Climate Fools Day: Death to the Greenhouse Effect

The Guardian reports on Climate Fool's Day Oct 27 at UK Parliament:

• Cabal of climate sceptics to descend on UK parliament. Prominent UK climate sceptics and politicians will meet on Wednesday to celebrate Climate Fool's Day, and announce
• the publishing the world’s first full-volume refutation of the greenhouse effect entitled "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Theory".

I am happy to be in the team of authors of this book, with my mission being to kill the mathematics of the greenhouse effect.

For a direct report, read Climate Fool Battle Cry and RT Top Story and John O'Sullivan.

Scientific DoubleThink

Orwell describes in 1984 DoubleThink: 

• The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary .

DoubleThink is practiced a lot in politics, where it may be a necessary ingredient, but is it also present in science, in physics as the foundation of science? 

Yes, it seems that also physics requires DoubleThink, at least in the fundaments of physics of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, where it has been elevated to Principles:

• Wave-Particle Duality: Matter exhibits both wave and a particle properties.
• Complementarity Principle: Some objects have multiple properties that appear to be contradictory. 
• Superposition: Schrödinger cat both dead an alive.
  
• Wave-function Collapse: Superposition of different eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer.
• Correspondence principle: Contradictions of quantum mechanics not seen in classical physics because of large quantum numbers.
• Equivalence Principle (gravitational and inertial mass equal): Both definition and physical fact.
• Constancy of Speed of Light: Both definition and physical fact.

To Orwell DoubleThink was the end of democracy and science. Is it?

For a perspective without DoubleThink, see Many-Minds Relativity:

• Different people may have different views depending on position, while each person follows coherent SingleThink.

Science Poker

In poker you can stay in the game even if you have lousy cards by continuing raising the bet.

As long as your bet is not called, you are in the game and have not lost. 

In science this strategy is practiced a lot: If your theory cannot explain anything and is questioned because it is absurd and contradictory and does not fit with observations, raise the bet to an even more absurd and contradictory theory claiming that it might explain something, and so on....Some examples:

Physics: 

• If you cannot explain what an atom is, claim you work on a theory for protons and electrons.
• If you cannot explain what protons and electrons are, claim you work on a theory for quarks.
• If you cannot explain what quarks are, claim you work on string theory.
• If you cannot explain what strings is, claim you work on superstring theory.. 
• If you cannot explain what superstrings are, claim you work on ???

Astronomy:

• If you cannot explain how the Solar system was created, work on a theory for galaxies.
• If you cannot explain what a galaxy is, work on a theory for the Universe.
• If you cannot explain what the Universe is, work on a theory for a Multiverse.
• If you cannot explain what a Multiverse is, work on a theory for ???

Mechanics:

• If you cannot explain why an airplane can fly, claim that you work on a boundary layer theory which can explain why an airplane can fly.
• If the boundary layer theory does not explain why an airplane can fly, claim that the boundary layer is not thin enough because the viscosity is not small enough.
• If you still cannot explain, claim that making the viscosity even smaller will give an explanation.
• If it still does not work, claim that it will if only the viscosity is made small enough...

Climate Science: 

• If you cannot explain variations in global temperature, claim that you work on a theory explaining global warming by carbondoxide.
• If carbondioxide does not explain anything, claim that global warming comes from methane.
• If methane does not explain anything, claim that global warming comes from human metabolism or ???

But there is always an upper limit to the bet you can make, and it seems as if this upper limit is near in the above examples ???

Royal Non-Science

Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, President of the Royal Society, sends in an Open Letter on Climate Change to political and business leaders and to the wider public, the following warning:

• This year has seen outbreaks of extreme weather in many regions of the world.
• No-one can say with certainty that events such as the flooding in Pakistan, the unprecedented weather episodes in some parts of the US , the heat-wave and drought in Russia, or the floods and landslides in Northern China, were influenced by climate change.
• Yet they constitute a stark warning.
• Extreme weather events will grow in frequency and intensity as the world warms.
  

