Climate Feedbacks with Nothing Real to Feed On

Without anything real to feed on because of deep snow, deer are now starving to death...

IPCC climate alarmism is based on a climate sensitivity of 3 C from doubled CO2, presented as the result of feedbacks starting with an initial value of 1 C.

In a survey of IPCC climate science, (former) IPCC scientist Judith Curry has now come to the basic question of Climate Feedbacks:

• Everybody talks about climate feedbacks, but what are they, really? And where did the expression ΔTs = λRF actually come from?
• After two decades of wrestling with this issue, I’m not sure how useful the concept of “feedback” is in the context of the climate system.
• We already saw what kind of trouble we can get into on the thread on CO2 no feedback sensitivity, which is supposed to be the easy part of the problem.
• The problem flat out isn’t linear, and attempting to do a nonlinear control theory analysis is pretty hopeless, as illustrated by the Aires and Rossow paper.
• At best, it seems like the concept is useful as a conceptual aid in thinking about a complex system. Various metrics like ΔTs = λRF or the partial derivatives may have some use in comparing climate models with each other or with observations, but it may not say much about feedback.
• So is this concept useful? If not, can it be salvaged?
• Or are there better ways to try to understand the whole system, something from dynamical systems theory, entropy extremals, etc?

We read that Curry poses questions but we see nothing in the direction of answers.

Curry asks the logical question: If now both the sign and magnitude of feedbacks are

impossible to determine, why was the concept introduced at all?

Because it served IPCC climate alarmism, of course, but there is one important element to understand: Feedbacks need something to feed on, an initial perturbation which can be magnified by positive feedback. So what was then the initial perturbation and how could it be identified by IPCC if nothing else could?

The answer is given in my recent post Definition vs Axiom and Consensus in Climate Science

showing that the initial value to feed on by IPCC is stated to be 1 C, referred to as no-feedback climate sensitivity.

So how is then the initial value of 1 C as no-feedback climate sensitivity determined? By experiments? No, that is impossible. By a theory starting with some assumptions which can be verified? No, nobody knows such a theory.

What remains is to take 1 C as a definition of no-feedback sensitivity to be computed by a

direct application of Stefan-Boltzmann's Black-Body Radiation Law with certain data ("radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2), which invariably gives 1 C.

The advantage of a definition is that full consensus can be reached: It is pointless to question if there are 100 centimeters on a 1 meter. It is pointless to question a no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1 C computed from Stefan-Boltzmann's Law with certain data. That would be like questioning that there are 200 centimeters on 2 meters.

IPCC thus can safely state that there is full consensus about a no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1 C, because it is a definition.

So, a definition is wonderful in the sense that full consensus can be reached as concerns its validity. But the full consensus and absolute truth of a definition does not come without a serious drawback: A definition says nothing about reality.

If we understand this, we understand that the IPCC feedbacks have nothing real to feed on, and

thus cannot say anything about any reality. Curry has understood this, maybe. Anyone else?

For example, what about Lindzen and Spencer? Are they happy to twist, like IPCC, a definition into a potentially alarming physical fact of 1 C, and then have to argue that negative feedback can diminish it to a harmless 0.5 C, using an argument that can easily be questioned? Is this clever? Is it science?

It must be possible for a scientist to understand if a certain statement is a definition, which is true by its construction independent of any reality. Or if it is a statement about reality which may be true or false depending on the reality and therefore can be questioned, because perceptions of reality can differ and thus possibly prevent full consensus.

Why Students Fear the New

From the movie Hets (Torment) 1944, after a screenplay Ingmar Bergman.

KTH-gate concerns an undercover operation in the name of students to prevent BodyandSoul to be used in the new Bachelors program in Simulation Technology to start at KTH in the Fall 2011. Students were stimulated by the School of Engineering Sciences to approach the President of KTH and media with a protest against BodyandSoul in order to "save new students from the dangers of BodyandSoul".

The fact that BS contains some analysis of mathematical models used in climate science, was then used as a pretext, because in Sweden climate hysteria rules, to stop the reform of BS. Students never protested against the old trivial numerics course of little relevance, only against the new non-trivial course of high relevance.

How can we understand that students protest against the new and relevant and support conservation of the old and non-relevant, rather than the opposite as the natural expression of a youthful drive to reform?

How can we understand that older students suddenly become very concerned about the well-being of younger students? That older students want to protect younger students from new material, which the older students have not met and thus cannot judge?

My understanding is that this is a consequence of the fear transmitted to the students from the educational system:

• fear of failing in the studies,
• fear of not getting a job after the studies,
• fear that the younger students may learn new more useful material
• fear to miss something essential of the old when replacing it with the new.

The fear is enforced upon the students by the system with the motivation that it will help the students to perform well and succeed with the examinations.

The fist message by the math teacher is that students who fail in math will fail with everything else in life as well. The math teacher sends this message to inspire the students, knowing very well from experience that half will fail in the math exams, despite the inspiration.

A drawback of fear is that it produces adrenaline which blocks the mind. Another is that students are pushed into a conservative attitude viewing novelties as a threat to be met by resistance, rather than as a possibility to find a place in society to be met with enthusiasm.

I believe that the student engagement in KTH-gate can be understood from this perspective.

A good (non-scared) teacher can help students to open their minds to the new without fear. A bad (scared) teacher does the opposite.

The Ipad Effect and BodyandSoul

Having acquired an Ipad, and used it for a couple of days, I have become convinced that the Ipad Effect will have a huge impact on education on all levels.

This is good news for the BodyandSoul mathematics education reform program, since it is geared to become an Ipad App.

In this perspective the action at KTH to stop BodyandSoul, described as KTH-Gate, seems even more ridiculous than before. It would be the same as preventing new students at KTH to have access to the Ipad and its booming industry of Apps and Accessories.

KTH at the Fork

The Royal Institute of Technology KTH (in the service of humanity, for the society of tomorrow) is wrestling in agony under the pressure of the new age of the computer demanding changes in engineering education, in particular a reform of the basic mathematics education setting the frame for the entire education.

During this fall parts of the BodyandSoul reform program has been tried out in the 2nd year course Numerical Methods II as a test of functionality for the new Bachelors program in Simulation Technology planned to start in the Fall 2011.

The traditional system has met the demands of modernization in BodyandSoul with a relentless

oppression, which I have described as KTH-Gate in previous posts.

In short, the School of Engineering Sciences SCI (math, mechanics, physics) buying the course from the School of Computer Science and Communication CSC, has used the course

to kill the new program in Simulation Technology, using dirty techniques far outside rules of academic dispute, as told in KTH-Gate: The Story.

So is the deed completed? Has Simulation Technology and BodyandSoul and modernization of mathematics education been prevented to enter between the Cerberus dogs (hounds of Hell) protecting the impressive brick buildings of KTH from exterior influence?

Well, this is the question now pondered by the teachers of CSC behind Simulation Technology,

teachers which have been harassed by SCI all through the numerics course.

KTH has formally decided to start Simulation Technology in the Fall 2011, the brochures to attract students are out with applications to be submitted in April. What is missing is the formal decision of the CSC teachers to take on the responsibility to run the program.

But the teachers are hesitating: Is it worth risking physical and mental health to run the program under a continued subversive artillery from SCI?

Maybe not. But as an independent observer, you probably ask if there are no responsible persons at KTH, like the President and the Dean of the Faculty, with responsibility to both students, teachers and society, to guarantee that KTH functions properly.

Yes, the President and the Dean have this responsibility.

