Frågor att Besvaras av Kungliga VetenskapsAkademien KVA

Till Expertgruppen för dokumentet Vetenskapen Säger - om Klimatet på KVAs hemsida

Jag läser i detta dokument följande påståenden:

• Det är obestridligt att människans påverkan, främst genom utsläpp av växthusgaser, har orsakat en global uppvärmning och andra förändringar i klimatsystemet. 
• Mänsklig påverkan gör också att vissa extrema klimathändelser – inklusive värmeböljor, kraftig nederbörd och torka – blir mer frekventa och intensiva. 

Jag ställer nu följande frågor till Expertgruppen/KVA:

1. Vilken är den vetenskapliga precisa referensen till påståendet att Det är obestridligt att människans påverkan, främst genom utsläpp av växthusgaser, orsakat en global uppvärmning och andra förändringar av klimatsystemet. Jag vill ha ursprungliga referenser i den vetenskapliga litteraturen med precis markering exakt var i referensen vetenskaplig evidens till påståendet står att finna. Jag vill inte ha en allmän referens till IPCC (som inte utför egen forskning utan endast påstår sig sammanställa sådan), utan direkt referens till den vetenskapliga litteraturen med precis markering. 
2. Vad menas här med “obestridligt”?
3. Hur stor global uppvärmning har utsläpp av växthusgaser obestridligt orsakat? Precis referens?
4. Vilka andra förändringar i klimatsystemet har dessa utsläpp obestridligt orsakat, och hur stora? Precis referens?
5. Vilka extrema klimathändelser har (obestridligt) blivit mer frekventa och intensiva? Precis referens? 

Jag önskar svar omgående. Referenserna måste rimligen redan ligga på bordet. Sveriges inslagna väg mot ett Fossilfritt Sverige uppges av politiker vara motiverad av ovanstående påståenden, en marsch som kommer att kräva en total omstrukturering av samhället. I detta läge är det av yttersta vikt att vägvalet är motiverat av rationella skäl byggda på solid vetenskap, och dessa skäl måste kunna redovisas i detalj av vetenskapssamhället. Jag tror vi kan vara överens om detta.

Vänliga Hälsningar
Claes Johnson
prof em tillämpad matematik KTH

Svaren kommer att publiceras nedan. Jag uppmanar alla som har bevis för 1 att skicka in precis referens.

PS Expertgruppen består av:

DELIANG CHEN*, professor, Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg
SVANTE BJÖRCK*, professor, Lunds universitet, Lund
ERIK KJELLSTRÖM, professor, SMHI, Norrköping
THORSTEN MAURITSEN, lektor, Stockholms universitet, Stockholm
ILONA RIIPINEN*, professor, Stockholms universitet, Stockholm
HENNING RODHE*, professor emeritus, Stockholms universitet, Stockholm 

ANNA RUTGERSSON*, professor, Uppsala universitet, Uppsala

där * anger att personen är ledamot av KVA. Dessutom påpekar KVA (kryptiskt): 

• Skriften speglar expertgruppens uppfattning och ska inte ses som ett uttalande eller ställningstagande av Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien.

Jämför med KVA Talar till Barnen.

Corruption of Modern Physics 17: Royal Academy of Science KVA

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences expresses its support of Swedens march into a Fossil Free Society based on the idea of alarming global warming by human emissions of CO2 , in particular in a  document directed to the Swedish People only available in Swedish with translated title What Science Says about Global Climate with the following main message (translated by me):

• It is undeniable that human impact by emission of greenhouse gases has caused a global warming and other changes of the climate system. 
• Human impact also make certain extreme climate events - including heat waves, severe rain and drought - more frequent and intensive.
• To limit global warming to 1.5 C requires very fast emission reductions with net zero 2050 and capturing of CO2 from the atmosphere.

But this not at all what Science Says! It is only what certain powerful politicians and forces behind Global Reset say! By siding up with these forces without reservation the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is betraying science and the Swedish People with in particular physicists playing along saying nothing. It is not very nice as a Swedish scientist to realise this sad state of affairs.

