The IPCC Trick 5: What Lindzen, Monckton and Spencer Missed

This thread on the IPCC trick argues that climate sensitivity as the global warming by doubled CO2, is less than 0.3 C. There are other skeptics including Lindzen, Monckton and Spencer who also argue that climate sensitivity is smaller than the 3 C of IPCC.

But Lindzen, Monckton and Spencer seem to have missed the argument of this thread:

• Lindzen presents a big radiative sensitivity moderated to about 0.5 C by negative thermodynamic feedback.
• Monckton swallows the IPCC no-feedback value of 1 C and uses negative thermodynamic feedback to bring it down to about 0.7 C.
• Spencer finds a value of about 0.5 C, or less, from measurements of variations of surface temperature and outgoing longwave radiation, which in spirit is close to that of this thread.

It would be interesting to hear what Lindzen, Monckton and Spencer say about my argument.

None of them seems to question backradiation, which is the gist of my argument. If it can be shown that climate sensitivity is less than 0.3 C, then AGW is dead.

The IPCC Trick: Climate Instability by Backradiation 4

A card force trick results in the magician (you) knowing the position of a card which you have selected. This position may be "top of the deck", "bottom of the deck" or a more advanced position such as the "fingernail cut". You then "force" this card on a victim who thinks he is picking of his own free will.

Let us now ask if the World and its leaders is subject to forced card trick by IPCC into believing that a Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is causing disastrous global warming, and therefore by free will is preparing to stop burning fossil fuels, with serious consequences for billions of people.

You can discover a trick yourself if you suspect that you are subject to a trick. Let us then suppose that you have prepared yourself by reading the previous posts 1-3 on this thread and thereby have come to suspect that you might be subject to a trick, without yet being fully sure.

Now watch how IPCC in AR4 2007 describes the GreenHouse Effect (GHE):

• The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface.
• This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect.
• The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide.
• About half of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
• This energy is transferred to the atmosphere by warming the air in contact with the surface (thermals), by evapotranspiration and by longwave radiation that is absorbed by clouds and greenhouse gases.
• The atmosphere in turn radiates longwave energy back to Earth as well as out to space.
• Human activities intensify the blanketing effect through the release of greenhouse gases.
• Thus, humankind has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere with substantial implications for climate.

Further, watch the history of GHE as described by IPCC:

• In 1824, Joseph Fourier argued ``the temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat".
• In 1859, John Tyndall identified through laboratory experiments the absorption of thermal radiation by complex molecules (water vapor and CO2).
• In 1895, Svante Arrhenius followed with a climate prediction based on greenhouse gases, suggesting that a 40% increase or decrease in the atmospheric abundance of the trace gas CO2 might trigger the glacial advances and retreats.
• One hundred years later, it would be found that CO2 did indeed vary by this amount between glacial and interglacial periods. However, it now appears that the initial climatic change preceded the change in CO2 but was enhanced by it (Section 6.4).
• G. S. Callendar (1938) solved a set of equations linking greenhouse gases and climate change. He found that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in an increase in the mean global temperature of 2°C.

Now you come to the analysis part. Are we/you subject to a trick, a Scientific Trick, or not?

How to argue? Well, a Scientific Trick can be revealed by inspecting its key elements and decide if they represent science or non-science or nonsense. OK, so here are the elements of GHE:

1. GHE discovered 1824 by Fourier
2. the atmosphere acts like a blanket warming the Earth by backradiation
3. humankind have dramatically altered the composition of the atmosphere
4. with substantial implications.

Recalling the posts 1-3 of this thread, you will be able to confront these statements with reality and decide if you are subject to a trick.

Notice that to discover a Scientific Trick you do not have to be a scientist. To understand real science you have to be a scientist is some sense, but to understand scientific fraud it may be enough with common sense. To understand why something is true, may require scientific insight, but to understand that something is seriously wrong may be possible with just common sense.

To perform a forced card trick you need to be a magician in some some sense, but to reveal

a trick it may suffice with a bit of common sense.

I hope you are now determined to go ahead and investigate if you and the World are subject to a Scientific Trick performed by IPCC? The evidence is there and you have the common sense.

Is there forcing? If so what is it? What is your verdict?

The IPCC Trick: Climate Instability from Backradiation 3

IPCC climate alarmism claims a climate sensitivity of 3 C as the global warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056%.

The 3 C is obtained by various feedbacks from a no-feedback value of 1 C obtained by definition from Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law assuming that doubled CO2 causes additional radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2.

Doubled CO2 represents a 1% change of atmospheric radiation properties (dominated by water vapor), while 3 C represents 10 % of the total effect of the atmosphere increasing the Earth surface temp by 33 C from the Earth-atmosphere blackbody temperature of 255 K at an altitude

of 5 km to the observed 288 K at the surface.

The IPCC climate sensitivity of 3 C thus represents an instability of global climate with a 1% perturbation being capable of causing a 10 % change, thus with a large stability factor of size 10.

But global climate shows a remarkable stability over billions of years under large perturbations, and thus the large stability factor of IPCC does not seem to reflect any reality.

Instead a stability factor of size 1 or smaller is to be expected, from experience.

This was understood by IPCC when formulating the scientific basis of its climate alarmism, according to its political agenda of AGW. The 10 % change of 33 C therefore was transformed

into a 1% change the total temperature ~ 300 K, that is a transformation was performed from net change of temperature to gross temperature.

