as continual transfer as latent heat of evaporation of ‘airborne’ colloidal water to the phase of WV then back to ‘airborne’ colloidal water on the night-side via spontaneous atmospheric EMR emittance of left over “entropy” to low radiance space. No need for accumulation of steenkin ‘entropy’ here! 🙂
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  40. Climate scientists are commonly criticized for considering anthropogenic CO2 to be different in its effects from “natural” CO2. Is the current dispute similar? Are molecular vibrations responsible for the first 255°K really so very different from the molecular vibrations for the next next 8°K of warming, which somehow cause more vibrations amounting to 24°K of feedback?
    The problem will be that I doubt I will understand the answer if it is argued they are different.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Alan,

    Climate scientists are commonly criticized for considering anthropogenic CO2 to be different in its effects from “natural” CO2.

    Since they don’t consider anthropogenic CO2 to have different effects from “natural” CO2, anyone criticising them for doing so would be criticising them for something they’re not actually doing.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. I could be facetious Ken and point out that the enormous fluxes of CO2 that occur in the natural carbon cycle are considered by climate scientists to cause little harm, whereas the relatively minor additions by humans are believed to have caused major climate changes and are projected to cause future catastrophe. It certainly appears to an outsider as if there are two types of CO2 with very different properties. Moreover, the majority of the environmental movement believes this to be true, calling anthropogenic CO2 a pollutant, whereas, natural CO2 is rightly believed to be life-giving.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Alan,
    It’s the net flux that really matters. In the absence of anthropogenic emissions we would expect the natural carbon cycle to be in balance (i.e., the fluxes out of the natural carbon sinks would be balanced by fluxes into the natural carbon sinks). The reason that CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, causing atmospheric CO2 to rise, is because of our emissions. The warming induced by this increased atmospheric CO2 is entirely consistent with what we would expect, based on past changes caused by natural changes in atmospheric CO2.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Ken. “The warming induced by this increased atmospheric CO2 is entirely consistent with what we would expect, based on past changes caused by natural changes in atmospheric CO2.”

    How do you know that past changes were caused by natural changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the reverse? The evidence in actual fact indicates temperature changes precede changes in atmospheric CO2 (or do you still accept Gore’s outright lies?)

    Like

  45. Alan,
    This is going into the weeds a bit, but if we consider the Milankovitch cycles, then the trigger for these variations is thought to be orbital variations leading to large changes in solar insolation at high northern latitudes. The overall change in solar insolation is small, so it can’t be the main cause of the global surface temperature changes, but the large change at high northern latitudes leads to changes in the ice sheets which changes the albedo and leads to warming/cooling (depending on whether we’re moving into, or out of, a glacial period). This temperature change then leads to changes in atmospheric CO2, mainly due to ocean uptake/outgassing. Since CO2 is a radiatively active gas, this leads to further global temperature changes, which further changes the ice sheets and the atmospheric CO2 levels. Therefore the past changes in atmospheric CO2 are indeed associated with temperature changes, but it is still the changes in albedo (ice sheets) and changes in atmospheric CO2 that are ultimately responsible for the changes in global surface temperature.

    Like

  46. Ken this is going over old, old ground. The hoary old explanation you tout does not explain why, when atmospheric CO2 is at its maximum, temperatures can plummet into a glacial episode for many thousands of years. Only much later do CO2 levels fall.
    It is also an assumption on your part that CO2 induces temperature changes rather than causing other climatic changes that might restore equilibrium, especially involving cloud changes.
    Those advocating a major role for increasing CO2 in causing temperature increases also have to explain why significant increases in atmospheric CO2 have not caused SIGNIFICANT temperature increases this century.

    I am much more interezted in an answer to my original question concerning differences between temperatures up to 255oK and those above it.

    Liked by 3 people

  47. Alan,

    I am much more interezted in an answer to my original question concerning differences between temperatures up to 255oK and those above it.

    We’re getting back to the Monckton argument, I think. 255K is the effective radiative temperature of the planet given current solar insolation and albedo. If there is no atmosphere (or no greenhouse effect) then this would be the effective temperature of the surface. With a radiatively active atmosphere, some of the energy radiated to space comes from within the atmosphere, and the surface is warmer than it would otherwise be (due to greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapour). However, the effective radiative temperature of the planet is still 255K.

    Those advocating a major role for increasing CO2 in causing temperature increases also have to explain why significant increases in atmospheric CO2 have not caused SIGNIFICANT temperature increases this century.

    The observed increase in surface temperature is entirely consistent with what would be expected, given the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. ATTP: “The observed increase in surface temperature is entirely consistent with what would be expected, given the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.”

    Well no, climate models are tuned to fit the temperature, with aerosols being the fiddle factor to cool the hotter models.

    With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. Attributed to von Neumann by Enrico Fermi, as quoted by Freeman Dyson in “A meeting with Enrico Fermi”

    Liked by 3 people

  49. Hans. ken must have had all his fingers and toes crossed and his tongue firmly in his cheek when he wrote that. I had to steady myself on my chair to prevent myself falling off from laughing.

    ken it’s not worth our continuing when you spout this tripe.

    Liked by 3 people

  50. “Well no, climate models are tuned to fit the temperature, with aerosols being the fiddle factor to cool the hotter models.”

    Exactly.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. hunter says: 23 Mar18:16:24

    It will be interesting to see what Lucia and the blackboard think of this.She and her blog community have some of the sharpest most discerning eyes available.