It started with Svante Arrhenius Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1903 and Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics from 1905, followed by United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972 in Stockholm and then Bert Bolin and IPCC, now culminating in the above expressed unreserved support of CO2Hysteria.

I have asked The Academy for a comment and will report.

Why You Cannot Heat Yourself by a Mirror

When now winter approaches and energy costs are sky-rocketing, you may find yourself desperately seeking means to survive from freezing to death and all possibilites must be tested. Right?

Here is one possibility which typically can be put forward by anyone who believes that all bodies including your own emit a stream of photons with total heat energy scaling with $T^4$ with $T$ absolute temperature according to the Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSB independent of the temperature of the surrounding. Although this is a misconception of PSB, which in true form also includes the temperature of the surrounding, it is commonly believed even by physicists to be a fact and as such may propose the following:

Put up mirrors around the walls of your living room, if this is where you plan to hide during the winter (Germany allows only one room to be heated), and say to yourself: All these photons that I emit will be reflected back to me from all the mirrors and so I will be heated as much as I am cooling. This is nothing but the so called "greenhouse effect" heating the Earth surface from "back radiation" from the atmosphere supposedly acting somewhat like a mirror sending back radiation from the surface. 

Before you go buying all these mirrors, let me tell you why this won't work by referring to the analysis presented on Computational BlackBody Radiation: This is because transfer of heat from one body A to another B only occurs when say A is warmer than B, and this is because then A emits radiation with higher frequencies than B and it is these higher frequencies that have a heating effect on B lacking these frequencies.  

It is the same as transfer of knowledge from one person who is more knowledgable to a person less knowledgable. In both cases a threshold effect comes into play with the threshold set by the less knowledgable/cooler body. This effect is not present if you think of radiation as a stream of photons where something very essential is missing.

To those who believe that radiative heat transfer involves a stream of photons back and forth between bodies, I suggest to go to buy the mirrors, make a test and report back to me. Good Luck! 

Or check out Computational BlackBody Radiation and save that effort. You will then understand why you cannot heat yourself by a mirror, or teach yourself all by yourself anything above your threshold, or lift yourself in the hair!

Om KlimatUpplysningen och Cancel Culture

KlimatRealisterna KlimatUpplysningen KU presenterar sig på följande sätt:

• Klimatrealisternas uppfattning är att den vetenskapliga grunden för klimatpolitiken är otillräcklig för att motivera den nedbrytande omställning av samhället som nu pågår.  
• Vi vill visa på den osäkra vetenskapliga grunden och klimatpolitikens negativa konsekvenser. 
• Målet är att bidra till att förhindra denna skadliga och meningslösa politik.

Ingemar Nordin, professor em vid institutionen för kultur och kommunikation vid Linköpings Universitet, har en ledande funktion inom KU. Speciellt kan Ingemar stänga av kommentarer från personer som Ingemar av någon anledning inte gillar. Det gäller speciellt min person som drabbats av denna form av censur efter att ha deltagit med kommentarer till ett inlägg av Gabriel Oxenstierna med den tankeväckande  rubriken

• Atmosfärseffekt i stället för växthuseffekt. –Men hur mäter man den?

Detta är en fråga som jag studerat ingående och mitt arbete (redovisat på denna blogg) har givit mig en plats i Klimatrealistenes Vitenskaplige Råd, detta trots att jag är matematiker och inte fysiker.

Jag har därför en del noga genomtänkt att säga om inlägget ovan om Atmosfärseffekten, speciellt om den massiva sk "återstrålning" från en kallare atmosfär till en varmare jordyta som anses uttrycka en "växthuseffekt" som hotar med katastrofal global uppvärmning. Jag har i mitt arbete visat att denna "återstrålning" representerar  fiktiv icke-fysik som inte kan finnas av flera skäl och speciellt inte därför att den trotsar termodynamikens 2a lag, en av fysikens hörnpelare. Inlägget ovan ifrågasätter också "växthuseffekten".  Mina argument för att "återstrålning" är icke-fysik presenteras här på ett lättsamt sätt.