But this required a transformation from net radiative energy exchange between the atmosphere

and the Earth surface, to gross flow of energy, and to this end the concept of backradiation was invented. A net radiative energy flow between the Earth surface and atmosphere of size

30 W/m2 could then be connected to a gross radiative interchange of size 300 W/m2 with the atmosphere absorbing radiation from the surface and then "backradiating" the bulk of it to the Earth surface.

The above picture typical to IPCC presented by Satellite Applications for Geoscience Education, displays a gross backradition of 324 W/m2 from the atmosphere to the surface.

Equipped with the new concept of backradiation IPCC could now perform the transformation

from net to gross values and thus reduce the 10% perturbation of the net to a 1% perturbation

of the gross quantity. This is the IPCC Trick behind its climate alarmism with a climate sensitivity of 3 C.

In Computational Blackbody Radiation I argue that backradiation is unphysical with only net radiative energy transfer having a physical significance. I thus give evidence that IPCC's climate alarmism based on a climate sensitivity of 3 C, is scientific fiction.

An estimate of climate sensitivity using basic real physics and observations, presented in numerous blog posts and in Climate Thermodynamics, gives an upper bound of 0.3 C as a 1% effect (1% of 33 C) of a 1% cause (double CO2) in a a climate system which is not unstable.

This is 10 times smaller than the IPCC value of 3 C and does not motivate any reduction of CO2 emission into the atmosphere.

The IPCC Trick: Climate Instability from Backradiation 2

The red curve in the above picture shows the spectrum of the outgoing longwave radiation

(OLR-spectrum) from the Earth including atmosphere, in the form of radiation intensity as a function of wavenumber/frequency. The background curves show the blackbody spectra for different temperatures. The picture gives the following information:

• The area under OLR-spectrum is the total radiation ~ 240 W/m2.
• The OLR-spectrum for wavenumbers larger than 800 represents radiation from the Earth surface at 285 K, which is not absorbed by the atmosphere (radiation through the atmospheric window).
• The dip of OLR-spectrum around 700 represents radiation from the top of the troposphere at 220 K after absorption to saturation by atmospheric water vapor and CO2.
• The red curve for wavenumbers smaller than 600 represents radiation from different levels of the troposphere at higher temperatures than 220 K after partial absorption by mainly water vapor.
• An increase of CO2 can be have the effect of widening the dip which would require a compensating increase of the radiation outside the dip.
• The area of the dip represent 10% of the total area ~ 24 W/m2.
• The change of the width of the dip by increased CO2 may represent 10% of the dip ~ 3 W/m2.
• Altogether, doubled CO2 may correspond to a "radiative forcing" of ~ 3 W/m2, which is also the number given by IPCC, and represents a 1% perturbation of the total outgoing radiation = total incoming radiation absorbed by the Earth including atmosphere ~ 240 W/m2.

The key question is now the effect on the surface temperature of a 1% change of the atmospheric absorption/radiation properties. There are two possible answers:

• The first is the IPCC answer: The surface temperature is 288 K and 1% of 288 K is about 3 C = IPCC climate sensitivity.
• There is another answer: The total effect of the atmosphere is to raise the temperature from the blackbody temperature of 255 K to the observed of 288 K, thus by 33 C, and 1% of 33 C is 0.3 C.

The alternative climate sensitivity is 0.3 C, ten times smaller than that given by IPCC. The trick by IPCC is to introduce backradiation to allow working with gross flows and corresponding gross temperatures, instead of net flows and temperature change. By introducing backradiation IPCC is able to inflate a climate sensitivity of 0.3 C, which is not alarming, to 3 C which is alarming.

The trick used by IPCC is thus to create gross two-way flows of energy by backradiation from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, and from a 1% perturbation of the gross flows obtain a climate sensitivity of 3 C, which is ten times as big as an estimate from net flows and temperature change.

The trick used by IPCC is now brought into light and it is up to you to decide its value as the scientific basis for CO2 climate alarmism:

• Is 0.3 C a realistic upper bound on climate sensitivity?
• Is 3 C a non-realistic artificially inflated sensitivity obtained by a trick of backradition creating something substantial from nothing?

What do you say?

Recall that the IPCC value of 3 C is obtained by feedback from a no-feedback value of 1 C according to the following definition of climate sensitivity used by IPCC as expressed by Gavin Schmidt:

• “Climate sensitivity” is *defined* as being the equilibrium response of the global mean surface temperature to a change in radiative forcing while holding a number of things constant (aerosols, ice sheets, vegetation, ozone) (c.f. Charney 1979, Hansen et al, 1984 and thousands of publications since). There is no ambiguity here, no choice of metrics to examine, and no room for any element of belief or non-belief. It is a definition.

This definition allows IPCC to assign (no-feedback) climate sensitivity a value of about 1 C by a direct application of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law in its differentiad form dQ ~ 4 dT, with dQ ~ 4 W/m2 and dT ~ 1 C. This is the starting point for the IPCC value of 3 C, which is obtained by various feedbacks from the no-feedback value of 1 C.

You cannot argue about the truth of a definition, but a definition says nothing about reality, only something about language. The no-feedback sensitivity of 1 C looks like a statement about reality, but is in fact only a definition because global climate is not at all captured by Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law alone.

Without the no-feedback value 1 C the IPCC climate sensitivity has nothing to feed on, and the the 3 C has to create itself as a 1% perturbation of gross temperature resulting from a 1% perturbation of gross energy transfer by backradiation.

A more detailed argument also leading to an upper bound on climate sensitivity of 0.3 C, is presented in a previous post.