But the President says nothing, and the Dean says nothing. And saying nothing means doing nothing. They watch an auto-immun reaction with one part of KTH eating another, without lifting a finger. The President describes his inaction in Questions to the President from Media.

Whatever happens, and whatever decision the teachers of Simulation Technology will take, KTH-Gate is not over. During my entire academic career I have not seen anything worse, and I have seen quite a bit. Modernization of engineering education is necessary and not even Kerberos dogs can prevent it.

How to Kill a Sky Dragon by Mathematics

Our new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory is topping Amazon eBook lists. The paperback version will appear after Christmas along with radio and TV presentations.

The message of the book is that the so-called atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Effect GGE, presented by IPCC as the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism, lacks sound mathematical and physical rationale.

My role in the team of authors is to shoot with the weapon of mathematics at the heart of climate science consisting of the two chambers

• blackbody radiation: transfer of heat energy by electromagnetic waves
• thermodynamics: interplay of heat energy and kinetic/potential energy under gravitation.

GGE is claimed to result from a small change of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 (from 0.028% to 0.056%) capable of changing the heat transfer between the Earth Surface ES and the Top Of the Atmosphere TOA and causing warming of ES of 2 - 4.5 C.

GGE thus concerns substantial change of ES temperature under a very small perturbation of the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere connecting ES with TOA. GGE as

a mathematical/physical mechanism is thus unstable, in the sense that a small cause gives a big effect: a small change of an atmospheric trace gas can change global climate.

To change something small into something substantial, it is necessary to multiply the small with something big. To this end GGE has invented the concept of "backradiation" with ES emitting 390 W/m2 out of which 340 W/m2 is received from TOA as re-emitted radiation from ES, with 340 W/m2 = 100% of gross (total) incoming radiation from the Sun.

"Backradiation" thus gives GGE a major energy flow of 340 W/m2 to operate on, namely a circulating flow of energy (equal to gross incoming energy) transferring energy from ES to TOA and back again. GGE now says that a trace gas changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere by say 1% operating on the circulation of 340 W/m2 can give rise to a change of 3.4 W/m2 which by Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law can be connected to about 1 C of global warming. This gives the basic axiom of IPCC CO2 alarmism of a climate sensitivity of 1 C upon doubling of atmospheric CO2, which then is inflated to 2 - 4.5 C by imagined feedbacks of factors 2 - 5.

The basic killer shot of my contribution to the book, is a mathematical analysis of blackbody radiation showing that "backradiation" is unphysical, because it corresponds to an unstable process which cannot be realized. The result is that the radiative transfer of heat energy between ES and TOA consists of a net transfer of about 120 W/m2, about 1/3 of the fictitious

circulating flow of 340 W/m2. This reduces the basic climate sensitivity to less than 0.3 C,

which cannot be used to create alarm, because feedback factors of size 10 lack any scientific rationale.

It thus appears to be possible to kill the Sky Dragon by one shot (my blackbody article). If that does not turn out to be enough, depending on the audience, another shot can be launched at an unprotected flank of the Dragon by recalling the fact that climate results from a combination of thermodynamics under gravitation and radiation, and that GGE is essentially based on radiation alone (my thermodynamics article). The second shot says that not only the magnitude of climate sensitivity is unclear but also its sign: It is conceivable that more CO2 can cause some (small) cooling.

I believe that the above shots can be effective in coming TV and radio presentations, because convincing mathematics is hard to deny, for both alarmists and skeptics.

But even if the Sky Dragon is afraid of mathematics, because alarmistic Dragons have limited intellectual capacity, what the Dragon fears the most is, yes cold weather, and the record lows now hitting Europe is turning the Dragon into a freezing lame duck which will not likely survive the winter. And what we have seen is only the beginning according to one of the slayers, Piers Corbyn.

An analogy in economics presents itself: Imagine a national economy with a large scale circulation of money from high taxes and large government subsidies of the order of trillions

of dollars, and imagine a broker charging the tiny percentage say 0.0o1%, with a net profit

of billions of dollars. Nice, right? But what about the stability of an economy with unlimited circulation of money, of fictitious money without any real value? Any clue?

Definition vs Axiom and Consensus in Climate Science

In mathematics and physics it is essential to understand the difference between a definition

and an axiom or assumption. The statement that 100 centimeters equals 1 meter, is a definition

which is true by its own inner logic, and which cannot be disputed. The statement that a certain stick is 100 cm may be true or not true, depending on the actual length of the stick in question.

An assumption may be true or false, while a definition always is true. Full consensus can only

be reached for definitions.

However, to confuse definition and axiom is a trick that is sometimes used to confuse opponents in a discussion. The more stupid your opponents are, the better it works if you decide to use this trick.

An example: No Feedback Climate Sensitivity, as the rise of global temperature upon doubling of atmospheric CO2, is claimed to be 0.25. This mean that the warming would be 1 C upon radiative forcing of 4 W/m2 associated with doubled CO2. This is well described by Judith Curry in threads on CO2 no-feedback sensitivity.

Is this a definition or a fact? Well, it is a definition because the number 0.25 comes from Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and it is assumed that this law is to be used and this gives 0.25.

This explains why also skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer agree on a No Feedback Climate Sensitivity of 0.25. In fact everybody agrees on this in complete consensus, because it is a definition. It is pointless to argue about a definition, but one should remember that a definition does not say anything about reality, about the length of specific stick for example. A definition

is always true, cannot be false by its construction, and thus is empty of content.

But now comes the trick: Since there is (complete) consensus about a Climate Sensitivity of 0.25, one can fool people to believe that this says something about real global climate, which can be taken as a starting point when adding various feedbacks to get an IPCC best estimate

of climate sensitivity of the size 1 sending an alarm of a global warming of up 4 C.

So by twisting a definition into a physical fact, one can obtain what seems to be a statement about physical reality, which cannot be denied. Clever, but it is a "trick", which you see through if you do not want to fool yourself.

The master of twisting a definition into a physical fact was Einstein, who based (special) relativity on the constancy of the speed of light (in vaccum), without ever telling if he meant it to be a definition or a statement about physics, something which physicists still don't know for sure, and which is still causing a lot of confusion.

So remember, if there is complete consensus about a statement expressed in physical terms, as IPCC claims to be the case as concerns a No Feedback Climate Sensitivity of 0.25, then the statement is a definition which says nothing about physics. It is not to be expected that IPCC will be able to understand this, but what about Lindzen and Spencer?

Recall:

• Penguin Logic of Greenhouse Gases.
• Is One Dollar = One Euro?

Cause-Effect vs Finite Precision Computation and Stability

In recent work I have explored the role of finite precision computation, in physics in analog form and in mathematics in digital form as models of physics, typically as differential equations of the form

• A(U) = F

where F is given forcing (input), A is a differential operator and U the corresponding system state (output).

In physics the input generates the output by some physical mechanism, viewed as some form of

analog computation, which is represented mathematically by digital computation with the output U being computed from the input F in computational solution of the differential equation.

The stability of the computational process, in analog physical or digital mathematical form, reflects how perturbations of input transform through the computational solution process to perturbations in output. If small perturbations of input transform to small perturbations of output, then the process is stable, while if small perturbations in input may result in large

perturbations in out, the problem is unstable.

As a basic example let us consider Newton's 2nd Law

• M dV/dt = F

where M is the mass of a particle moving with velocity V(t) under the action of the force F(t)

as functions of time t. With F(t) input and V(t) output this is a stable problem, since the solution process corresponds to integrating F(t), which is a stable summation process.

