How Climate Alarmism Got Started: The Lorenz Equations

Climate change alarmism was initiated at the 1965 conference Causes of Climate Change in Boulder, when the mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz presented a simple mathematical model with solutions being very sensitive to perturbations in e.g. initial values. The assembled scientists where shocked because Lorenz mathematical model, later referred to as the Lorenz equations, could be viewed as a simplified version of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and thus as a simple climate model. 

The shock came from the argument that since solutions of the Lorenz equation are so sensitive to perturbation, a flap of a butterfly in the Amazonas could very well set off a tornado in Texas. Truely shocking mathematics! As summarized after the conference by Roger Revelle, advisor of the young Harward student Al Gore. Climate alarmism was under way, although Revelle became a skeptic before passing away.

But let's take a step back from shock and see more precisely what the Lorenz equations as a simple climate model tell us. I have already done that in Chapter 13 my book with Johan Hoffman Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow, where in the context of turbulent flow we exhibit the Lorenz equations as an example of a mathematical model with solutions being 

• pointwise predictable over short-time
  
• pointwise unpredictable over long-time
• mean-value predictable over long-time

which also are characteristics of climate systems. This means that it is possible to predict the daily weather a couple of days ahead but not a year ahead, because the system is short-time exponentially unstable with positive feedback. However it is possible to predict the  monthly mean-value a year ahead, like tourist guide books do, because of cancellation with positive feedback compensated by negative feedback. 

For the Lorenz equations the butterfly pattern is stable and predictable, and as shown in the book the ratio of the number of trajectory revolutions in the two "wings" tends to 1.

In other words, it is impossible to say if it will rain 30 days ahead, but it is possible to predict the monthly mean precipitation one year ahead, simply because after rain comes sunshine.

Not because the weather is random, but because the dynamics of the system is such that if

goes up for a while it has to go down.

The waving flag is an example of such a system: after waving to one side the flag will wave to the other side: the mean direction over long-time can be predicted to be the wind direction, but to predict on what side the flag will be is possible only a very short time ahead. 

We conclude that the Lorenz system is not a sign of alarm. If anything, it can be taking as support of beliefs that mean-values will never change in over long time, e.g. that the global mean temperature will never change. But doing so would not be correct from a scientific point of view, because systems like the Lorenz equations, or the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow, do not model non-linear effects which could cause a drift of mean-values over long time. We know that in the real climate the mean global temperature has changed and will continue to change, and climate models must capture this effect to be meaningful.

Present climate models are short-time pointwise inaccurate, and thus cannot be expected to be

long-time mean-value accurate, and hence probably are meaningless. Compare Short-time vs Long-time Accuray 1 and 2.

Climate alarmism was thus born out of a misunderstanding of mathematics, as perfected by Einstein.

This is not good news for Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who launched a spirited attack on climate skeptics on Friday, saying a vocal minority is powerful enough to threaten a global deal at next month's Copenhagen climate summit:

• Climate skeptics, deniers and opponents of climate action are active in every country, have limited the ambition of national climate change commitments and slowed progress of carbon trade laws in the United States and Australia. They are a minority. They are powerful, and invariably they are driven by vested interests.
• They are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.
  

Ban-Ki Moon joins with The Greatest Challenge og Our Time opening a new debate in SVD: Climate from different angles. Almost all 50 comments so far are negative to climate alarmism reflecting an increasing global apathy...  It will be interesting to see if SVD will invite skeptics with different angles... 

Motion om Översyn av Klimatpolitiken, utan KVA

Ingemar Värnlöf Kd föreslår i  motionen Översyn av Klimatpolitiken att ett oberoende vetenskapligt granskningsorgan tillsättes med speciell uppgift att kritiskt granska IPCC. 

Ingemar Värnlöf nämner inte The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences KVA i sin motion, ej heller att KVA gjort ett uttalande som stödjer IPCC. Det vore intressant att höra hur Värnlöf ser på KVA och på KVAs uttalande, och även hur KVA ser på Värnlöfs motion. Any reactions?

Läs Åsa Knaggårds doktorsavhandling Vetenskaplig Osäkerhet i Policyprocessen.

Royal Swedish Academy of Scientific Consensus

I have received answers to my questions to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences KVA concerning the statement of the Academy The Scientific Basis for Climate Change.

However the answers are unclear and I renewed my questions to KVA on Nov 2:

1. Is there scientific consensus on AGW, according to KVA?

2. Has KVA undertaken an independent investigation including measurements and modeling of AGW, or is the Academy relying on IPCC?