The IPCC Trick: Climate Instability from Backradiation 1

In a sequence of posts I will sum up my criticism of the CO2 climate alarmism presented

by IPCC, as a follow up on Ten Facts: Setting the Record Straight. I start with a general remark and then proceed to specifics.

Climate sensitivity as the increase of global mean temperature upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 (from preindustrial 0.028% to 0.056%), is by IPCC claimed to be in the range 1.5 - 4.5 C with a best estimate of + 3 C. Doubled CO2 represents a small perturbation of the absorption properties of the atmosphere, while a global warming of 3 C could lead to major changes of global climate. IPCC thus claims a big effect of a small cause as the greenhouse effect GHE, which requires identification of some instability capable of inflating a small cause to a big effect.

To sell climate alarmism with a climate sensitivity of 3 C to the world and in particular to its leaders, IPCC had to identify an instability mechanism. But no such mechanism was readily available in climate science. In fact global climate had shown a remarkable stability over billions of years under large perturbations.

To find an instability mechanism in a stable system is not easy and so IPCC had to fabricate one, which came out under the name of backradiation with the wonderful property of creating an instability out of nothing in a stable system by letting energy bounce back and forth without net energy transfer. The number 0 could now be written 0 = 1000 - 1000, and suddenly out of nothing big numbers could be introduced where there before was only 0. A small percentage of a big number could represent a substantial change and thus a small cause could have a big effect.

Backradiation showed to be a smart move by IPCC: To the layman it could be presented in simple terms as as energy bouncing back to the Earth surface from the atmosphere, while it was so mysterious that Nobel Laurates of Physics could not grasp it and even less question its

existence.

Is then backradiation fabricated science? Is IPCC climate alarmism based on a trick of pseudo-sience? My answer is yes, as developed in my contribution Computational Blackbody Radiation

in Slaying the Sky Dragon. More substance to my argument is given in the next post.

Recall that any claim of a big effect of a small cause, runs the risk of representing pseudo-science in the sense that it can neither be proved nor disproved. To directly prove that the flap of a butterfly in the Amazonas cannot set off a tornado in Texas, is not feasible. But observing

butterfly flaps without tornados gives evidence that there is no connection. Similarly, observing increasing CO2 together with global non-warming as during the last decade, indicates that IPCC alarmism is not based on real physics.

One Mind vs Many Minds in Physics

Elimination of the One Mind of Louis XVI witnessed by Many Minds: Birth of modernity.

In Dr Faustus of Modern Physics I describe how modern physics was born in the early 20th century from a deal with the Devil replacing the fundamental principles of classical physics of

• objective reality of space and time
• cause-effect: determinism: causality
• logical consistency

by the new fundamental principles of modern physics of

• relativity: subjective reality of space and time under universal invariance
• statistics: atomistic games of roulette
• duality: both wave and particle at the same time.

The deal was motivated by the following problems which appeared impossible to solve using classical continuum physics and asked for solution to maintain scientific credibility:

• 2nd law of thermodynamics (irreversibility in formally reversible systems)
• observer independent speed of light (Michelson-Morley experiment)
• blackbody radiation (ultraviolet catastrophy)
• photoelectric effect (inexplicable frequency dependence).

In Dr Faustus of Modern Physics I open a door to different resolutions of these pressing problems with less severe side effects than the relativity-statistics-duality of modern physics. I describe this new approach as

• many-minds physics: many actors/observers: many gods: no master,

as opposed to

• one-mind physics: one universal actor/observer: one God: one master,

which is the current paradigm of modern physics as a combination of

• Einstein's relativity theory based on universal invariance
• quantum mechanics based on Schrödinger's multidimensional wave equation.

I present many-minds physics in the books

• Many-Minds Relativity
• Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics.

The basic difference between many-minds and one-mind physics can be understood as the difference between bottom-up and top-down control of a system, in political terms as the difference between democracy and autocracy/dictatorship, or between market economy and

socialistic economy.

In many-minds relativity each observer is tied to his coordinate system and the pertinent question concerns what agreement of observations by different observers is possible, without asking for universal agreement.

In many-minds quantum mechanics each electron/particle solves its own version of the Schrödinger equation and the multidimensional wave function asking for universal agreement does not appear.

In Computational Thermodynamics and Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation I show that finite precision computation can replace atomistic games of roulette as explanation of irreversibility in formally reversible systems and the 2nd law with its direction of time.

Altogether I propose different resolutions of the problems which once troubled physics, resolutions which do not require basic principles of rationality and enlightenment to be abandoned. In many-minds physics, each actor/observer uses an individual classical perspective without any need of universality, like individual actors in a market economy.

PS Any similarity in the above picture with KTH-gate, is purely coincidental.

Sawtooth Dynamics: Life vs Climate

There are two kinds of sawtooth dynamics:

1. slow build-up followed by rapid release,
2. fast build-up followed by slow release.

I show in The Clock and the Arrow that biological life shows sawtooth dynamics of type 1:

• Necessarily slow growth followed by possibly quick death:
• Slow growth from a one-cell embryo by successive cell divisions into a fullgrown individual over a long period, which can be killed by one shot in one second.

More generally, sawtooth dynamics of type 1 sets The Direction of Time: from birth to death.

Sawtooth dynamics of type 2 is seen in the above figure showing the temperature variation over the last 4 glaciations during the last 450 thousand years:

• fast increase of temperature over 10.000 years,
• followed by slow decrease over 90.000 years.