However, if we turn data around and view V(t) as input and F = M dV/dt as output, then the

process is unstable, since differentiation is unstable because it involves division by the small

quantity dt: Small perturbations in V(t) are magnified by the large factor 1/dt in the computation of dV/dt.

We now connect to the old question of cause-effect in a relation between two entities F and

U connected by an equation A(U) = F. The question is what is the cause and what is the effect,

F or U?

If the problem A(U) = F with F input and U output is a stable problem, then it is natural to view F as the cause and U the effect: The effect will then be essentially the same under small perturbations of the cause. On the other hand if it is an unstable problem, then it is not natural to view F as the cause and U as the effect, since small variations in F may give vastly different effects.

This argument has led us to identify cause-effect from stability point of view into a new analysis of the physics and mathematics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and blackbody radiation, as developed in

• Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow
• Computational Thermodynamics
• Computational Blackbody Radiation.

In the setting of Newton's 2nd law M dV/dt = F, we may thus view the force F as cause and

the velocity V as the effect, but not the other way around.

In climate science a basic problems concerns the relation between global temperature and

level of atmospheric CO2, which with temperature as input and CO2 as output may very well be stable, while CO2 as input and temperature as output may very well be unstable.

A diffusion process like heat conduction is stable with heat source and initial temperature as input and temperature at a later time as output. On the other hand, "backdiffusion" with

temperature input at a later time than output is unstable without cause-effect and thus unphysical. Softening a sharp image in Photoshop into a blurred image by diffusion is a stable

process, while sharpening by "backdiffusion" is unstable.

The same holds for "backradiation" proposed as a mechanism for global warming by "greenhouse" gases, as explained in Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.

Why are Skeptics Skeptical to Other Skeptics?

Our new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Effect is topping Amazon

ebook lists, but its has (so far) received little attention from other climate skeptics.

This indicates that climate skeptics are not only skeptical to CO2 alarmism, but also to other

skeptics skeptical to CO2 climate alarmism. It seems as if each skeptic seeks to protect a special domain of skepticism, and that this separatism is more important that unity against the common target of CO2 alarmism. Is this a correct observation, and if so is it desirable to seek a correction?

Is it so that there are so many skeptics of different color, size, background and agenda, that unity among skeptics is impossible?

Skeptics do not even agree in their skepticism to the basic question of the physics of the greenhouse effect. Is it because the greenhouse effect is fiction and there are so many ways to be skeptical to a non-existing physical phenomena? Like skepticism to ghosts which can take a large variety of different forms?

In Sweden the book has been banned by Royal Institutions controling the minds of the loyal citizens of the Kingdom, and is invisible even on skeptical websites. The reason for the ban is that the book contains a mathematical analysis of Planck's model of blackbody radiation and the equations of thermodynamics, which raises questions concerning the so-called atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.

The control of mathematics taken by Institutions is similar to the control of physics by the same by declaring that the Earth will not be permitted to heat up more than 2 C, with UN negotiations under way setting the limit to 1.5 C. This is a firm action taken by in particular EU to control both climate energy budgets and state monetary budgets.

It seems that our free open democratic Swedish society can only exist under a very strict firm steady all encompassing control with uncompromising ban of anything unacceptable.

PS Lubos and The Reference Frame is representative of many skeptics: Instead of focussing on the real scientific issue, which is the nature of the so-called greenhouse gas effect and climate sensitivity, Lubos finds irrelevant aspects outside science to pick on. Why not follow Leibniz and ask if there is something of interest in our book, rather than just trying to find something of little interest to question?

In Search of a Lost Greenhouse Effect

Judith Curry is making a heroic effort to find the physics of the atmospheric "greenhouse effect", which is much talked about but nobody has really seen:

• We need to raise the level of our game in terms of explaining the planetary warming by infrared absorption of CO2 etc. The missing area of understanding seems to be the actual physical mechanism.

In the recent post CO2 No Feedback Sensitivity Curry questions even the very starting point of CO2 alarmism, namely a climate sensitivity of 1 C from a direct application of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law Q = sigma T^4, which in differentiated form with Q ~ 280 W/m2 and T ~ 280 K reads dQ ~ 4 dT and thus gives dT ~ 1 C upon input of "radiative forcing" of dQ ~ 4 W/m^2.

This is along the criticism I have expressed: To take 1 C as a starting point for various feedbacks is not science, because the formula Q = sigma T^4 as a model of global climate is so utterly simplistic: One can as well argue that one should take 0 C as starting point, and then enormous feedbacks would be required.

Curry admits that she does not know the physics ("the actual physical mechanism") of any atmospheric greenhouse effect, and she asks if there is anyone somewhere out there in cyberspace who does. Isn't this strange? Is the greenhouse effect dead? Was it never alive?

Compare with Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (now #1 on Amazon ebook lists).

Questions to the President of KTH from Media

I here publish a letter to KTH President Peter Gudmundsson from John O'Sullivan, science writer and legal analyst. The answers by the President will be published when available.

Letter by John O'Sullivan Dec 10 2010:

President Royal Institute of Technology KTH

Dear President Gudmundson,

I am a science writer and legal analyst and I write for a syndicate of international news websites. I am following up on the recent story regarding the banning of a book used at KTH. The book in question, ‘BodyandSoul’ is written by one of your professors, Claes Johnson.The story is gaining widespread interest as it raises the question of academic freedom. So far the media has published no official response from you on this problematic issue. I would very much like to publish your side of the story and I give you my assurance that I will publish your full response.

In this regard I would be most grateful if you would kindly answer the following questions:

1. Did you stop and replace the book, ‘BodyandSoul’ or not?
2. If so, why? Was there some particular material in the book that had to be stopped? Exactly what was unacceptable?
3. Were you under pressure from some group or organization or was your decision totally independent of external influence?
4. What is you view on ‘BodyandSoul’ as a modern mathematics educational program?
5. Is the mathematics education at KTH up to date and functional?

May I thank you in advance for your kind consideration of these issues.

Kind regards, John O’Sullivan

Answer by President Gudmundson Dec 13 10.02:

Dear Mr. O’Sullivan,

Please find below my answers to your questions:

• Did you stop and replace the book, ‘BodyandSoul’ or not? No
• If so, why? Was there some particular material in the book that had to be stopped?See answer above. Exactly what was unacceptable? See answer above.
• Were you under pressure from some group or organization or was your decision totally independent of external influence? No
• What is you view on ‘BodyandSoul’ as a modern mathematics educational program? No personal view on this.
• Is the mathematics education at KTH up to date and functional? Yes

Sincerely yours, Peter Gudmundson

Letter by John O'Sullivan Dec 13 11.47:

Dear President,

Thank you for your precise answers to rebut the claims of Professor Johnson. However, Johnson has made further statements over the weekend in the press that the book has been removed from the course.

This is causing confusion and is not helped by the fact that Metro-Teknik has also published a statement they attribute to you that claims that you say the book has been removed and replaced by KTH. Can you confirm or deny that the statements allegedly made by you in Metro-Teknik are correct? Was the book "replaced by KTH"? Are both Johnson and Metro-Teknik lying?

Also, there is what appears to be your official statement in DN that "pages were removed by responsible persona at KTH.” Would you care to comment on the truthfulness of the DN statement or clarify the meaning? Are your words being misrepresented by others?

Many thanks in advance, John O’Sullivan

Answer by Peter Gudmundson Dec 13 17.31:

Dear Mr. O´Sullivan,

I repeat that I have not taken any decisions regarding the book “BodyandSoul”. Questions related to individual courses are handled by the Schools that are involved, in this case School of Computer Science and Communication and School of Engineering Sciences. This has also been the case in the course that you refer to.