The Baron backs his warning by:

• It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the core scientific findings about humanly-induced climate change and the dangers it poses for our collective future remain intact.
• The most important relevant fact is based on uncontroversial measurements: the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is higher than it has been for at least the last half-million years.
• It has risen by 30% since the start of the industrial era, mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels. If the world continues to depend on fossil fuels to the extent it does today, CO2 will reach double pre-industrial level within the next half-century.
• This build-up is triggering long-term warming, the physical reasons for which are well-known and demonstrable in the laboratory.
  

The Baron sends the following signal to business leaders:

• The actions needed to counter this threat – the transition to a lifestyle dependent on clean and efficient energy – will create manifold new economic opportunities.
  

The Baron apparently has a strong talent for business, in the tax financed green sector, but what about the science of his and the RS? Well, look at his main Royal argument:

• long-term warming, the physical reasons for which are well- known and demonstrable in the laboratory.
  

The Baron does not understand that to say that something is well-known, is not a scientific argument, only an argument of "scientific consensus" as an appeal to authority, which is not part of a scientific discussion. Further, to claim that long-term global warming has been demonstrated in a laboratory (referring to Tyndall's experiment), is so beyond rationale that it can only be interpreted as a joke.

Rees is a specialist in cosmology and probably dreams of demonstrating also his theories about the Universe in a laboratory. If you can fit the Globe into it, why not also the rest?

But when he assures the World and its businessmen that core scientific findings remain intact, he probably refers to a a stable zero value.

Many Incorrect vs One Correct, in Climate Science

Women more likely to back scientific consensus.

NASA presents three incorrect explanations of the lift of an airplane wing, but none claimed to be correct. Among the incorrect explanations, you find popular (longer path theory) for the people, and advanced (Kutta-Zhukovsky circulation theory) for the educated.

In The Mathematical Secret of Flight you find a correct explanation, also presented in a talk available on my home page under News. See also my knol Why It Is Possible to Fly.

In general there are in physics infinitely many incorrect explanations of a given phenomenon, but only one which is correct and then serves both the people and the educated.

In literature you find many descriptions of unhappiness, but few about happiness. Failure is more frequent than success.

In (democratic) politics, the people decide the truth because they are many. In science, one enligthened is enough to decide the truth. Scientific truth is not determined by consensus of the majority: to refer to "scientific consensus" is not a scientific argument.

You find in climate science several explanations of a so-called greenhouse effect, from elementary for the people to advanced for the educated:

The popular explanation is:

• CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" with an ability to "trap heat".
  
• More CO2 "traps more heat" and thus warms the Earth.

An advanced explanation embraced by educated alarmists but also by educated skeptics like Lindzen, is as follows:

• The atmosphere cools the Earth by emission to space from a certain "characteristic emission level/altitude" at a "characteristic emission temperature" determined by Stephan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law (SB).
• More CO2 will "lift" the characteristic emisson level to a higher altitude.
• Higher altitude means lower temperature, because the temperature drops with altitude according to a certain lapse rate.
• Lower temperature means less radiation according to SB, thus with less radiation out than in.
• Radiative balance is restored by shifting the whole temperature profile causing warming on the Earth surface and restoring the characteristic emission temperature.
• The net effect is 1.2 C warming upon doubling of CO2.

In Computational Blackbody Radiation I show that the popular explanation is incorrect. In Climate Thermodynamics I give evidence that also the advanced explanation lacks scientific

rationale.

Science or Non-Science?

The scientific method has an experimental and a theoretical aspect. Basic theoretical science is expressed in the language of mathematics and relies on the methods of mathematics of logical reasoning (axiom-definition-theorem) and symbolic/digital computation.  Experimental science concerns observations of real phenomena,

Mathematics is used to construct mathematical models of real (or imagined) phenomena, which then can be simulated by letting the model transform input data to output data by computation, with input data from observations (or invented).

Typically the mathematical model consists of differential equations expressing basic physical laws such as conservation of mass, momentum and energy. A basic example is Maxwell's equations describing all of electromagnetics in four differential equations. It all started with the Calculus of Leibniz and Newton initiating the scientific revolution in the late 17th century.