    I agree!
    hunter says: 30 Mar 18:2:28

    Will, please explain more this physics of spontaneous and selective emissions.
    TIA

    I know little of ‘physics'(or what nonsense it has become!)
    emissions: Exiting therefrom.
    spontaneous: In a manner seeking stable equilibrium.
    selective: Resonant; tuned in frequency or wavelength.
    I take it you refer to the EMR exitance of power flux, (not claimed energy.) Firstly EMR flux is never dependent upon mass (the only things that have properties, of ‘nouns’, heat and temperature! So to mix EMR with thermodynamics cannot be ‘science’ but only “SCAM”! In light of the Ken Rice continued scam; I am eager to assist with any learning by others of vast differences in method of power transfer. 🙂
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  52. Einstein’s 4-space requires octonion matrix algebra to even begin understanding the concepts of the required space rotations! Wise (Wissenschaft), Jimmy Maxwell struggled for years to ‘understand’ Hamilton’s quaternions and the ‘necessary’ 4 conjugates!
    All the best!–will-

    Like

  53. OriginalSteve 03,31,18 at 7:22 am · Reply

    Dave, likewise am an engineer,

    Not evar; as you still retain belief in some un-falsifiable fantasy! An engineer cannot afford to do that as personal liability for bridge failing is to high! This liability must be spread about by only Government to the innocent, of such failure!

    Hey, everyone is free to believe what they want, dont forget its in Satans interest to make people doubt so they are deprived of a relationship with God, coz Satan is a sore loser, and it all started by Satan lying his ass off to Eve but through a subtle lie, not an overt one….

    Perhaps! Did GOD or Satan create ‘LUST’? Lookat Eve, I wan soma dat; ferget das apfel!
    Jesus born of human Maria; witnessed such profound evil! Then died as human; as atonement, if that be God!
    GODS mistreak is forgiving Earthlings instead of destroying each and every! OHWoha are we!

    Like

  54. Most Earthlings remain limited in concept, let alone skill to 3 orthogonal dimensions plus linear (accumulating) time! What be the conjugate of time but -1/t or frequency. What now are your orthogonal ‘distances’? Many, many cyclic steps in that-away to get to over yonder!Such must accumulate to your stupid ‘distance, over yonder! These ‘must’ transpose to 3 orthogonal angles with some -1/f the only carrier\provider of your imaginary concept of “distance”! the sum of steps (cycles).
    Is your precious but imaginary ‘Universe’ expanding or ‘contracting’?
    Please provide something repeatably ‘measurable’ of any of your fantasy!
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  55. ( precious ) No never ever spel idiot!
    (per·ni·cious pərˈniSHəs/ adjectiveadjective: pernicious
    having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way.
    “the pernicious influences of the mass media”
    synonyms: harmful, damaging, destructive, injurious

    Liked by 1 person

  56. “Is your precious but imaginary ‘Universe’ expanding or ‘contracting’?”

    Will, I wish yours was contracting here. You appear to have developed some troll-like characteristics and a certain weirdness.

    Brad is enough.

    Like

  57. ( precious ) No never ever spel idiot!
    (per·ni·cious pərˈniSHəs/ adjectiveadjective: pernicious
    having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way.
    “the pernicious influences of the mass media”
    synonyms: harmful, damaging, destructive, injuriousy.
    Alan Kendall says:
    31 Mar 18 at 11:47 am

    “Is your precious but imaginary ‘Universe’ expanding or ‘contracting’?”
    Will, I wish yours was contracting here. You appear to have developed some troll-like characteristics and a certain weirdness.
    Brad is enough.)!
    I must defer to your profound academic scholarship! However alles ist completely kaput! WHAT NOW? You seem to dote on your skill of ‘teaching’, rather than the profound skill of doing\working, die gemineschaft, that us serfs must have (to work and provide for those that remain mine; not some ugly other!; My precious) Capiche?!
    All the best!-will-

    Like

  58. Will. I am proud of my main work on deposition within ancient giant evaporite basins, and upon the formation of crystal fabrics in speleothems. However, they being rather specialized subjects, I didn’t think anyone (normal) would be interested.

    Like

  59. Allan, what do you know about anhydrite dissolution karst? This is allegedly the prime origin of all lower cretaceous sink holes in the hainaut coal basin. The Bernissart dinosaur sink hole being the best known example.

    Like

  60. Hans. I knew about the complete Iguanadon skeletons being found in a “sinkhole” but before today I was unaware that this feature formed by dissolution of deep (?) anhydrite. I presume this is Upper Jurassic and would be equivalent to gypsum and anhydrite mined in the central Weald of England. I have examined those in the past. What might have been interesting would be to establish how much of the anhydrite had been altered to gypsum at the time the karst and its sinkholes formed. As far as I know there is no equivalent sedimentary break at an equivalent stratigraphic position in the Lower Cretaceous. Wish I had known this information ten years ago.

    Like

  61. As far as I know there is no equivalent sedimentary break at an equivalent stratigraphic position in the Lower Cretaceous in England.

    Like

  62. Allan, Sorry to venture off topic here. No the anhydrite is Carboniferous Visean, formed in the near shore of the London-Brabant high. Check Ziegler for the paloegeography. During the Wealden the Visean rock became heavily karstified and is now target for geothemal wells. I am working on a popular paper in dutch which tells about the origin of the dinosaur sinkhole. See Dupuis & Vandycke, ann soc geol bel vol 112 1989 p 479-487 for details on anhydrite karst in the Mons Basin.

    Like

  63. Hans. I had realise that I had read about the breccias and spoken to one who had described them (I may have a fireplace marble front that may have come from the region). But I never linked them in my mind with Iguanadon traps.
    If you want any help or to discuss this further just contact me by e-mail at UEA. One of the diagrams for the formation of subsurface breccias for example can be improved.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.