Type 2 dynamics is also seen in turbulent flow with sudden bursts into violent highly oscillating flow followed by longer period of dissipation into less violent flow. A mathematical model analysis is found in Chapter 261 of Mathematical Simulation Technology (download from this blog top left): The Crash Model. An analysis of sawtooth dynamics in turbulence is presented in Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow.

Type 2 dynamics can be seen as the result of ``ignition" when certain conditions come together to form an ``explosion" which is followed by a prolonged period of release or recovery. In this perspective an interglacial warm period (of about 10.000 years) is an explosion ignited from a glaciation temperature minimium as the happy result of a happy coincidence of certain favorable conditions (Earth orbit, Earth axis tilt, Earth-Moon interaction, Sun activity...) For more information on glaciation cycles, check out Global Warming - Global Cooling Natural Cause Found.

We are now approaching the end of such a happy explosion and will have to wait about 100.000 years before the next burst allows humanity to thrive again...and populate North Europe including Sweden...

There are many examples of sawtooth dynamics of type 2 (often with just one tooth): For example the author of the bestseller, who came out of the blue but then disappeared into darkness unable to find that favorable combination of conditions allowing the ignition to repeat. Will the Earth be able to produce yet another warming bestseller or will it end up in a creative cramp from freezing? It is possible that computational mathematical modeling can give the answer, but we may not want to know...

In any case, we can sum up this post as follows:

• life with its direction of time shows sawtooth dynamics type 1
• climate may show sawtooth dynamics type 2.

Banned Books and Freedom of Information

Sweden prides itself with the best Freedom of Information Legislation in the world. This attracted Julian Assange to Stockholm (to where he may not

want to return, however).

After nearly 100 years, Sweden closed the agency charged with censoring films as of Jan 1st 2011.

Surprisingly, my not yet published e-version of BodyandSoul named Mathematical Simulation Technology (can be downloaded on top left of the blog) which had been selected by the teacher of the course Numerical Methods II at KTH, was banned at KTH by the Dean of the School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC) on the order of the Dean of the School of Sciences (SCI) at KTH, in the middle of the course without motivation against the will of the teacher responsible for the course and myself as author of the course material.

This story of censorship named KTH-gate is recorded on this blog with evidence of the following key actions:

• media-campaign by KTH describing the book as "totally unacceptable",
• deletion of the link to the book on the course homepage by CSC-dean, against the will of the teacher and without motivation, thus making the unpublished book inaccessible,
• acknowledgment to media by KTH-president that the book was "replaced",
• denial of any form of banning and deletion by KTH-facultydean.

Let us put KTH-gate into perspective and ask: Is it common that a mathematics book is censored, banned, deleted, made inaccessible? Against the will of teachers wishing to use the book in their teaching, students who want to learn by reading the book and and the author who wants the book to be read?

(If you don´t believe that book was banned, ask SCI-dean Gustav Amberg/Leif Kari and CSC-dean Ingrid Melinder, or simply read what they say according to the documents on my blog.

It is hard to believe, I admit, but it is true. Like Harrisburg, it was so unlikely, that when it did happen, authorities could for some time fool the people that it had not happened. Even for me it is hard to believe that something like this could happen, but it did.)

To get perspective, take a look at

• list of books banned by governments: no math book
• Index Librorum Prohibitorum (books prohibited by Catholic Church finally abolished in 1966): no math book, a few science books (Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Galileo)
• List of banned books Nazi-Germany 1933-39: no math book.

We find no evidence of banning and censorship of math books after Kepler and Galileo; the ban on the heliocentric theory was lifted in 1743. It seems that the ban by KTH of my math book is unique in modern time.

Nevertheless, Swedish academics does not appear to object to the book burning at KTH by KTH accompanied by a media-storm. It appears that the political correctness in Sweden is so perfect that virtually nobody (except possibly Ingemar Nordin) is able to see what is going on.

As if no Swedish academic had ever written a book and thus could never imagine any negative aspects of censorship.

It remains to explain how this is possible...Check out yourself and see if you understand in what sense my book is "totally unacceptable". How would you react if your best science was banned because Metro doomed it to be "unacceptable"?

What is it in the book that triggered KTH to completely ridiculous censorship? Any idea?

Note, that what happened was not that the responsible teacher did not choose my material as course literature, but the opposite that the responsible teacher did choose to use my material in an agreement with me to deliver the material and with all due respect to the decision structure at KTH. The dean then clamped in in the middle of the course and banned the book from being used against the will of the teacher(s), and thereby upset both the planning and delivery of the course and caused the teachers considerable psychological stress and pain.

PS Books that were banned include

• Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, censored in the US 1938 for explicit sexuality,
• James Joyce's Ulysses: censored in the US 1920-33 for obscenity,
• D. H Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover: censored in the UK until 1960 for unprintable words.

Clearly, a ban can increase the public interest in a text, and thus today when it is virtually impossible to prevent a book from being distributed and read, any author should happily welcome censorship, right?

Sammanfattning av KTH-gate

Leif Kari programansvarig F-KTH till Ny Teknik: Boken innehåller fullständigt oacceptabelt material. Det ska mycket till för att jag som programansvarig ska stoppa en bok. Det är mycket allvarligt. Vi vill inte ha något med boken att göra".

Vi har nu hört vad följande funktionärer med huvudansvar har att säga om KTH-gate:

• Rektor Peter Gudmundson
• Fakultetsdekan Folke Snickars
• Dekan Ingrid Melinder CSC-skolan
• Programansvarig Leif Kari SCI-skolan.