Understanding of real phenomena can be achieved by understanding the mathematical model, 

which is open to inspection, while reality is not, as formulated by Edsger Dijkstra:

• Originally I viewed it as the function of the abstract machine to provide a truthful picture of the physical reality. Later, however, I learned to consider the abstract machine as the true one, because that is the only one we can think ; it isthe physical machine's purpose to supply a working model, a (hopefully) suciently accurate physical simulation of the true, abstract machine.
  

The true abstract machine is the mathematical model, which according to Einstein: 

• should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
  

A too simple model would then represent non-science, rather than science.

Let us now consider a specific area of science: climate science. The mathematical model describing global weather with climate being global weather averaged over time, is the Navier-Stokes equations expressing conservation of mass, momentum and energy, describing the thermodynamics of atmosphere and oceans, combined  with a model of the radiative warming by the Sun and radiative cooling into space. In short: Navier-Stokes with radiative forcing as a thermodynamics model, which is as simple as possible, but not simpler. 

In climate science another model, Stefan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law, forms the basis of the CO2 climate alarmism advocated by IPCC by supplying a starting value for climate sensitivity of 1.2 C (upon doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere), which is boosted by feed-backs to an alarming 2-4.5 C. 

However, this model is too simple, because thermodynamics is not included, only the simple algebraic Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law. This argument is developed in more detail in Climate Thermodynamics.

We conclude that the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism of a climate sensitivity of 1.2 C, is not verified using the scientific method, and thus has the role of an ad hoc assumption, which until properly verifed represents non-science.  Without this basic postulate feed-backs have nothing to feed on and alarmism collapses.

My Resignation from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Encouraged by the resignation of Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society, I hereby announce that I would have resigned from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, had I been a member. 

Well, I am not a member, but I am,  as the only Nordic mathematician, on the ICIHighlyCited list of the worlds most cited scientists (including less than 10 Swedes in science/mathematics of a total 64 while the Academy counts to 175). 

My motivation is as follows: 

I. The Academy claims in its statement The Scientific Basis FOR Climate Change that 

• The effect of greenhouse gases is well established.

When I ask the Academy in writing for the scientific basis of this statement about this socalled greenhouse effect, I get the following written answer from Lennart Bengtsson, main responsible for the Academy statement:

• An excellent summary of earlier work,  Fourier(1824), Tyndall(1865), Arrhenius (1896) can be found in the book "The legacy of Svante Arrhenius understanding the greenhouse effect" Ed. Rodhe och Charlson, 1998 ISBN 91-7190-0284.  

I have commented on the lack of convincing science in this work in Fourier and his Greenhouse Effect, Tyndall and his Greenhouse Effect and Arrhenius and his Greenhouse Effect.

II. The Academy invites to a Seminar on Climate Simulation, but does not allow any question to be posed to the main speaker Lennart Bengtsson at the seminar. The Academy thereby violates the basic principle of science of open free discussion.

Combining I and II, I find an Academy which

• has taken on the role of scientific guarantee of Swedish climate politics, 
• carries this responsibility on a scientific basis which is questionable, but cannot be questioned.  
  

I don't want to be member of such an Academy. Is there really nobody among the 175 who has similar hesitations?

Compare with the analysis in 

• Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?: Do Most Western Climate Scientists Believe Global Warming is Man-Made? The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating by Dr. David Evans.
  

Compare with earlier alarmist BBC changing foot: Doubts over scientist's climate change debate claims. When will Swedish Television also change policy and start to scrutinize the Academy? People understand cheating and Swedish Televison is the television of the people.

Read more about the resignation of Hal Lewis here.

Compare with Vaclav Klaus in The Climate Change Doctrine is Part of Environmentalism, Not of Science: 

• What also belongs here is our resolute opposition to the attempts to shut down such a crucial public debate concerning us and our way of life on the pretext that the overwhelming scientific consensus is there and that we have to act now. This is not true. Being free to raise questions and oppose fashionable politically and “lobbystically” promoted ideas forms an important and irreplaceable part of our democratic society. Not being allowed to do so would be a proof that we have already moved to the “brave new world” of a postdemocratic order. (I am tempted to say that we are already very close to it).
  