Concerning statements in newspapers there can be misinterpretations.

Sincerely yours, Peter Gudmundson

Letter by John O'Sullivan Dec 15 14.37:

Dear President,

I have now clarified with Metro-Teknik that you were not instrumental in imposing the banning of any part of Professor Johnson's book, 'BodyandSoul'. But can you please clarify, in your role as president, if part of KTH has placed such a ban on this book? Also, can you tell me which part of your organization did this and for what reason and do you approve of such a ban?

Many thanks for your help with this important issue.

Regards, John

Answer by Peter Gudmundson:

No answer Dec 16: The President is thinking.

No answer Dec 20: The President is hesitating.

No answer Dec 21: The President has nothing to say.

No answer Dec 25: The President has decided to say nothing.

Media coverage by John O'Sullivan will follow...

Analysis Dec 15:

The following key questions are now facing the President:

• Has BS been banned at KTH? If Yes, by whom and why?
• If BS has not been banned at KTH, why does the President say to media that it has?
• Which are the "misinterpretations" presented by newspapers, and what are correct interpretations to publish?

The following further questions present themselves:

• Does the President of KTH have a responsibility to correct "misinterpretations" in media of statements made to media by KTH and the President of KTH?
• Can KTH afford to have its reputation damaged by "misinterpretations" in media?
• What in fact is "misinterpreted"?
• If there are "misinterpretations" in media, are there also "misinterpretations" at KTH?
• Can the President of KTH supply media with "misinterpretations" of my scientific work without any reaction from the Faculty of KTH?
• Has the President received protests from students concerning BS? If so, what were the students protesting against and what was the reaction of the President?
• Why does the President refuse all forms of contact with me, while apparently uncritically communicating disinformation from others?

The President has not been willing to have any communication with me, not to speak of a personal meeting, except sending me the laconic email "I have not removed BodyandSoul", in conformity with the above: "

I have not taken any decisions regarding the book BodyandSoul".

As far as I can understand, BS has been banned by KTH, as demonstrated by the fact that the

course homepage does not contain a direct link to the book, only the statement

• The course uses a set of chapters from a draft of the e-book "Body and Soul, Mathematical Simulation Technology", by Johan Jansson and Claes Johnson. A specification of the chapters included in this course can be found here.

The net result is that the book is banned, while a certain set of chapters from the book is not banned. The book contains 261 chapters and the set contains less than 20 chapters. I do not acknowledge any excerpt from the book consisting of this set of chapters.

There is one book, the ebook BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (eBS), and a

s far as I can understand, eBS has been banned at KTH by

some part of the organization of KTH.

Who is/are responsible for the censorship? Students? Dean of School of Engineering Sciences?

President? Faculty? Nobody?

Öppet Brev till Fakultetsnämnden KTH

Rektor KTH Peter Gudmundsson: Efter att studenter protesterat hos ansvariga på KTH har den omtalade boken ersatts. Men trots det fortsätter ansvariga lärare att använda boken i kursen. (Metro-Teknik)...Efter att studenterna klagat tog skolan bort sidor i boken (DN).

Fakultetsnämnden KTH

Folke Snickars

Härmed anmodar jag Fakultetsnämnden KTH att till behandling ta upp det fall som i detalj beskrivs under beteckning KTH-Gate på min professionella blogg Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science i poster daterade fr o m 26/11 t o m 8/12 2010.

I korthet handlar KTH-Gate om det faktum att Rektor KTH i media (Metro-Teknik) har sagt att KTH "plockat bort" och "ersatt" av mig framställt kursmaterial för kursen Numerical Methods II i form av eboken BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology tillgänglig från min hemsida i draft form, mitt under pågående kurs utan hörande av varken de lärare som valt att använda boken i sagda kurs eller bokens författare.

I media anges anledningen till denna (i svensk högskolehistoria förmodligen unika händelse) vara att i boken, utan att dessa avsnitt alls används i kursen, finns en matematisk analys av vissa ekvationer (Planck's strålningslag och termodynamikens ekvationer) som utgör klimatmodelleringens grundekvationer, och att denna analys fått studenter att reagera och "tvinga" Rektor att till media meddela att boken "plockats bort" och "ersatts".

Flera för högskolan principiellt viktiga frågor inställer sig:

1. Har Rektor (eller "KTH") rätt att "plocka bort" böcker från undervisningen, utan att höra Fakultetsnämnd eller Kollegium? Eller lärare? Är det inte Fakulteten som skall fatta beslut i vetenskapliga frågor som tex Planck's strålningslag eller termodynamik?
2. Varför har Rektor gått ut i media (DN, Metro-Teknik, Ny Teknik) utan att vid något tillfälle haft någon kontakt med mig i min roll som författare och professor vid KTH?
3. Kan studenter "tvinga KTH" att "plocka bort" böcker?
4. Finns det andra krafter än studenter, som kan "tvinga KTH" att "plocka bort" böcker? Vilka i så fall?

Jag önskar att Fakultetsnämnden tar upp dessa frågor till behandling jämväl andra relaterade frågor om så skulle finnas motiverat. Den väsentliga bakgrundsinformationen finns som sagt på min blogg.

Hälsningar

Claes Johnson

Rapportering av Fakultetsnämndens behandling av min begäran kommer att lämnas allteftersom ärendet behandas.

Dec 11: Besked om att ärendet mottagits har inte inkommit. Då naturligtvis ej heller att mitt begäran om granskning bifallits.

Dec 15: Besked från Folke Snickars om att ärendet mottagits har inte inkommit, trots att jag

upprepat min begäran därom.

Den 15/12 träffar jag Carl Falck, förbundsjurist SULF, för att utreda vad SULF kan göra i ärendet.

KTH-Gate: The Story

Listen to the dinner speech by physics Laurate Andre Geim: ...human progress has always been driven by a sense of adventure and unconventional thinking...these virtues are often forgotten for the sake of cautiousness and political correctness that now rule the world and we sink deeper and deeper from democracy into a state of mediocracy and even idiocracy...

My recent posts tell a story, first incredible, then laughable, and then terrifying about our glorious Royal Swedish Academic System, which is now unraveling at the Royal Institute of Technology KTH. A resume is as follows:

• A new Bachelor program in Simulation Technology based on my mathematics education program BodyandSoul BS is being planned to start in 2011 under the School of Computer Science and Communication CSC.
• For this program I have developed BS into a webbased form eBS, parts of which are now being tested in the course Numerical Methods II during the 2nd fall quarter, for a group of 150 engineering students under the School of Mathematics and Science MS.
• eBS is in draft form and is only available from my home page under my copyright and is not published or available elsewhere.
• eBS has about 2100 pages, out which say 200 are included in Numerical Methods II.
• The course is taught by a group of teachers from CSC, not including myself, and the planning and choice of material from the book has been entirely up to this group.
• I have not met the students and told them anything, except what they can find themselves in eBS with its many links to the outside world of science and simulation.
• eBS contains a mathematical analysis of some mathematical models including Planck's blackbody radiation law and the basic equations of thermodynamics, which form the basis of climate modeling and simulation. None of these parts are covered in the course.
• MS is "buying" Numerical Methods II from CSC and has had eBS for inspection since the summer 2010. Suddenly in week 2 of the 7-week course in November, MS discovers that eBS contains a mathematical analysis of blackbody radiation and thermodynamics, which can be seen as a critical analysis of some of science forming the basis of CO2 alarmism.
• MS also discovers that since the summer I have added a foreword to the students asking them to think for themselves, to be critical to all texts including eBS, and to not buy anything just on authority.
• In addition, the book states that traditional education is, yes, traditional, and that our new IT-society requires, yes, a modernization of (engineering) education.
• These three aspects, filling less than 5% of the book volume, turn out to be explosive, and when they combine, fusion results or rather "cold fusion" = scientific hoax.
• MS decides to use Swedish climate hysteria as a pretext to kill the Bachelor program in Simulation Technology, which is a threat to MS since it offers a mathematics/science education outside MS.
• To this end MS stimulates a couple of students to sell the idea that eBS has to be stopped because eBS "denies climate change" which in Sweden is heresy.
• Powered by MS the little gang of students thus approaches media sucking for news of about anything "denying climate change" to crack down upon, to tell about the horrible story that in a numerics course a book is used asking students to "deny climate change" to pass the exam. Horrible, right?
• The gang of students gets major backing by Lennart Bengtsson as a spokesman for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, who characterizes my 2100 pages book as "bullshit" or "rappakalja" in Finnish-Swedish, because it can be seen as some questioning of IPCC alarmism from a mathematical point of view and thus also of the support of IPCC by the Academy formulated by, yes Bengtsson himself.
• But the book does nothing but analyzes some mathematical models, and the course covers nothing about climate modeling whatsoever.
• What media then reports without checking with me is a series of lies about eBS and my work. In week 6 of the course.
• The gang of students also supplies the President of KTH Peter Gudmundsson with the same disinformation, after which the President quickly informs media that KTH has "deleted pages" in the book or more precisely "removed" the whole book and "replaced" it as course material. Without any contact with me whatsoever, or the teachers of the course for that matter. Of course "bullshit" has to "be removed", right?
• Was it student protests, media or something else which forced the Presidsent to claim to have "removed" the book?
• During 5 weeks eBS thus has been used in the course and in week 6, eBS is suddenly "removed" and "replaced", according to the President.
• In effect, the course continues with eBS as before.
• In this situation I decide to withdraw my permission to use my copyrighted material eBS in the course, because it is meaningless to offer a book to KTH which has been "replaced" by KTH. Right?
• I inform CSC that my permission to use the eBS is no longer valid, and that continued use will be a breach of my copyright. CSC tells me that the book will anyway be used, because it is good and the teachers like it, as well as many students if not all. It is so good that it will be used even without my permission to use it. Understand how good it must be?
• There we are now in week 7: eBS has been publicly "burned" by the President of KTH, but is still alive and in use at KTH, without my consent to use it as my copyrighted material.
• Swedish media is silent. To report about books "denying climate change" is important. To question if suppression of mathematical analysis is OK in the Kingdom of Sweden is of no interest.
• Swedish Academia is silent, being fully occupied preparing to hand out Noble Prizes and give speeches about the importance of free expression of scientific ideas, in the World if not in Sweden.
• The course home page now states under Course Material: The course uses a set of chapters from a draft of the e-book "Body and Soul, Mathematical Simulation Technology", by Johan Jansson and Claes Johnson. There is no link to the book, only the laconic "set of chapters" effectively hiding the course and course material from outside inspection (correct?). This means that the book has been "removed" (or dismembered murdered (styckmördats)) at KTH with only a small innocent residue viewed to be acceptable as food to the students. Mission complete: The statement by the President to the media is correct: BodyandSoul removed at KTH. The reporting by the media is correct: Censorship at KTH. This is Sweden in 2010.
• But is it really OK for KTH/President to "remove" a book from a KTH course, while it is still being used in the course by the teachers having decided to use the book, without first asking the Faculty (Committee) at KTH? What does the Law say? I have posed this question to the Faculty and will report on the answer.
• It seems clear that scientific questions (e.g. Planck's Law) is to be handeled by the Faculty and not by the President, or the students (it is not 68 now).
• The device of KTH "Vetenskap and Konst" or "Science and Craftmanship", seems to be incompatible with "Body and Soul", to be compared with that of King Oscar I "Law and Truth".

You can download eBS from my home page for inspection and strictly personal use.

PS Dec 9: A link to the book has now been hidden as a sublink to a sublist of subchapters included in the course. To put up a link to the book on the course home page, has been declared impossible by Dean Melinder, despite my expressed demand that the book should come with a link. You see here the higher levels of low-level academic educated infight: Of course a "removed book" can only have a "removed link", right?

I look forward to the moment when KTH will come asking for the "removed" book, in order to have some material to offer in the new Bachelors program in Simulation Technology: What will be needed is Mathematical Simulation Technology, right?

KTH-Gate: (Climate) Mathematics "Stopped"

During the week Swedish media have been reporting that my new ebook BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (can also be downloaded from my home page), parts of which are being used as course material in the 2nd year course Numerical Methods II within the engineering physics program at the Royal Institute of Technology KTH, has been "stopped" by the President of KTH, because the book contains a mathematical analysis of some models related to climate simulation (which by the way is not included in the numerics course).

A coordinated action by KTH has stimulated students and climate alarmists to supply media with statements such as:

Dagens Nyheter: Greenhouse Effect a Myth According to KTH-book:

• We (students) got very upset when we saw the book. There are statements in the book that climate change does not exist.
• After student protests, pages in the book have been deleted...
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: unphysical, completely wrong, nonsense, miserable quality, bullshit ("rappakalja" in Finnish-Swedish).

Metro-Teknik: KTH-book Denying Climate Crisis Stirs Up Trouble:

• Student protests force KTH to "remove" the book.
• To pass exam we have to deny climate change, a student says.
• President KTH Peter Gudmundson: After student protests to KTH, the (in)famous book has been "removed" and "replaced". Nevertheless the teachers for the course continue to use the book.

Ny Teknik: Censorship at KTH:

• Leif Kari (in charge of the engineering physics program): We don't want to have anything to do with the book. It is extremely unusual to "stop a book". This is very serious.
• Lennart Bengtsson again: Deplorable piece of work.

(Lennart Bengtsson is the main author of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Statement on Climate Change in support of IPCC).

As of now the book has formally been "stopped" by KTH, yet it continues to be used as course material in the numerics course, which now enters into its final 7th week (by the way without covering anything about climate simulation). This is a contradiction which somehow must be resolved. Mathematics does not tolerate contradictions.

There are many interesting (or alarming) aspects of this story:

• How can the book continue to be used if it has been "replaced"?
• Is it possible to "delete pages" or "remove" a book without any further ado?
• A student "confesses" that the "stop" has nothing to do with climate, but is intended to "stop" the new simulation technology presented in the book from being taught at KTH. Climate is being used only as a pretext, because it is so "easy to sell" to Swedish public and media.
• Is it possible to "stop" mathematics? Is it possible to "stop" someone from that saying 2 + 2 = 4, at KTH?
• Why is mathematical analysis of climate models so explosive?
• Why is mathematical simulation technology so explosive?
• When was a math book last "removed"?

You can decide yourself if there is reason to "remove" the book, by downloading and browsing through the 2100 pages.

We see two streams meeting at the same point causing ignition: climate alarmism and mathematical simulation technology. Why does the combination explode? Because climate simulation is mathematics. Because mathematics can be powerful. Because 2 + 2 = 4 can be devastating. World media are awakening, stay tuned...

The ban of my work by KTH has not caused any attention whatsoever in Swedish academia. Simply business as usual according to the usual Royal Standards: It is fully natural that a spokesman for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences can flood media with invectives directed to eliminate my work from this planet, or at least from the Royal Kingdom, without any discussion. It is fully natural that the Royal Academy in this endeavor is assisted by the President of the Royal Institute of Technology, who refuses any form of contact with me.