En sammanfattning av de dokument som finns under KTH-gate är som följer:

1. Ingrid Melinder erkänner att hon beordrade att länken till mitt kursmaterial skulle plockas bort från kursens hemsida, mot kursansvarigs och min vilja. Detta innebär censur av mitt kursmaterial eftersom det i sin opublicerade form inte existerar utan länk. Melinder uttrycker censuren med borttagande av länken som att "hemsidan något omstrukturerades".
2. Melinder meddelar att på den residu/rest om 10% som återstod efter censureringen i form av ett utdrag som jag inte godkände, utfördes ingen ytterligare censur, men någon direkt länk kunde inte tillåtas på hemsidan ens till utdraget (läs nu, imorgon kan denna hemsida vara censurerad och borta på samma sätt som övriga KTH-dokument i frågan)
3. Folke Snickars påstår att ingen censur utförts. Detta står i strid med 1.
4. Folke Snickars påstår att mitt reformarbete fortfarande bedrivs på KTH. Detta är inte sant: Mitt reformarbete fortsätter utanför KTH och inget av detta mitt arbete finns kvar på KTH.
5. Leif Kari som på order av SCI-dekan Gustav Amberg övertalade Melinder att utföra censuren, har lagt denna sin handling "bakom sig", utan att ansvara för vad han gjort.
6. Rektor har delegerat ansvar till dekaner och programansvariga och har inget ansvar som rektor i ett enskilt fall som detta.
7. PG vet inte vilken information rektor lämnat till media, inte heller om det som media skriver att rektor sagt är sant eller ej, oavsett om det orättvist skadar mig ifall det är osant.

Jag skall nu ta kontakt med SULFs förbundsordförande Anna Götlind, som uppföljning av den interaktion jag haft med förbundsjurist Carl Falck, och se om SULF vill ta upp mitt ärende till granskning. Det finns en viktiga principiell aspekt i ärendet som direkt kopplar till den nya högskoleförordningen och som bör diskuteras:

• Vem bestämmer vad som skall/får sägas vid högskolan: Professorn/läraren eller adminstratören/dekanen?

Vi får se om Anna Götlind också tycker att detta är en viktig fråga. Kanske paneldebatt i SULFs regi samt reportage i SULFs medlemstidning?

PS1 I ett ämne som statskunskap, sociologi eller psykologi, skulle högskolan kunna tänkas behöva utföra censur av material med rasistisk eller nazistisk propaganda. I ett grundläggande naturvetenskapligt ämne som mekanik har nog inte censur utförts efter det Bruno brändes på bål och Galileo tystades för 400 år sedan. Det mycket märkliga är nu att censur utförts inom matematikämnet som är om möjligt ännu mer grundläggande än mekanik. Eller vad tycker läsaren? Ej heller har den verkliga anledningen till censuren av mitt kursmaterial uttryckts i mer preciserade termer än ``fullständigt oacceptabelt" (Leif Kari). Galileo visste i alla fall vad det var han inte fick säga. Och på bokbålen 1933 i Tyskland brändes inte matteböcker.

PS2 Folke Snickars avslutade sitt uppdrag som dekanus 2011-03-31. Han har inget mer att tillägga i denna fråga utan hänvisar till tidigare svar. Vänliga hälsningarAnna Höglund Rehn

PS3 Två av fyra ovanstående har nu lämnat sina tjänster (Melinder och Snickars) och har kanske därmed också lämnat det från rektor delegerade ansvaret. Man kan förvänta sig att till slut det inte finns någon som är/var ansvarig för den censur som utfördes. Den så att säga utfördes av ett osynligt skäl av en osynlig hand på uppdrag av en osynlig makt och dokumenterades på ett osynligt sätt. Ett vad man kallar perfect job.

Rapport från Möte med Rektor 6/4 om KTH-gate

Närvarande:

• Peter Gudmundson, rektor KTH, (PG)
• Anders Lundgren, förvaltningschef KTH, (AL)
• Carl Falck, förbundsjurist SULF, (CF)
• undertecknad (CJ)

1. CJ redogjorde kort för KTH-gate, och frågade PG om rektors syn på ärendet.

2. PG svarade att ärendet inte låg på rektors bord, och att PG inte hade något att säga.

3. CJ frågade PG om rektor hade något ansvar i frågan, och i så fall vilket.

4. PG svarade att rektor hade delegerat ärendet, och att rektor därmed inte hade något ansvar.

5. CJ frågade om rektor sagt till Metro-Teknik det MT skrivit att han sagt till MT.

6. PG svarade att han inte visste vad rektor sagt till MT, och att rektor i vilket fall som helst inte hade något ansvar eftersom frågan inte låg på rektors bord.

7. AL talade om att KTH har en organisation som antas fungera, men medgav så småningom att organisationen kanske inte fungerat. AL talade om att KTH har som princip att aldrig dementera uppgifter i media, inte ens felaktiga uppgifter som KTH lämnat. Utan principer skulle ju KTHs förvaltning inte kunna fungera.