Compare with The Climate Scum.

Scientific Truth vs Political Belief

NYT Editorial complains in In Climate Denial, Again:

• With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
  

So Democrates are Believers and Republicans are Skeptics, as concerns a certain scientific question.

But how is this possible? Is scientific truth the same as political belief? Something must be terribly wrong with science these days...In the Soviet Union scientific truth was controled by

political belief, and so maybe the Soviet Union never really collapsed...

This is political science...politicized science...Lysenkoism...1984:

• In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. 
  

Yale Poll: Americans Know Climate Science

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (Bridging Science + Community) reports in American's Knowledge of Climate Change the following results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works:

• The study found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system:
  
• 57% "know" that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat
  
• 50% of Americans "understand" that global warming is caused mostly by human activities
• 45% "understand" that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface.

I find these results surprisingly good, from an educational scientific point of view, since they can interpreted as follows:

• 43% know that the greenhouse effect of gases in the atmosphere that "trap heat", is scientific nonsense
  
• 50% of Americans understand that global warming is not caused mostly by human activities
• 55% understand that carbon dioxide cannot "trap heat" from the Earth’s surface.

We see that roughly 50% of the Americans are well informed about a scientific question of fundamental importance to humanity. Which other question could draw such a number?

50% of the Americans thus understand the utter nonsense of the report in Non-Scientific American: Will Birth Control Solve Climate Change?

Arrhenius and his Greenhouse Effect

Seeking the roots of CO2 climate alarmism we now turn to Svante Arrhenius and his On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground from 1896:

• It is only the variation of the temperature with the transparency of the air that we shall examine.
• For this radiation we will suppose that Stefan's law of radiation, which is now generally accepted, holds good, or in other words that the quantity of heat (W) that radiates from a body of the albedo (1-n) and temperature T (absolute) to another body of the absorption-coefficient b and absolute temperature q is W = nbg(T^4-q^4).
• I have calculated the mean alteration of temperature that would follow if the quantity of carbonic acid varied from its present value to a doubled value: 5-6 C.
• If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. This rule--which naturally holds good only in the part investigated--will be useful for the following summary estimations.
• I should certainly not have undertaken these tedious calculations if an extraordinary interest had not been connected with them.

Yes, the calculations were tedious, but unfortunately meaningless with extraordinarily small interest, because the model used is way too simplistic and cannot tell anything about global temperature and its dependence on CO2.

We have now traced the origins of CO2 climate alarmism to Fourier-Tyndall-Arrhenius and found no science and mathematics, only loose speculations and hand-waving about an evasive

"greenhouse effect".

Compare with Carbon Dioxide and the Climate by Plass, Fleming  and Schmidt (1956)

• Although the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change was one of the most widely held fifty years ago, in recent years it has had relatively few adherents... 

50 years ago nobody believed in Arrhenius. What happened that resurrected his outdated theory as the basis of climate alarmism? Or is it still outdated with "relatively few adherents"?

Tyndall and his Greenhouse Effect

Tyndall's experimental setup to demonstrate global warming by CO2.

The three cornerstones of CO2 climate alarmism are Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In the previous post we inspected Fourier. We now turn to

• Tyndall (1861) On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.—The Bakerian Lecture.

We read:

• But this aqueous vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays, is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.
• It is exceeedingly probable that the absorptionof the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air.
• De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate.
• Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate.
• Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.
• It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this;
• Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal.
• However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.

Tyndall reports on laboratory experiments on absorption, but presents no physical quantitative mathematical theory to support his claim that:

• an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects... on changes of climate.

Accordingly, Tyndall immediately withdraws the claim by stating:

• ...the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.

We find here the root of the contradictory arguments repeated over and over in CO2 climate alarmism: A small cause (change of CO2) can have a substantial effect on global temperature, but the size of the effect remains unknown.

The last repetition of Tyndall's argument appeared in Science on Oct 15: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature by climate alarmist Gavin A. Schmidt et al.