And if I try to counter by referring to the fact that I am one of the very few in Sweden on the ICI Highly Cited list of the Worlds most cited scientists, or among the awardees of the Humboldt Research Prize, I get the response: Who cares about such lists and prizes, when it is the role of Swedish science to give out Nobel Prizes, from the hands of the King? Next week, including a wonderful banquet and dancing through the night.

Some links reporting on the scandal:

• Fria Tider: Klimatskeptisk litteratur stoppad.
• John O'Sullivan: Global Warming University in Shock Ban on Academic Freedom and Debate
• ClimateChangeDispatch
• Global Warming University in Shock Ban on Academic Freedom and Debate (Canada Free Press)
• ClimateRealists
• Greenie Watch
• Moderna Myter
• Carbon Warfares Rules of Engagement (Canada Free Press)
• Ecotretas

Observation: The only Swedish newspaper media which reports on the political suppression of the most holy principle of science of freedom of expression of scientific results, is Fria Tider,

whose editor evidently puts his vote on the nationalistic Swedish Democrats. What does

this tell us about Sweden of today? Any idea?

PS 6 pm: The book has now been fully separated from the course Numerical Methods II due to decisions taken by the President of KTH, who thus has completed his mission to "erase" the book from KTH , if not from the outer World. Continued use of the book at KTH without my consent will be a violation of my copyright. I have asked The President to inform students and teachers to avoid being sued for violating copyright. The contradiction of continuing to use a book at KTH which has been stopped by KTH, is thereby resolved.

9.30 am 7/12: The course home page states that BS is still used in the course, in violation

of my copyright. I have stated that continued use requires written consent by me and the President of KTH. The President has up til now refused all forms of contact with me, except stopping my book at KTH.

10.15 am: Violation of copyright continues. Swedish academia stays silent, fully focussed on

the Nobel festivitas.

11.00 am: Violation continues. Swedish academia is creeping very closely to the ground and has nothing to say, except the impressive invectives by Lennart Bengtsson, representing the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

12.00: I have informed the students that I have withdrawn my permission to use BS in the course, and that continued use is illegal as a violation of my copyright.

2.00 pm: Violation continues. No reaction from KTH.

3.00 pm: My good friend John O'Sullivan, legal analyst of the Sky Dragon team, has offered

his expert assistance in progressing legal remedy. There are rumors that it was Dagens Nyheter as the main newspaper in Sweden with a very CO2 alarmistic reporting, which forced the President of KTH to stop my math book. I have no idea if this has any truth value, but I have little chance to find out by asking the President, since he is refusing to talk to me. But of course I can pose the question here: Why, mr. President, did you stop my book at KTH?

5.00 pm: The violation continues. I have been informed that the Dean of Computer Science Ingrid Melinder has had a meeting with the teachers of the course telling them that it is OK to use the book even without my consent and that she as Dean takes the full responsibility if this happens to be outside the law.

9.00 pm: The violation of my copyright continues. No contact from Dean Ingrid Melinder or

President Peter Gudmundson. Evidently, Dean Melinder has taken on the direct responsibility for violating the copyright, supported by the President I guess.

8.00 am 8/12: I have asked Dean Melinder to confirm in writing that she takes on the full responsibility of breaching the copyright, if there is one, and I have informed the teachers that they should also ask for such a document, to stand free when they now continue teaching the

course using BS upon the order of Melinder.

1.00 pm: Dean Melinder refuses to confirm that she has ordered the teachers to continue using BS despite the fact that this may be a breach of copyright. In any case it is impossible that

Dean Melinder is not fully aware of the fact that my permisson to use my copyrighted material at KTH, is missing. It will be impossible for Dean Melinder to argue that she "had the impression" that I have given permission or that my permission is "not necessary".

5.00 pm: Dean Melinder informs me that since I once gave permission to use my material in the course, this holds irrespective of anything else, e. g. irrespective of the President of KTH telling media that my material has been "removed" and "replaced". Even so it will be used, since it is so much needed. The logic is strict and convincing, right? I tell Dean Melinder that if the President informs media that he wants to change his story to a true one, then I might renew my permission. Will the President do this? Media is waiting...

Öppet Brev till Rektor KTH angående BodyandSoul

Kopia av brev till Rektor KTH kl 9.58 1/12 2010

Rektor KTH

Metro-Teknik skriver 29/11 angående min bok BodyandSoul:

Studentprotester tvingade KTH att plocka bort boken.

Efter att studenter protesterat hos ansvariga på KTH har den omtalade boken ersatts. Det säger Peter Gudmundson, rektor på KTH.

På min fråga dementerar Rektor att min bok "ersatts" och kursen fortsätter med samma bok enligt ursprunglig plan.

Dock finns ingen dementi i Metro. Jag anser att vad som står i Metro innebär förtal av mitt arbete och min person, och jag begär personligt möte med Rektor snarast för att reda ut denna fråga.

Claes Johnson

Inget svar kl 15.00: Förtalet pågår så länge inte verkligheten stämmer med vad Metro skriver att Rektor säger. Det finns två lägen att få det att stämma: Stoppa eller dementera. Vilket blir det? Vad är timkostnaden för förtal?

Kl 9.00 2/12: Inget svar från Rektor. Jag har nu kontaktat journalisten Ola Jacobsen på MetroTeknik, som skrivit artikeln, för höra om det han skriver är riktigt eller ej.

Kl 10.00: Svar från Ole Jacobsen:

Hej Claes-Göran,

Peter Gudmundsson sagt det som står i texten. Vad är det som inte stämmer?

Jag sitter på ett försent och utbytt tåg på väg till Göteborg så få inte panik om du inte får svar direkt från mig idag. I morgon är jag tillbaka på redaktionen.

Vänliga hälsningar Ola Jacobsen

Skickat från min iPhone

Kopia på brev från Rektor 29/11:

Bäste Claes, Jag har inte ersatt något kursmaterial med något annat. I frågor från Metro har jag hänvisat till att det är de inblandade skolorna som ansvarar för kurserna. Det är vidare ansvarig lärare som har ansvar för vilket kursmaterial som används. Jag kommer att informera mig mer i detalj om vad som har hänt i detta fall. Hälsningar Peter Gudmundson

Kl 10.12: Kanske är det nu dags för Rektor att reagera. Ord står mot ord.

Kl 11.00: Rektor fortsätter att tiga. Han har kallat inblandade till möte imorgon, dock naturligtvis inte författaren till den bok som "plockats bort" och "ersatts", trots att boken fortfarande finns och används i kursen ifråga. Kan vad som helst ske vid en teknisk högskola 2010? Eller är det 1984?

Kanske kan man notera Rektors kluriga formulering "Jag har inte..." att jämföra med "tvingade KTH att plocka bort" och passivum: "har boken ersatts". Vi ser här en glidning mellan Rektor, KTH och att neutralt KTH-passivum som gör olika saker.

Kl 12.00: Ingen reaktion från Rektor. Har informerat KTHs chefsjurist Christian Engström om situationen.

Kl 12.40: Har begärt bistånd från SULF.

Kl 14.00: Rektor tiger fortfarande. Kanske funderar han på vad han skall meddela under morgonens möte med kursledaren: Stopp!? Kör på enligt ursprunglig plan!? Studenter och media väntar...