8. CJ frågade PG om han kunde förstå att CJ ansåg att hans person och verksamhet skadats av KTH.

9. PG svarade att rektor inte kunde förstå detta alls.

10. AL förslog att någon slags öppning borde skapas och frågade om CF hade några förslag.

11. CJ frågade PG om rektor skulle vidtaga någon åtgärd i ärendet.

12. PG svarade att det skulle inte rektor, och påminde om att rektor inte gjort det tidigare heller.

13. Möte avslutades utan att någon öppning skapats. Någon fortsatt kontakt med min person diskuterades inte. CF och AL skulle undersöka om inte trots allt det fanns en öppning, oklart dock var på KTH, i vilken skola, i vilken byggnad, på vilken våning och åt vilket håll.

PS1 CJs frågor till rektor inför mötet besvarades inte av PG.

PS2 Beträffande censur på KTH: Hemsidan för Fakultetsnämnden KTH där bl a protokollet om KTH-gate finns, har ``plockats bort" med terminology från KTH-gate. När man söker på "Fakultetsnämnden KTH" på Google får man numer bara träffar till mina brev till Fakultetsnämnden, det utdrag ur protokollet jag lagt upp och Ingemar Nordins TCS-artikel God dag, yxskaft KTH, som om Fakultetsnämnden KTH aldrig funnits och aldrig fattat något beslut om något, allra minst om censur. Alla andra länkar är bortrensade av KTH, medan mina länkar bara kan tas bort av Google.

Är inte detta konstigt? Att KTH censurerar sina egna vitala organ. Frågan är om anledningen till att rektor inte säger något, helt enkelt är att han är utsatt för censur? De frågor som inställer sig är alltså:

• Vem har censurerat bort Fakultetsnämnden KTH 2007-2011?
• Är rektor själv utsatt för censur? Av vem i så fall?

Vad säger Ingemar Nordin? Vad säger JO? Vad säger SULF? Vad säger Ny Teknik? Vad säger Kungen?

Fakultetsnämnden KTH ersattes fr o m 1/4 2011 av KTHs Fakultetsråd. Någon anledning att plocka bort Fakultetsnämndens hemsida med dess protokoll och sammansättning finns inte. Det bör inte finnas skäl att mörka denna information, men kanske detta finns eftersom Fakultetsnämnden nu har försvunnit utan att lämna något spår på nätet? Som om den aldrig funnits. Fakultetsrådets nya hemsida innehåller ingen information om sin föregångare Fakultetsnämnden, inte minsta länk bakåt. Fakultetsrådet verkar vilja att historien skall börja med Fakultetsrådet, i likhet med Kung av Tsin som lät bygga den kinesiska muren,...för att stänga in eller för att stänga ut...

PS3 Rektor skriver 7/4:

• Claes, Jag vill bara meddela att jag inte anser att dina minnesanteckningar stämmer överens med det som sades vid vårt möte igår. Hälsningar Peter

Jag svarar: OK, i vilket avseende stämmer det inte?

Rektors svar: ??

Simple Climate Model: Thermodynamics, Radiation and Observation

In the spirit of my article in Slaying the Sky Dragon, consider the following facts:

• The Earth with atmosphere absorbs 240 W/m2 sunlight and emits 240 W/m2 IR.
• The Earth surface temperature is 288 K.
• By Stefan Boltzmann 240 W/m2 corresponds to an effective blackbody temperature of 255 K (with an albedo of 0.3). The difference 288 - 255 = 33 C can be seen as the total warming effect of the atmosphere.
• 40 W/m2 is emitted directly from the Earth surface through an "atmospheric window".
• The climate system acts as an air conditioner in a combined thermodynamic-radiation cycle processing the remaining 200 W/m2.
• The effect of this process is to reduce the lapse from the base (dry adiabatic) value of 9.81 C/km to the observed 6.5 C/km, thus with a reduction of 3.5 C/km per 200 W/m2 or total cooling effect of 18 C, since the temperature is observed to be 255 K at a height of 5 km.
• The reduction of the lapse results mainly from the thermodynamics by evaporation/condensation, which has a cooling effect by lowering the temperature at low altitudes by evaporation and increasing the temperature by condensation at higher altitudes.
• Suppose now the atmospheric window is decreased by additional greenhouse gases by 4 W/m2, which are to be handled by the combined thermodynamic-radiation process.
• Suppose the 4 W/m2 are splitted equally between thermodynamics and radiation.
• Additional 2 W/m2 to be processed by thermodynamics means 1% reduction of the lapse rate with corresponding cooling effect of about 0.18 ~ 0.2 C.
• Additional 2 W/m2 to radiation gives a warming effect of about 0.5 C by Stefan-Boltzmann.
• The net is a warming effect of 0.3 C.
• In other words, with standard terminology, we find a climate sensitivity of 0.3 C, to be compared with IPCC´s value in the range 1.5 - 4.5 C, which is 5 - 15 times bigger.

I believe this argument is the simplest possible combining thermodynamics with radiation and observations. It is possible that it contains an element of truth.

Dr Faustus of Modern Physics

Front page of a play by Christopher Marlowe, stabbed to death in 1593 at the age of 29.

I have now completed (more or less) the new book

• Dr Faustus of Modern Physics

The theme is the birth of modern physics in the late 19th and 20th century in the work of

• Boltzmann: statistical mechanics
• Planck: blackbody radiation
• Einstein: relativity
• Bohr: quantum mechanics

with the conception being forced by the following problems which seemed unsolvable within classical deterministic continuum physics:

• 2nd law of thermodynamics and irreverisbility
• ultraviolet catastrophy of radiation
• Michelson-Morley experiment indicating constancy of speed of light independent of observer motion
• interpretation of the wave function of the Schr\"odinger equation.