När jag som kommentar till inlägget uttrycker min åsikt grundad på noggrann analys, att någon "återstrålning" omöjligen kan finnas, så censureras fortsatta kommentarer av Ingemar.  Det är inte roligt att bli utsatt för censur (av vetenskap), vilket jag tyvärr har viss erfarenhet av. 

Det är också kontraproduktivt om man jämför med KUs ovan angivna mål, eftersom jag ger argument som  visar att den vetenskapliga grunden för klimathotet inte bara är osäker utan dessutom grovt felaktig.

Nåväl, jag klarar mig utan KU, men tråkigt är det för den gemensamma saken att stoppa en skadlig och meningslös klimatpolitik. 

Man kan se Ingemars tilltag som ett uttryck för den Cancel Culture som nu florerar på stormedia inkl Wikipedia och Google, där en hord av vakthundar ser till att viss korrekt information effektivt silas bort detta utan motivering. Det kan gälla vaccin, krig, korruption och inte minst klimat. Det främjar inte ett öppet demokratisk samhälle och för vetenskapen är ett fritt meningsutbyte livsviktigt! Låt oss slå vakt om det!

Ingemar uppmanas härmed att motivera sin censur i kommentar till denna post. Censur av vetenskap är emot vetenskapens grundprincip om fritt meningsutbyte, nota bene i ett öppet demokratiskt samhälle.  Censur av vetenskap är både skadlig och meningslös politik.

Stöd för min linje ges speciellt i denna kommentar med intressant förslag! 

Jag uppmanar läsare av denna post att tycka till om "återstrålning" är icke-fysik eller fysik.

PS1 Ingemar motiverar sin censur på följande sätt på KU:

• Du vill att KU skall föra fram dina ofysikaliska åsikter där man förnekar vanlig strålningsfysik, kvantmekaniken och fotoner. Ja, jag vet. Men detta är inte din blogg. På din egen blogg kan du framföra precis vad du vill, men inte här. Adjö!

Skälet skulle alltså vara att jag i kommentar framför ofysikaliska åsikter, som Ingemar tror att jag vill att KU skall föra fram. Men hur vet Ingemar som inte är fysiker att mina åsikter är ofysikaliska? Vilken fysiker har han frågat för att ge denna dom? Och inte kräver jag att KU skall föra fram mina åsikter, det räcker med att jag själv får föra fram dem utan censur.

PS2 För att se klimatalarmism i ett vidare perspektiv lyssna på denna podcast med Matthew Ehret! 

On Elite vs Mass Education

Matthew Ehret gives in The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits a mind-boggling review of the role of mathematics in human civilisation and education as fostered by in particular the prominent philosopher and mathematician Betrand Russell with the following key idea/vision expressed in The Scientific Outlook (1930):

• The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. 
• Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. 
• In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. 
• All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. 
• Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.
• Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.

Today 90 years later Russell's cruel vision has come true. Anything to do about it?  

CERES: Detecting Global Warming without Accuracy

Typical CERES measurement

Earth Energy Budget as derived by CERES

The objective of the CERES Project is to give instrumental evidence of Global Warming by satellite measurements of Earths Energy Budget in terms of 

• average of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) 
• emitted thermal radiation (ETR) to space
• from increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, etc.) trapping more of the emitted thermal radiation from the surface, thereby reducing ETR and leading to a net gain of energy with ASR - ETR  > 0. 
• This is referred to as “Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI)”. 
• Its magnitude is approximately 0.7 Wm2 (or 0.3% of ASR). 
• Most of this excess energy (93%) is stored as heat in the ocean. 
• The remainder warms the atmosphere and land, and melts snow and ice.

The Global Warming is thus measured to be approximately 0.7 W/m2 as 0.3% of ASR, which to be meaningful requires very high accuracy on the level of 0.1% or much less than 1 W/m2. Is this achieved?  

Inspecting the Earth Energy Budget image above we see that Earth surface emits 398 W/m2 while it absorbs 164 W/m2 from the Sun, and 240 W/m2 is leaving the Earth-atmosphere system by LW radiation. We thus see an energy deficit of more than 200 W/m2 on the Earth surface and that the stated accuracy is not smaller than 1 W/m2. 