Kl 15.00: Rektor tiger. OK, låt oss då Peter Gudmundson Rektor KTH betrakta den legala sidan av den såpa eller soppa nu flyter ut på KTH:

1. Du påstår i media att min kursbok "plockats bort" vilket inte stämmer med verklighetem eftersom kursen fortgår än idag med min kursbok som litteratur. Den osanna utsaga som Du meddelar media orsakar mig och mitt livsverk stor skada. Jag kan inte se annat än att detta kan leda till stora skadeståndskrav.

2. Antag nu att det stämmer att boken redan "plockats bort", så att Din utsaga i media är sann, men utan att lärare, elever och kursboksförfattare därom meddelats. Det innebär att kursen de facto redan är avslutad både för lärare och elever och kursboksförfattare, vilkas nedlagda arbete därmed är spolierat. Jag kan inte se annat än att detta kan leda till stora skadeståndskrav, såvida Du inte kan motivera varför denna förstörelse av mänskligt och vetenskapligt kapital var nödvändig.

Vore det inte i detta läge, Peter Gudmundson, kunna vara motiverat ur Din synvinkel, att säga att Du vill träffa mig för en diskussion av den uppkomna situationen?

Kl 16.25: En anonym student lämnar följande kommentar till KTH i Kris:

• Jag vill som en av de studenter som bråkat om klimatdelarna säga ett ord om varför.
• Självklart inser jag och alla ni andra att om vi har en bok som hävdar att väldigt mycket av det vi lärt oss om matte är felaktigt så bryr sig ingen, inte heller om den är väldigt opedagogisk, det var därför klimatfrågan valdes som angreppspunkt, det är ett känsligt ämne i allmänhetens ögon.
• Jag är av åsikten att boken är så dålig att de stackars studenter som ska börja simuleringsteknik till varje pris måste räddas från den.
• Jag inser att klimatfrågan var ett fulgrepp men anser det berättigat just eftersom jag tycker att de delarna av boken mycket väl avspeglar resten av bokens kvalitet. Det eviga "alla andra har fel" och bristen på rigorösitet och pedagogisk kvalitet.

Tja, här har vi mer material till den legala process som kommer att följa. Vad kallar men sånt här? Bakgrunden till "studentprotesterna" som "tvingade KTH att plocka bort boken". Vackert? Och Rektor tiger.

Vad är det då som är så "opedagogiskt" i BS som kommande simuleringstekniker "till varje pris måste räddas ifrån"? Jo, modern beräkningsteknik. Smaka på det. Och visst, modern beräkningsteknik ger traditionell analytisk matematik en ny belysning, som kanske inte är så fördelaktig.

Vilka är det då på KTH som har koordinerat och iscensatt denna aktion för att knäcka BS?

Vilka är det som inte är glada över modern beräkningsteknik? Som styr Rektor att "plocka bort" BS? Vad vi ser är ett KTH-gate under upprullning. Och Rektor tiger.

Kl. 17.20: KTHs chefsjurist Christina Engström skriver:

• Som chefsjurist vid KTH är det inte min roll att utreda eller anmäla eventuella förtalsmisstankar.
• Jag har dock svårt att se hur rektors uttalande i Metro skulle kunna bedömas som förtal.

Jag har svarat Christina:

• Jaså, Du tycker inte det är något problem att Rektor KTH till Metro-Teknik säger att min bok har "plockats bort",när den inte har "plockats bort". Förstår Du inte att detta kan vara ärekränkning? Om Rektor i media påstod att Dina arbetsuppgifter på KTH "plockats bort" och "ersatts", skulle Du inte reagera om detta inte stämmer? Skulle det inte kunna leda till missaktning av Din person? Eftersom Du är chefsjurist borde Du kunna ge ett klart svar.

Får se vad Christina svarar...Rektor tiger...förtalet har nu pågått i 4 dagar utan dementi...

Kl 21.00: Inget svar från Christina. Däremot verkar det som frågan behandlas i Helsingin Sanomat. En världsnyhet på gång...

Kl 22.00: Sammanfattning inför Rektors möte 3/12 k 13 med inblandade utom undertecknad:

1. Rektor påstår att studentprotester tvingat KTH att "plocka bort" min bok BS.
2. BS har de facto inte "plockats bort" utan har använts i hittills 6 av 7 kursveckor.
3. En student bekänner att det hela är ett "fulgrepp" med avsikt att stoppa planerat program i SimuleringsTeknik byggt på BS = beräkningsteknik kombinerad med traditionell analytisk matematik.
4. Någon gruppering på KTH har planerat detta "fulgrepp" och genomfört det genom att vilseföra och utnyttja studenter och media.

Frågan är om detta "fulgrepp" kommer att få avsedd verkan, eller om det faller på sin fulhet? Rektor tiger.

Kl 9.00 3/12: Mottager följande brev från SULF:

• Hej! Vi har mottagit ditt mejl. Någon från lokalföreningen kommer att kontakta dig. Vänliga hälsningar Git Claesson Pipping

Kl 9.30: Skickat följande mail till mötesdeltagare Gustav Amberg, Leif Kari, Ingrid Melinder och Olle Bälter vid rektorsmöte kl. 13:

• Inför Rektors möte kl 13 beträffande kursen Numeriska Metoder II och min kursbok BodyandSoul uppmanar jag mötesdeltagarna, eftersom jag som bokens författare inte tillåts deltaga i mötet, att läsa mitt Öppna Brev till Rektor KTH på min blogg, som nu står till mediers förfogande.

Kl 10.00: Har talat med Ole Jacobsen på Metro-Teknik som återigen bekräftar sina uppgifter om vad Rektor sagt. Har bett Ole J att tänka igenom om korrigering av artikeln är motiverad

med tanke på att den meddelar osanningar om mitt arbete. Har sagt att jag är villig att ställa upp för intervju.

Kl 11.00: KTHs chefsjurist Christina Engström svarar inte på min begäran om svar.

Kl 14.00: Senaste numret av Numero, CSC-skolans informationsblad, beskriver en del av såpan under GruNytt.

Kl 15.00: Rektorsmötet avslutat. Jag inväntar information från ansvariga.

Kl 17.00: Vid Rektorsmötet beslutades enligt uppgift att kursen inte "stoppas" utan slutförs enligt ursprunglig plan. Huruvida kurslitteraturen "stoppas" är oklart: En medlingsman i form av Olle Bälter utsågs. Min bestämda linje i kommande förhandling är att det finns en säger en version av BodyandSoul. Speciellt innebär det att det s k "utdraget" plockas bort från hemsidan. De studenter som anmält behov av ett kort utdrag har kunnat ladda ner detta, och behovet av utdrag har därmed försvunnit. Med andra ord: Om BS stoppas som kurslitteratur så stoppas kursen.

Kl 18.00: Chefsjurist KTH Christina Engström svarar:

• Hej Claes, Jag anser att jag givit Dig ett så klart svar jag kan ge. Varken jag eller någon av KTH:s andra jurister kan agera som ombud eller juridiskt stöd i detta ärende. Frågan huruvida rektors uttalande utgör förtal är något som bara kan prövas och avgöras av domstol. Med vänlig hälsning Christina

Jag svarar att jag förstår detta.

Kl 19.00: Jag har meddelat Olle Bälter att "utdraget" omeldebart skall "plockas bort" från kursens hemsida, eftersom jag som bokens författare inte tillåter att ett "utdrag" publiceras.

Kl 19.00 4/12: Utdraget har ännu inte plockats bort. Brott mot copyright pågår. Ingen kontakt med Olle Bälter, som inte svarar på mina mail.

Kl 10.00 5/12: Utdraget ligger fortfarande uppe i strid med copyright. Ingen kontakt från ansvariga på KTH.