The question on scientific consensus is intriguing: If according to KVA there is consensus, then it appears to be pointless for KVA to make a statement. For example, it would be surprising to see KVA making a statement that the Earth is not flat. So, when KVA now makes a statement on climate change, it means that KVA chooses standpoint in an ongoing scientific controversy and  non-consensus on AGW, where IPCC is one part. But in order for the statement to make sense as a statement by a scientific academy, KVA must form an opinion independentof IPCC. 

My question is if KVA has done that.

KVAs secretary Gunnar Öquist claims that KVA is not a governmental institution or "statlig myndighet", but KVA is listed as such. This means that KVA by Swedish law is obliged to answer questions.

No answers as of Nov 9. But the questions remain.

Meanwhile the US has given up hopes on Global Change Treaty in Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming:

• We don't have time to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty,
  

said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.

Science as Religion

The Telegraph reports that:

• An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.
• In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".
• The executive, Mr Nicholson, hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as "a victory for common sense" but stressed climate change was "not a new religion" and said:
• "I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.

Mr Nicholson does not believe that climate change is a religion, even if the judge does so. Can that be taken as a new reason for dismissal? Or is  to believe that something is science and not religion, also a form of religion?

What is in fact the difference between science and religion? If  God is Mathematician, which many scientists and mathematicians believe, does it mean that mathematical sciences are religion? 

Can insisting that curved space-time of eleven dimensions is the most important issue of our time, be a reason for dismissal?

Feed-Backs on Climate Sensitivity from Lindzen and Spencer

Spencer comments on the recent article by Lindzen and Choi about climate feed-backs computed from ERBE data. The simplest mathematical climate model takes the form

                                                            dT/dt = Q +  A T - B T,

where T is temperature, e.g. global ocean surface temperature, t is time, Q is radiative heat forcing,  A T is feed-back heat forcing from e.g. vapour and clouds and B T  is feed-back into outgoing LW radiation, with B a positive constant and A positive for positive feed-back.

ERBE data gives information on time-variations of T and outgoing radiation B T,  indicating that B is in the range 4-6 W/m2K.  The time-variation of Q + A T thus is given by measured data , which may allow determination the coefficient A under some assumption on Q, and thus the all important climate sensitivity

                                                          S = Q/C  with C = B - A

where Q = 3.7 W/m2K is the radiative forcing from doubling of CO2.

Lindzen claims to obtain from measurement that S is less than 1 degree Celcius, while IPCC from climate models gets S in the range 2 - 5 degrees Celcius, which is the scientific climate debate in a nutshell. I don't see how to retrace Lindzen's estimate of S in the data, which is also the concern by Spencer. It seems that Lindzen from outgoing radiation computes A to be negative thus indicating negative feedback. But outgoing radiation is modeled by B T and not A T and in principle B - A can be small corresponding to large climate sensitivity, even if B = 4 - 6 as measured.  It seems that true climate sensitivity is still to be determined.

Nevertheless, Lindzen observed that current climate models driven by surface temperature predict much less outgoing LW radiation than measured by ERBE, which is an indication that current climate models overestimate S, by underestimating C. 

Compare with the video of Richard Lindzens talk Deconstructing Global Warming. In particular, contemplate Lindzen's examples of abuse of scientific integrity, and logic, by appeal to authority. 

DN reports that Reinfeldt has given up all hopes to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen, after his meeting with Obama.

The Importance of Giving an Impression

Is the climate alarmism now overwhelming us in the media yet another Apocalypse of religious nature,  or is it a culmination of the a crisis of classical rational understandable mechanics and mathematics leading into the modern physics of quantum mechanics and relativity which nobody understands? Is it an expression of Mathematics as Magics? A step back into the Dark Ages? 

Maybe. Maybe it signifies that we live in a culture of packaging rather than content? That beautiful rethoric and gesture is more convincing than content and action? Listening to Reinfeldt and Obama can give support to this view.

I read in Metro that the professions of highest prestige today are: architect, physician, researcher, lawyer and finance analyst, because they signal knowledge which serves the overall goal of "giving an impression". On the oher end of the scale you find people in the army and advertizing. 

It seems that to balance our culture of surface and ads, we give value to the opposite of content and knowledge, but the value is still superficial "impression". To be a mathematician is impressive, not because of something you can do or compute which can be appreciated by other people, but because it gives the impression that you are smart, even if you are not.

Obama told a joint White House press conference with Reinfeldt:

• We are confident that if all countries involved recognize this is a unique opportunity that we can get an important deal done, not (one) that solves every problem on this issue but takes an important step forward and lays the groundwork for further progress in the future.
• We discussed climate change extensively and all of us agreed that it was imperative for us to redouble our efforts in the weeks between now and the Copenhagen meeting to assure that we create a framework for progress in dealing with what is a potential ecologic disaster.