These problems had to be solved to save the science of physics from collapse, but solutions could only be obtained by abandoning the most holy of principles of classical science:

• reality of space and time
• determinism
• cause-effect.

This confronted the scientists taking on the challenge with a Faustian dilemma: To succeed it was was necessary to sell their classical scientific souls and make a deal with the Devil. The book describes this drama in the form of a trial with the reader as jury. Confessions, witnessing and background materials is presented to allow the reader to make a verdict.

The effect of the deal with the Devil is a despair today of ``end of physics" or more generally as a crisis in science, in particular climate science, and science education.

At the end a door is opened to resolutions without nya deal with the Devil.

Simplistic Climate Models: Warming or Cooling?

The above graph (in particular the top one) can be seen as the fundamental graph of CO2 alarmism. The dip in the top graph around the wavelength 15 mu, is the essence: We will come back to this below after a digression.

Roger Taguchi on Climate Etc points to the following important fact:

• As I have stated, individual gas molecules cannot emit black body radiation,which is a continuous spectrum (N2 and O2 cannot emit any IR, black body or otherwise, and CO2 and other greenhouse gases can emit only over narrow bands, so their emission is by definition not continuous and therefore not black body).
• Black body radiation can only be emitted by condensed states like solids and liquids (or by free electrons in the conduction bands of metallic solids, or in plasmas such as in the interior and photosphere of the Sun).
• The reason is that in condensed states there are many, many weaker vibrations due to van der Waals' (intermolecular) forces, as well as stronger vibrations within molecules. Combinations of the weaker and stronger vibrations and their overtones allows for a continuous spectrum extending from low frequencies to high frequencies.
• So the IR that escapes from the Earth to outer space, both in the daytime and at night, comes from the solid and liquid surface of the Earth, not some "emitting layer(s)" in the atmosphere.

Following up on the post Simple Model for Radiative Transfer, we collect the following facts:

1. The blackbody temperature of the Earth at its viewing angle of 0.005^2 of the Sun at 5778 K, comes out by Stefan-Boltzmann's Law as 255 K. To be compared with the 288 K observed.
2. Without an atmosphere the Earth surface temperature could thus be 255 K, and thus the total effect of the atmosphere is + 33 C.
3. The observed lapse rate is 6.5 K/km with atmosphere, which means that the blackbody temperature of 255 K can be allocated to a height of about 5 km as if the Earth with a 5 km thick opaque atmospheric layer L was one blackbody with a transparent atmosphere above 5 km. The thicker L is the warmer the Earth surface will be through the lapse rate.

We now ask what the effect on the Earth surface temperature would be of changing the radiative properties of the atmospheric layer L assuming a radiation model of the form

• (1) dT/dX + E T = - 6.5 for X in the interval (0,5),

where dT/dX models convective/radiative transport and A T(X) models radiation to outer space at height X with E a positive emission coefficient, with solution

• T(X) = T(0)exp(-EX) - 6.5 (1 - exp(-EX))/E,

where T(0) is the surface temperature. With E tending to 0 corresponding to a fully opaque atmospheric layer L, we have T(X) = T(0) - 6.5 X, and thus T(0) = 288 K if T(5) = 255 K.

We now ask what the effect will be of increasing E from 0, corresponding to letting L become

increasingly transparent from fully opaque. Integration of (1) over (0,5) gives

• (2) T(0) - T(5) - 33 = integral E T(X) dX = Q1 = total emission from L to outer space

Energy balance gives

• (3) Q1 + sigma T(5)^4 = Q,

where sigma T(5)^4 is radiation from the top of L by Stefan-Boltzmann and Q is given total insolation. Differentiation of (2) with respect to E using (2) gives

• dT(0)/dE - dT(5)/dE + 4 sigma T(5)^4/T(5) dT(5)/dE = 0

where with sigma T(5)^4 ~ 240 W/m2,

• sigma T(5)^4/T(5) ~ 240/273 ~ 1

and thus

• dT(0)/dE ~ - 3 dT(5)/dE

Now, if E increases from 0, T(5) will decrease since less radiation will have to be emitted at X = 5, and thus T(0) will increase. Or put differently, as E decreases T(0) will decrease, that is increasing opacity may cause cooling of the Earth surface.

The above argument should be compared with the standard "greenhouse effect" argument where increasing opacity would correspond to an increasing thickness of the opaque layer and thereby would correspond to surface warming. The determining factors are the lapse rate, and the thickness of the absorbing atmosphere, and the lapse rate is mainly determined by thermodynamics (forced by radiation).

We thus have two simplistic models giving different effects of increasing opacity: cooling or warming, as you like. The conclusion is that a simplistic model of a "greenhouse effect" should be viewed with skepticism: it may give a correct indication about reality or not. When you have several simplistic arguments with contradictory results, one of them may be correct, but you don't know which.

But it is possible that a more complete model combining thermodynamics and radiation can give meaningful results, most likely showing that increased CO2 has neglible warming/cooling effect.

Back to the top graph of

Outgoing Longwave Radiation as seen by a satellite at a height of 20 km:

We see a dip in the emission curve in a band around 15 mu m emitted at a temperature 220 K from a height of a bit less than 20 km, while outside the band the radiation is emitted from the Earth surface at about 270 K. The dip comes from the "greenhouse gases" (mainly water vapour and some CO2) which absorb radiation from the Earth surface emitted at 270 say and and re-emitting less radiation at 220 K and thus acting as a "warming blanket" causing the "radiative forcing" of the "greenhouse effect". The idea is that the "greenhouse effect" corresponds to the area of the dip shows the "greenhouse effect" as a combined effect of water vapor and CO2

capable of warming the Earth surface temperature by 33 C as compared to a fully transparent atmosphere.