Kl 16.00: Överträdelse av min copyright pågår fortfarande. Rektor har ännu ej dementerat sin

oriktiga uppgift till Metro-Teknik att han "ersatt" min bok.

Kl 7.00 6/12: Olle Bälter skickar mig följande mail:

• Hej Claes!
• Följande uttalande enades jag, dekan för SCI och prodekanus om efter fredagens möte och de två senare har bekräftat att vi är överens om detta:
• Idag har rektor, prodekanus, dekan CSC och SCI, GA CSC och SCI, PA F och kursansvarig för DN1240 träffats för att reda ut vad som har hänt i kursen ffa map kursmaterialet och kursboken.
• Slutsatsen är att utdraget ur Mathematical Simulation Technology kommer att fortsätta användas för denna kursomgång.
• Länken från kurshemsidan till den kompletta boken ska flyttas in i utdraget.
• På sedvanligt sätt kommer en kursanalys att utföras när kursen är avslutad för att samla alla studenters åsikter om kursupplägget och kursmaterialet (precis som på alla andra kurser). Först därefter kommer beslut att fattas angående fortsättningen.
• Jag talade i fredags med Johan Jansson och Katarina Gustavsson om detta, men då hade jag inte ännu fått min text ovan bekräftad.
• Helst skulle jag tala direkt med dig, men min hals medger inte att jag talar överhuvudtaget idag.
• Med tanke på att det framgår av texten att utdraget ur MST ska fortsätta användas och att länken till den fulla boken finns kvar, om än flyttad på (faktiskt till en bättre plats, det bör ju framgå av utdraget varifrån materialet kommer) hoppas jag att du kan låta länken till utdraget finnas kvar.
• MVH /Olle

Kl. 7.10: Jag meddelar Olle Bälter att utdraget skall tas bort från hemsidan före kl 8.00 idag.

Kl. 8.00: Utdraget har tagits bort från kursens hemsida, tillsammans med boken. Under Course Material gapar ett tomt vitt fält. Så har då boken "plockats bort".

Kl 9.00: En referens till boken finns nu, dock utan länk, vilket jag kräver skall finnas. Enda sättet att få läsa boken är via länk. Utan länk ingen bok och ingen läsning. Det är så e-böcker funkar. Men kursen fortsätter med material ur boken. Kontradiktionen kvarstår: boken används men finns inte. Rektor tiger.

Kl. 15.00: Jag har meddelat Rektor och kursansvariga att om ingen länk till boken läggs upp på kursens hemsida före kl 17.00 idag, så kommer jag att dra tillbaka boken för användning i kursen kl 17.00. Behovet av länk bortfaller då eftersom det inte längre finns någon bok att länka till.

Kl 16.00: Ännu ingen länk på hemsidan.

Kl 18.00: Då ingen länk lagts upp har jag meddelat Rektor att all kontakt mellan bok och kurs upphört. Fortsatt användande av boken i kursen utan mitt medgivande innebär överträdelse av copyright. Jag har begärt att kursansvariga anmodar studenterna att radera de kopior av boken

inkl utdrag som kunnat laddas ner under de 6 kursveckor som en länk mellan kurs och bok funnits på kursens hemsida.

Kl 21.30: Har skickat följande brev:

• Till Rektor KTH och Kursansvariga i kursen Numerical Methods II
• Förtydligande:
• Rektor har enligt uppgift i Metro-Teknik, som jag fått bekräftad, stoppat min bok BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology för användning i kursen Numerical Methods II, och ersatt den med annat material.
• Mitt erbjudande att använda min bok i nämnda kursen har därmed upphört.
• Varje form av användning av min bok vid KTH utan mitt explicita medgivande innebär från och med nu överträdelse av min copyright och kommer att lagföras.
• För att undvika att lärare och elever drabbas av lagföring uppmanar jag Rektor att snarast meddela berörda det ovan angivna.
• Claes Johnson

The story continues in the following post...

Lennart Bengtsson Sågar IPCCs KlimatModellering

Lennart Bengtsson sågar i sitt föredrag Dynamisk och Fysisk Modellering av Jordens Klimatsystem vid IVAs seminarium om Framtidens Klimat 6/10, IPCCs klimatsimuleringar med följande ord:

• Även om klimatmodellerna är baserade på de fysikaliska grundekvationerna innehåller de emellertid signifikanta empiriska komponenter. Dessa är dels implicit förekommande i enskilda processer men är också övergripande då modellerna som helhet är empiriskt anpassade, s k tuning.
• Detta har inte tydligt nog framhävts inte ens i IPCCs vetenskapliga rapport och har fått till följd att man har för stor tilltro till modellsimuleringar av ett framtida klimat.
• Detta innebär dock inte att modeller genomgående överskattar en framtida uppvärmning då det av samma skäl kan innebära en underskattning.
• Baserat på den mycket långsamt fortlöpande klimatändringen förefaller en överskattning åtminstone initialt mer sannolik.
• Graden av uppvärmning kan dock inte tillfredsställande bestämmas. Vi kan inte ens med någon större säkerhet bestämma osäkerheten.

Det är alltså inte bara min analys i BodyandSoul som LB sågar som ett beklagansvärt aktstycke och politiskt vinklad rappakalja. Jag håller med LB vad gäller IPCC.

Vad gäller politik eller finansiering har jag ingen som helst bindning, medan Lennart Bengtsson har stora investeringar i IPCCs klimatalarmism, som han så begåvat både stödjer och förkastar på samma gång.

Men jag anser i motsats till LB att Kiehl-Trenberths välkända energibudget med "backradiation" på 324 W/m2, är ofysikalisk och motiverar varför i BodyandSoul. Jag ber LB förklara hur denna "backradiation" skulle gå till?

LB påstår vidare:

• Det är alldeles klart att om det skulle föreligga en sammanlagd positiv återkoppling under en mycket lång tid så skulle jordens klimat fullständigt ändras och jordens klimat skulle kunna urarta och kunna bli som på Venus.
• Lyckligtvis visar det sig att felen i vädersystemen påverkar klimatberäkningarna i mycket mindre grad än vad man tror. Detta beror ytterst på att felen i de korta beräkningarna inte är systematiska. Modellerna genererar i stort sett samma antal vädersystem som verkligheten och som utvecklas på i stort sett samma sätt samt återfinns i samma områden. Det klimat som modellen skapar genom väderberäkningar i steg på 10 min eller så under en tillräckligt lång tid (50-100 år) skiljer sig knappt påvisbart från det observerade klimatet.

LB påstår alltså att simulering över lång tid kan vara noggrann i medelvärde utan att simulering över kort tid är noggrann. Jag ber LB förklara vetenskapligt hur detta är möjligt. Utan förklaringar kan man få intrycket att LB framför politiskt vinklad rappakalja? Sant eller falskt?

Only mathematics and physics can tell. Religion and politics cannot. (ur BodyandSoul)

Och att klimatet på Jorden skulle kunna bli som det på Venus om vi eldar på lite, är väl ändå ren rappakalja, eller hur LB?

Jag ställer gärna upp i vetenskaplig diskussion med LB. Under IVA-seminariet tilläts inga frågor att ställas till LB: Locket på. Det är emot vetenskapens viktigaste princip. Eller hur LB?

LB får gärna svara på min blogg, i väntan på diskussionen.

Att LB är arg kan man kanske förstå, eftersom det är den klimatvetenskap som LB representerar, som jag i någon ifrågasätter, på matematiska grunder. Men vetenskap handlar ju inte om att stryka medhårs för att göra alla glada.