But to show scientifically that a small cause will have a substantial effect requires a precise model so that the small cause can be distinguished from other small or big causes. In climate science this model is lacking, and therefore Tyndall's conjecture remains to be demonstrated.

Fourier and his Greenhouse Effect

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830 ) in his grave, still very much present in IPCC.

CO2 climate alarmism is based on an atmospheric "greenhouse effect" attributed to the mathematician Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) as described in General Remarks of the Temperature of the Terrestial Globe and the Planetary Spaces from 1824:

• The heat of the earth is derived from three sources:
• The earth is heated by solar rays.
• It partakes of the common temperature of the planetary spaces; being exposed to innumerable stars which surround the solar system.
• The earth preserves in its interior a part of that primitive heat which it had at the time of the first formation of the planets.
• The interposition of the air very modifies the effects of the upon the surface of the globe. The solar rays traversing the atmospheric strata which are condensed by their own weight, heat them very unequally: those which are rarest are likewise coldest because they extinguish and absorb a smaller part of the rays. The heat of the sun coming in in the form of light, possesses the property of penetrating transparent solids or liquids, and loses this property entirely, when by communicating with terrestial bodies, it is turned into heat radiating without light.
• This distinction between luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation of temperature by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the oceans of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light which returns in a contrary direction to open space.
• The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of observations compared with each other, cannot be exactly defined.
• We see that the surface of the terrestial globe is placed between a solid mass, the central part of which may surpass that of matter heated to whiteness, and an immense girdle, whose temperature is below that requisite for the congelation of mercury.
• It is difficult to know how far the atmosphere influences the mean temperature of the globe, and in this examination we are no longer guided by regular mathematical theory. It is to the celebrated traveller M. de Saussure that we are indebted for capital experiment, which appears to throw light on this question.
• The experiment consists of exposing to the rays of the sun a vessel covered with one or more plates of glass, very transparent and placed with some distance one upon the other. The interior of the vessel is furnished with a thick covering of black cork, proper for receiving and preserving heat. The heated air is contained in all parts both in the interior of the vessel and in between the plates. Thermometers placed in the vessel itself and in the intervals above, mark the degrees of heat in each space. This instrument was placed in the sun about noon and the thermometer in the vessel was seen to rise 70, 80, 100, 110 (Reaumur) and upwards. The thermometers placed in between the glass plates indicated much lower degrees of heat, and the heat decreased form the bottom of the vessel to the highest interval.
• The theory of the instrument is easily understood. It is sufficient to remark, 1st, that the acquired heat is concentrated because it is not dissipated by renewing the air; 2d, that the best of the sun, has properties different from those of heat without light. The rays of that body are transmitted in considerable quantity through the glass plates into all the intervals, even to the bottom of the vessel. They heat the air and the partitions which contain it. Their heat thus communicated ceases to be luminous, and preserves only the properties of non-luminous heat. In this state it cannot pass through the plates covering the vessel.

This is the supposed original scientific basis of IPCC CO2 climate alarmism. We see that

Fourier presents a simplistic theory of a glasshouse with, 1st, blocking of convection and, 2d, radiative heating. Fourier combines this with confused ideas of heating from the interior of the earth and all the stars. No mathematical formulas are presented, only vague ideas in words. The step from Saussure's little experiment to the Earth with atmosphere is immense.

Fourier documents some understanding of blackbody radiation, but altogether he describes a rudimentary and largely incorrect science. Nevertheless, Fourier could have had a leading position in IPCC if he had been present today, since IPCC climate science is built on Fourier's "greenhouse theory", essentially in its original rudimentary confused form presented above.

Compare with Geologist about the missing science of any "greenhouse effect" and the myth of backradiation.

KVA: Vilken Växthuseffekt?

KVAs svarar genom Lennart Bengtsson på mina frågor: 

1. Vad är växthuseffekten och i vilka huvudsakliga vetenskapliga grundarbeten beskrivs och analyseras denna effekt?  
   
2.  Är denna växthuseffekt grunden till den CO2-alarmism som IPCC framför och KVA stödjer?  