Impressive? Is modern science also about impressions or about reality and content?

We agreed it was imperative to redouble efforts to assure that we create a framework for progress in dealing... with...disaster? Of course we are all seduced by chains of wordings like this. And if the disaster is only an impression of disaster, maybe impressions of actions will suffice to deal with it? 

The Guardian's George Monbiot describes increasing scepticism to climate alarmism as a 

psychological reaction to increasing scientific alarmism:

• There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
• Could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we
confront it? 
• There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption.
  

But maybe it is simpler than that: Maybe an increasing scientific scepticism is now causing an increasing scepticism in the public opinion, in the same way as initially scientific alarmism influenced public opinion. Maybe what counts is not only psychology and impression, but also scientific reality?

Maybe it is a psychological survival tactic to give an impression to be immortal, while we all know deep in our souls that we are not...

Svar från KVA och Förnyade Frågor

Följande svar på mina frågor till KVA har inkommit:

Bäste Claes Johnson,

Som svar på dina två frågor vill jag säga att KVA har gjort en oberoende bedömning av IPCC-rapporten del 1 som publicerades 2007 samt beaktat de forskningsresultat som därefter publicerats efter faktagranskning. 

Den tänkta målgruppen är det vetenskapliga och politiska etablissemanget i vid bemärkelse, inklusive "policy makers", men även en informerad allmänhet. I yttrandet berör vi i punktform viktiga frågor inom den komplexa klimatproblematiken, inkluderande sådana som ofta förekommer i den politiska och allmänna debatten. 

Frågeställningar som vi funnit nödvändigt att kommentera är den stora havsisförändringen i Arktis, risken för ökad instabilitet i de stora landisarna på Grönland och Antarktis samt att kontrastera detta mot de naturliga klimatvariationerna.  En annan central fråga berör förändringar i den hydrologiska cykeln.

Då ökningen av atmosfärens växthusgaser är den mest sannolika orsaken till klimatändringen framhäver KVA den synnerliga vikten av en förbättrad energihushållning och största möjliga reduktion av den fossila energianvändningen. Vi har vidare i vårt yttrande framhävt klimatfrågans komplexitet samt en förstärkt forskning för att säkrare bedöma riskerna för mer omfattande och skadliga klimatändringar.

I gårdagens  brev så ställer du också frågan om hur KVA ser på de amerikanska fysikernas brev till den amerikanska Senaten angående konsensus i klimatfrågan. Vårt uttalande ges svar på var Vetenskapsakademien står i klimatfrågan. 

Till sist, Vetenskapsakademien är inte en myndighet utan en obunden, icke-statlig organisation.

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Gunnar Öquist

På detta brev har jag svarat följande:

Bäste Gunnar Öquist:

Tack för svar. Dock svarar Du inte klart på de frågor jag ställt. Jag frågade om KVA gjort en oberoende egen vetenskaplig bedömning av den vetenskap IPCC presenterar och Du svarar att KVA "gjort en oberoende bedömning av IPCC-rapporten del 1".  Jag upprepar alltså mina två huvudfrågor till KVA:

1. Anser KVA att det råder vetenskaplig konsensus angående AGW?

2. Har KVA gjort en EGEN vetenskaplig undersökning av AGW innefattande experiment och beräkningar?

Låt mig citera några oklarheter i KVAs statement och ställa följdfrågor:

KVA: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1 (The Physical  Science Basis) has given a broad, systematic summary of the scientific literature on climate  change and has concluded that the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases has led to an  increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.

Innebär detta att KVA validerat IPCCs rapport, eller är det bara ett konstaterande av vad IPCC gjort?

KVA: IPCC has undertaken modelling studies to estimate the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols on climate during the next 100 years based on different emission scenarios. These studies indicate a global surface warming at the end of the 21st century of 1.5-3.5 °C compared to present-day conditions. A large part of this warming is related to positive feedback from water vapour that increases rapidly with higher temperature. 

Innebär detta att KVA har gjort en oberoende validering av dessa beräkningar, eller är det bara ett konstaterande av vad IPCC gjort?

KVA: Regrettably, we are not yet in a position to determine with any precision what is going to happen. 

Innebär detta att KVAs statement inte är ett vetenskapligt yttrande? 

Vänliga hälsningar,

Claes J

No answer as of Nov 5. The bet that IVA will give an answer is now 1 to 10.