We also see that the Earth Energy Budget includes massive back radiation from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 

The previous post addresses another questionable aspect of the energy(heat) flux data delivered by CERES with direct connection to accuracy, namely that CERES primarily through bolometers measures temperature and not heat flux as a derived computed quantity. 

Altogether, CERES is used to deliver observational/instrumental support to Global Warming by atmospheric CO2, but the instrumental accuracy is way too small to give any evidence, and in addition the underlying physics contradicts the 2nd Law. 

On the other hand, CERES can deliver information on the spatial distribution of ETR albeit at low accuracy. 

PS The CERES Project is describes by NASA as follows:

• Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. 
• These quantities together with their difference define Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). 
• The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project provides satellite-based observations of ERB and clouds. 
• It uses measurements from CERES instruments flying on several satellites along with data from many other instruments to produce a comprehensive set of ERB data products for climate, weather and applied science research.

with the following goals:

• Produce a long-term, integrated global climate data record for detecting decadal changes in the Earth’s radiation budget from the surface to the top-of-atmosphere.
• Enable improved understanding of how Earth’s radiation budget varies in time and space and the role that clouds and other atmospheric properties play.
• Support climate model evaluation and improvement through model-observation intercomparisons.
• Produce a long-term, integrated global climate data record for detecting decadal changes in the Earth’s radiation budget from the surface to the top-of-atmosphere.

• 
  

Global Warming: Measuring Temperature vs Flux of Heat Energy vs Radiative Forcing

OLWR (right) as measured by CERES

The central concept in the prediction of global warming from human emissions of CO2 presented by IPCC, is that of radiative forcing as a warming effect of 3-4 W/m2 upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial time with corresponding global warming of less than 1 C. From this non-alarming warming is obtained alarming warming by up to 4 C by various positive feed-backs. If the 1 C was instead 0.3 C corresponding radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 instead of 3-4 W/m2, there would be no reason for alarm. And of course not, if feed-backs are smaller (very likely) or even negative. 

Let us now check how IPCC comes up with a radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 as the central argument behind alarm.    

The radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is obtained from a radiative perturbation computation starting from measured spectra of Outgoing LongWave Radiation OLWR or radiative flux from the Earth into space by bolometers in CERES satellites as shown above. The computation estimates the radiative forcing as the  change of OLWR from doubled CO2. See lecture by Will Happer.

The advantage of this approach is that knowledge of the complex physics of turbulent convective heat transfer and phase change behind the present measured OLWR is not needed. The radiative computation concerns the change of OLWR from a change of radiative properties of the atmosphere from doubled CO2 everything else being the same. The radiative forcing is thus obtained from a radiative heat transfer computation based on radiative properties.    

A bolometer measures temperature (in degrees Kelvin K) through a temperature dependent resistance which is translated to OLWR (in W/m2) through some form of Planck's Law. 

That primarily temperature is measured, is seen from the fact that CERES delivers the altitude from where OLWR is coming, because altitude directly connects to temperature, which would not be possible if OLWR was the prime measurement.

The translation from measured temperature in K to OLWR in W/m2 is tricky. To see the difficulty, let us consider heat conduction with heat flux corresponding to radiance and Planck's Law replaced by Fourier's Law taking the following form (in one space dimension): 

• $Q = C \frac{dT}{dx}$ 

where $T$ is temperature $Q$ heat flux, $x$ a spatial coordinate and $C$ is a coefficient of heat conductivity. Now, temperature can be directly measured by a thermometer corresponding to the bolometer in CERES, while to determine the heat flux Q the coefficient of heat conductivity must be known. Temperature is a primary measured quantity and heat flux is a secondary computed quantity requiring knowledge of a heat conduction coefficient and temperature derivative. 

To measure inside and outside temperature of a wall is direct and precise using a thermometer, while determining the heat flux through the wall requires (i) detailed data on the design of the wall or (ii) experiments with known heat source. 

Measurement of OLWR in CERES carries the same difficulty. What is directly measured by the satellite bolometer are temperatures of different spectral bands as seen from the bolometer, while the translation to OLWR requires detailed knowledge of atmospheric emittance corresponding to heat conductivity of a wall. Measured OLWR is thus subject to large uncertainties as well as the computation of radiative forcing. Experiments corresponding to (ii) cannot be made. 