Följande svar ges på min fråga 1: 

• (LB) En utmärkt sammanfattning av tidigare arbeten, Fourier(1824), Tyndall(1865), Arrhenius (1896) mm återfinns i boken ”The lagacy of Svante Arrhenius understanding the greenhouse effect” Ed. Rodhe och Charlson, 1998 ISBN 91-7190-0284. Samtliga artiklar i boken rekommenderas för övrigt till läsning liksom de däri refererade artiklarna. En mer detaljerad beskrivning återfinns i Kap 2 i IPCCs vetenskapliga rapport från 2007 och referenserna däri. Fritt nedladdningsbar från IPCCs hemsida.  
• (HD) En god bok å lese er også David Archer, Global warming: Understanding the Forecast, David Archer (Wiley-Blackwell, 2006). Tilknyttet denne boken er det også on-line program som en kan kjøre for å estimere drivhuseffekten av ulike drivhusgasser (se http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs).  
  

och på fråga 2:

• (LB) KVA har sammanfattad sin syn (september 2009) som Academy-statement-on-climate-change.  Jag kan inte anse den alarmistisk på ngt sätt. 
  

Vad kan man säga om detta? LB kommer dragande med gamla arbeten av Fourier, Tyndall och Arrhenius som är matematiskt vetenskapligt simplistiska med triviala modeller för enbart strålning utan hänsyn till konvektion mm, och som inte säger något alls om vilken effekt CO2 kan ha på jordens temp.  Det är ju inte vetenskap, bara gammal skåpmat. 

LB ger två motstridiga meddelanden: 

• Jordens värms upp av människans utsläpp av CO2! Se upp! Farligt! 
  
• Detta är inte alarmistiskt på ngt sätt.

Bravo! Vilket vetenskapligt logiskt matematiskt tänkande! Begrunda LBs presentation:

Huvudtesen är att eftersom vädret är kaotiskt och inte kan förutsägas, så kan klimatet förutsägas som väder-medelvärde: Ju mer oförutsägbart vädret är, desto mer förutsägbart blir klimatet. Ju sämre vädermodellen är, desto bättre blir klimatmodellen. Sen säger LB naturligtvis samtidigt det konträra, nämligen att klimatmodellering är omöjlig, eftersom det 

det hela är kaotiskt...Är detta verkligen det bästa KVA kan prestera?

Men med KVAs  kurragömmalek med indirekta skriftliga svar, kan ju svaranden LB svara precis hur ologiskt och motsägande som helst. I ett direkt möte är detta inte möjligt, men detta tillåter inte KVA. Det var väl inte så Linne och Celsius hade tänkt att Akademin skulle funka...

Jämför med No Consensus Among Climate Scientists After All.

Jämför med Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth'd Temperature av Gavin Schmidt et al:

• The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
  

Vi ser här samma mantra Fourier-Tyndall-Arrhenius som vetenskaplig grund för påstådd växthuseffekt, som LB använder. Vi ser att LB använder samma argument som klimatalarmisten Gavin Schmidt, men LB är naturligtvis inte "alarmistisk på ngt sätt".

Eller vad säger LB?

 

FRS Multiplication Table and CO2

The revised statement by the Royal Society Climate Change Summary of Science is full of scientific misconceptions as noted in the earlier post Royal Society in Free Fall, such as the following presented under the contradictory heading

• Aspects of climate change where there is a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion
  

namely:

• Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants) indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations.
  

In the recent article The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math by Dr Klaus Kaiser at CFP, this is shown to lack any mathematical rationale. How can it be that even elementary mathematics is beyond the capacity of FRS?

Maybe history gives the answer: Recall that FRS Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) in his famous diary records his struggle to learn the multiplication table (July 4th 1662):

• Up by five o'clock, and after my journall put in order, to my office about my business, which I am resolved to follow, for every day I see what ground I get by it.
• By and by comes Mr. Cooper, mate of the Royall Charles, of whom I intend to learn mathematiques, and do begin with him to-day, he being a very able man, and no great matter, I suppose, will content him. After an hour's being with him at arithmetique (my first attempt being to learn the multiplication-table).
  

It seems that Royals have limited talent for mathematics, with one exception proving the validity of this observation: King Karl XII of Sweden was interested in mathematics and in particular wanted to replace the base 10 with 64, and to this end during one single night gave new names to all the numbers from 1 to 63. However, maybe because the corresponding multiplication table was too hard to memorize, his reform attempts came to 0.

BodyandSoul Discussion Forum

Parts of a new e-version of the (old) BodyandSoul mathematics education reform program will be tested at KTH in the course DN1240 Numerical Methods, Basic Course II starting Oct 25.

I hereby open this blog post as a Discussion Forum for the students following the course, and also other interested. An introduction is given in BodyandSoul at KTH.

I hope in particular to get feedback on the new e-version BodyandSoul Mathematical Simulation Technology. I am also more than willing to answer all kinds of questions related to the text. There are many open ends in different directions.

Questions and feedback can be entered as Comments below.

Remember that

• No serious question is stupid.
  
• To not ask questions is stupid.

And listen to these non-stupid observations:

• To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science. (Einstein)
• The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. (Einstein)
• The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge. (Thomas Berger)
• In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. (Galileo Galilei)
• You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself. (Galileo Galilei)
• A subtle thought that is in error may yet give rise to fruitful inquiry that can establish truths of great value. (Isaac Asimov)
• Questions are never indiscreet, answers sometimes are. (Oscar Wilde)
• Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers. (Voltaire)
• There is frequently more to be learned from the unexpected questions of a child than the discourses of men. (John Locke)
• Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago. (Goethe)
• I can't deal with the press; I hate all those Beatles questions. (Paul McCartney)
• ...

The Royals Brooding Difficult Questions

The Scientific Panel of The Royal Academy Seminar on Climate Simulation are still brooding over how to respond to the written questions asked to be posed before the seminar, none of which was answered during the seminar. Meanwhile The Royal Academy gives its own report of the most successful and very well attended seminar under the title Complex Nature Tricks Even the Best Climate Models:

• Global warming is inevitable.
• But how much warmer present climate models cannot tell.
• Professors Lennart Bengtsson and Helge Drange, both experts on different aspects of climate modeling, are sure that the climate is getting warmer, even if the models are deficient.
• The computations are risk analyses and not prognoses, says Bengtsson.
• In Sweden there will be no serious problem, although politicians have wanted it that way. The question is too complex for them, says Bengtsson.

Lennart Bengtsson is clever and main responsible for the statement by the Royal Academy in support of IPCC. Bengtsson says two things:

• It will get warmer, for sure. Funding of IPCC climate alarmism must continue.
• We don't know at all if it will get warmer, because the science is lacking.

But what will be his answers to the questions? The World is waiting...

Swedish Academy of Sciences Violates Principle of Science

The Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry have been awarded since 1901 by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, according to the terms of the Alfred Nobel will.

The Royal Academy serves as the scientific guarantee of Swedish climate politics as expressed in its statement in support of IPCC.

In both these roles scientific credibility is crucial. How does then the Royal Academy show that it is worthy of Nobel's will and the trust of Swedish government and people?

Yesterday I witnessed how the Royal Academy violated the most basic principle of science: open free discussion. A shocking experience worthy of a 1984 totalitarian state. What was then so shocking? Well, what do you say about this:

The Royal Academy arranged a scientific seminar on Prediction of Future Climate (together with The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences IVA) with the following flagrant violations of open scientific discussion:

• only IPCC loyal speakers allowed to pump out standard IPCC dogmas
• not a word of criticism of IPPC
• speakers presented only trivialities as if the audience consisted of fools
• only IPCC loyal speakers allowed in "panel discussion"
• no questions from audience allowed during presentations and panel discussion
• questions to the panel invited to be submitted in advance
• none of the invited submitted questions discussed by the panel.

The audience of about 100 scientists was treated like herd of sheep. Nobody in the audience objected to the treatment, although there were many IPCC critics. A sad experience.