Total OWLR is about 240 W/m2 and so a radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is a small perturbation which is difficult to assess. It could as well be 2 or 0 or even negative. The central element of the IPCC global warming message to the World thus cannot be viewed to be scientifically settled. If the estimated radiative forcing was 1 W/m2  instead of 3-4 W/m2, then there would be no alarm.  

Radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is by IPCC presented as the basic scientific argument behind the present march in the West into a fossil free society of pre-industrial standard and population.  The theory and observation supporting the argument is highly uncertain and cannot motivate continued march.   

Corruption of Modern Physics 16: Electron Spin

Scientific American presented yesterday an article about the mystery of electron spin serving a fundamental role in the standard theory of quantum mechanics stdQM:

• Quantum Particles Aren’t Spinning. So Where Does Their Spin Come From?

  with the following contradictory messages typical of modern physics:

• Electrons are proficient little magicians. Electrons always seem to spin. 
• But despite appearances, electrons don’t spin. They can’t spin.
• Proving that it’s impossible for electrons to be spinning is a standard homework problem in any introductory quantum physics course. 
• Yet spin is deeply important.
•  If electrons didn’t seem to spin, your chair would collapse down to a minuscule fraction of its size. 
• In fact, there wouldn’t be any molecules at all. 

Ok, so we learn that electrons spin, although they cannot, and that spinning electrons are necessary for the World to exist: Contradiction. But Contradictory Physics is Corrupted Physics. 

The concept of electron spin, which can take two values say up and down, was introduced when stdQM was formed in the 1920s to satisfy Pauli's Exclusion Principle PEP stating that 

• At most two electrons can occupy the same spot in space-time. 
• If two electrons do so, then they must have different spin.  

This was described by Pauli as a mysterious two-valuedness of stdQM arising already in the case of the Helium Atom with two electrons with key question: 

• How do the two electrons share the space around the kernel? 
• Can they overlap or not? 

The answer by stdQM was that they have to overlap in the ground state of the Helium Atom to make computation of energy fit with observation. But electrons having the same negative charge repel each other and so cannot overlap. Pauli's resolution of this apparent contradiction was to say that they indeed can overlap if only the have different spin, one up and the other down. 

That gave some apparent rationale to the mysterious two-valuedness appearing already for Helium taking the form of PEP. The trouble was and still is that nobody knows what is the physics of electron spin? Is it physics at all, or not just a trick to make stdQM correctly predict the ground state energy of Helium?

RealQM seeks to give a different answer with direct connection to physics. In RealQM the two electrons of Helium divide the space around the kernel into two half-lobes of electron density which do not overlap. This is a classical continuum model in three space dimension which accurately predicts the ground state energy of Helium, as well as other atoms with electrons organised into non-overlapping shells. 

In particular, the mysterious two-valuedness can get an explanation in the form of the two half-lobes model of Helium in RealQM. Take a look and see if you get inspired to uncover the mystery of PEP!

Vill Svenska Folket Leva i Fossilfritt Sverige?

Infångning av utandningsluft kommer att bli nödvändig för att uppnå Klimatmålen

Fossilfritt Sverige är ett Socialdemokratiskt Regeringsinitiativ att göra Sverige till Världens Första Fossilfria Välfärdsland. Vägen stakas ut genom Klimatmål som skall uppnås med en Klimatlag.

Klimatmål:  

• Senast år 2045 ska Sverige inte ha några nettoutsläpp av växthusgaser till atmosfären, för att därefter uppnå negativa utsläpp. Målet innebär att utsläppen av växthusgaser från svenskt territorium ska vara minst 85 procent lägre år 2045 än utsläppen år 1990. De kvarvarande utsläppen ned till noll kan uppnås genom så kallade kompletterande åtgärder. För att nå målet får även avskiljning och lagring av koldioxid av fossilt ursprung räknas som en åtgärd där rimliga alternativ saknas.