How is this possible? Why does the Royal Academy violate the most holy principle of science

of open free discussion? Why does the Royal Academy support a corrupt IPCC? Why does the Royal Academy humiliate Swedish scientists?

The Nobel Peace Prize to Gore and Pachauri was a joke. Why risk to make also the Prizes in Physics and Chemistry to a joke? What would Alfred Nobel have said? Nothing probably, because he would not have been allowed to speak.

More about the scandal on IVA-skandalen.

How to Silence Critics, Or Not

New York Times reports:

• Green groups are running from a new British advocacy video in which environmentalists deal death to those who refuse to cut their carbon footprints.
  

NYT cites Climate Depot by Marc Morano, former communications director for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.):

• I think the idea of a comedy is fine, and even the gore and blood is part of our pop culture. What is not fine, and what is actually very revealing, is that their impulse -- the intellectual strain that runs through the alarmist movement -- is to try to silence their critics.
• They blame a handful of skeptics for ruining all their schemes, and this is them expressing their frustrations.
  

Another attempt of silencing critics is given in the upcoming climate seminar arranged by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, where only IPPC loyalists are allowed to speak and critics including myself have to mail in questions in advance and just hope that they will not get sorted out...we'll see...

Maybe the efforts to silence critics cannot change the landslide: BBC reports 

• We are now on the edge of seeing the entire international climate regime system disintegrate and fail more or less irreversibly.
  

Why is the climate regime system disintegrating? Because, the science is falling apart.

Compare with German Parlamentarian under Massive Fire - For Skepticism.

On Curry on Climate Models

IPCC scientist Judith Curry writes in What Can We Learn from Climate Models:

• At the heart of climate model complexity lies the nonlinear dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, which is described by the Navier-Stokes equations. 
  
• The solution of Navier-Stokes equations is one of the most vexing problems in all of mathematics: 
• the Clay Mathematics Institute has declared this to be one of the top 7 problems in all of mathematics and is offering a $1M prize for its solution (Millenium Prize Problems). 
• we need  a much more thorough exploration of how we should configure climate models and test their fitness for purpose.  
• Computer simulations have transformed the climate sciences...
• ....given the complexity of the climate problem, climate models are an essential tool for climate research, and are becoming an increasingly valuable tool for a range of societal applications.
  
• But I think the climate modeling enterprise is putting the cart before the horse in terms of attempting a broad range of applications that include prediction of regional climate change, largely driven by needs of policy makers. 

What Judith Curry is saying is that computational solution of the Navier-Stokes equations 

opens new possibilities in climate science, but that a "climate enterprise" driven by policy makers (IPCC) has misused the possiblity. Too bad...

But this is good news for experts on solving the Navier-Stokes equations outside the policy driven climate enterprise... for perspective, see

• The Clay Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem
• The Secret of Turbulence
• Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere
• Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow

and why not Quelques questions...sur le climat by Paul Deheuvels related to the recent debate in l'Academie des Sciences

There are possibilites! And pitfalls, to avoid! 

While Curry answers her own question by: I'm not sure!

Azar Lugnar: Klimathotet Kvarstår

I senaste numret av FORSKNING sänder Prof. Christian Azar, Sveriges miljömäktigaste person, ett lugnande budskap till alla finansiärer av klimatforskning kopplad till FNs klimatpanel IPCC, efter alla skandaler relaterade till IPCC:

• en del faktafel......koldioxid fångar in värmestrålning, hakten ökar, den långsiktiga trenden när det gäller temperaturen pekar uppåt, och så vidare.

Men andra ord: Klimathotet kvarstår och fortsatt finansiering är viktig för mänsklighetens överlevnad:

• det är klart att ett antal aktörer försökt blåsa upp frågan för att misskreditera IPCC och hela klimatvetenskapen, men jag tror den långsiktiga effekten kommer att vara begränsad.

Så talar Tidningen om Svensk Forskning inom Teknik och Naturvetenskap. 

När jag försöker intervjua Azar om den vetenskapliga grunden för hans och IPCCs CO2-alarmism, får jag inga svar, bara frågor...