Klimatlag (1 januari 2018):

• Lagen ålägger ett ansvar på nuvarande och framtida regeringar att föra en politik som utgår från klimatmålen.

Allmänhetens beredskap att följa vad än Klimatlagen kommer att kräva anges vara stor enligt följande hoppfulla undersökning (om än inte Alla Är Med):

• 8 av 10 tror att de själva kan göra något för att bromsa klimatförändringen.
• Mest positiv är de tillfrågade till att köpa energisnåla hushållsapparater nästa gång de byter, vilket 9 av 10 kan tänka sig.
• 8 av 10 kan tänkta sig att köra bil mer energisnålt, sänka elförbrukningen i hemmet och åka tåg istället för flyg.
• 7 av 10 kan tänka sig att köpa färre saker och att semestra nära istället för att flyga utomlands.
• 6 av 10 respondenter är positiva till att samåka mer, äta mindre kött, välja elbil, ställa bilen till förmån för cykel eller elcykel samt välja klimatsmarta fonder.
• Hälften kan tänka sig att åka mer kollektivt och sänka temperaturen inomhus.

Dessa åtgärder torde inte räcka, men till detta kommer att läggas stora omställningar för industrin som kräver stora investeringar vilket gör produkterna dyra. Men det blir sällan märkbart för slutkonsumenten.

Resan mot ett Fossilfritt Sverige har redan börjat. 

Tempot måste öka, men vi har kommit en bit på vägen. 

Men vill verkligen Svenska Folket vara med på denna resa? Vilken högsta inomhustemperatur kommer att vara tillåten enligt Klimatlagen?  13 C?

Varför skall resan göras? Vad är problemet med fossil energi? Varför skall den bannlysas? För att den ger utsläpp av CO2? Men växterna lever ju av CO2? Vilken vetenskap visar att lite mer utsläpp av CO2 kommer att orsaka märkbar/mätbar global uppvärmning?

Och den mänskliga utandningsluften innehåller ju CO2. Skall den "fångas in" och lagras i marken med CCS, så att växterna inte kommer åt den?

Läs mer på KlimatUpplysningen särskilt om Växthuseffekten med Kommentarer.

Quality of Heat Energy vs Radiative Heat Transfer

One may expect that radiative heat transfer as a basic topic of both fundamental and engineering physics, has been well understood since long and that therefore there are precise mathematical models capturing everything of interest from both theoretical and practical point of view. 

But that does not seem to be the case. The basic model (used in climate science) takes the form of the more than 100 years old Schwarzschild's equations describing radiative heat transfer in terms of streams of particles in different directions carrying energy packest named photons between layers of a gas of different temperature, in the setting of the atmosphere with with both up-welling and down-welling infrared radiation. In particular, the equations express transfer of heat energy from colder layers to warmer layers. 

But we know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat energy cannot by itself (without external forcing) move from cold to warm, and so Schwarzschild's equations are unphysical. If they form the mathematical model of radiative heat transfer, it seems that some understanding is missing. I make an effort to fill this apparent gap as Computational Black Body Radiation.

The 2nd Law is believed to be difficult to understand lacking a good answer to the basic question: Why can heat energy by itself move only from warm to cold and not the other way? 

One way to understand this is to think of quality of energy measured by temperature. The higher temperature the better quality. It can be compared with quality of knowledge. The essential aspect is that transfer of heat energy or knowledge has a direction from higher quality to lower quality,  not the other way around. 

The quality of heat energy as measured by temperature comes to expression as a high frequency cut-off of the radiation spectrum scaling with temperature according to Wien's Law as a threshold phenomenon.  A warm body carries higher frequencies than a colder body and it is these frequencies which can cause a transfer of heat energy from the warm to the cold.  A more knowledgeable person can transfer knowledge to a less knowledgeable. There is a direction from high to lower quality, which in more general terms is direction of time.  

In the hierarchy of energy, heat energy has lowest rank because it cannot fully be transformed to higher ranks of kinetic or potential energy, and is further decreasing in rank with decreasing temperature. This underlies a feared successive degradation of quality into a heat death of the Universe at 3 Kelvin. This can be added to the alarm of CO2 global warming.