But what does the satellite measure? The IR-meter of the satellite (presumably) measures the temperature of the closest emitting surface and the total radiance is probably computed by Stefan Boltzmann's Law as if all emission came from the top layer. This means that it is not straight away to connect the dip to "radiative forcing" in particular not from the trace gas CO2. In any case the top graph is of interest and it is important to make a correct interpretation of the instrument reading....this is also important as concerns the interpretation of the graph below supposedly depicting "downwelling longwave radiation" from the atmosphere...to be continued...

Pierrehumbert pumps out the CO2 radiation message in Physics Today without even mentioning the crucial role of the thermodynamic lapse rate:

• Infrared radiative transfer theory, one of the most productive physical theories of the past century, has unlocked myriad secrets of the universe including that of planetary temperature and the connection between global warming and greenhouse gases.

As far I can see, this is stunning disinformation: planetary climate is complex thermodynamics with radiative forcing, not more or less trivial radiative transfer.

Briefing inför Rektorsmöte 6/4

Rektor Peter Gudmundson vill inte svara på mina frågor inför vårt möte 6/4. För att inte mötet bara skall bestå av tystnad väljer jag att istället informera Rektor om följande ur Fakultetsnämndens protokoll 22/3:

1. Nämnden konstaterar att ett omfattande arbete lagts ner på modernisering av utbildningen i tillämpad matematik i anslutning till Claes Johnsons pedagogiska ideer.
2. Detta arbete ... bedrivs fortfarande, på central nivå, och på skolnivå med skolan för datavetenskap och kommunikation som ansvarig skola.

Härvid gäller att 1. är sant:

• Tillsammans med Johan Hoffman och Johan Jansson CSC har jag lagt ner mycket arbete och tid på att utveckla kursmaterial för det nya kandidatprogrammet i SimuleringsTeknik (ST), som skulle startat till hösten enligt KTHs kurskatalog (40 platser).

Däremot är 2. lögn:

• ST är stoppat och det finns inte längre någon koppling mellan mig och KTHs utbildning i någon form. Inget arbete med koppling till mig bedrivs varken på central nivå eller skolnivå på KTH. Det är stoppat och nedlagt. Detta vet jag bättre än Folke Snickars som i Fakultetsnämndens protokoll påstår motsatsen, trots att jag inför Snickars före nämndens möte i mycket klara ordalag beskrivit att jag inte längre har någon som helst kontakt med KTHs utbildning.

Varför är då ST stoppat, detta nya fina program som Johan Hoffman i hård konkurrens fått igenom alla instanser på KTH, med stöd av KTHs ledning och alla skolor på KTH utom SCI-skolan, som gjorde allt den kunde för att stoppa ST men inte lyckades. Om inte SCI-skolan lyckades stoppa ST, vem var det då som lyckades? För ST är stoppat!

Jo det var ledaren på avdelningen för Numerisk Analys (NA) vid SCI-skolan, där Johan Hoffman och Johan Janssson (och även jag arbetade) lägger ner sitt stora engagemang, professorn Björn Engquist som kommit hem från sin tjänst vid University of Texas på en visit i slutet av februari 2011 för att stoppa ST, just innan ansökningen till ST till hösten skulle ha öppnats. Björn Engquist lägger alltså krokben för en av sina bästa forskare och undervisare vid sin avdelning Johan Hoffman, av världen utanför NA utsedd till (morgon)dagens forskningsledare.

Varför gör nu Björn Engquist det man inte får göra, nämligen slår ut sina egna bästa medarbetare i en auto-immun reaktion? Jo, för att i akademin när den degenererat så är det lika bra att sabotera för de som vill göra något som att göra något själv. Bra för Björn med dåligt för alla andra, inkl KTH.

Varför var/är då SCI-skolan emot ST? Jo därför att ST skulle innebära att grundläggande matematik/teknik-utbildning skulle bedrivas vid CSC-skolan och inte vid SCI-skolan, som anser sig ha monopol på detta. Reviren för KTHs skolor äro heliga och få icke beröras.

Vad gjorde SCI-skolan för att stoppa ST? Jo, man startade ett mediadrev mot min kurslitteratur BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (MST) som testades i kursen Numerical Methods II för F-studenter på SCI-skolan med Johan Hoffman som kursansvarig. Och SCI-skolans aktion lyckades censurera bort MST, mot min och kursansvarigs vilja, vilket bekräftades av Rektor i Metro-Teknik 29/11 2010 (en uppgift jag fått bekräftad av Metro-Teknik):

• Efter att studenter protesterat hos ansvariga på KTH har den omtalade boken ersatts. Det säger Peter Gudmundson, rektor på KTH. Men trots det fortsätter ansvariga lärare att använda boken i kursen.

Återstår att se hur Rektor kommer att reagera på denna info. För reagera måste han nog. Det finns frågor som måste besvaras och åtgärder som måste vidtas. Även Snickars har frågor att besvara.

Några frågor till Rektor:

• Varför har Rektor inte i något skede av KTH-gate önskat att ha någon kommunikation med mig, utan enbart litat på vad andra säger om min verksamhet (som tex Snickars)?
• Känner Du till att jag är en av två på KTH som är med på ICIHighlyCiteds lista av världens mest citerade forskare. Och att jag fått Humboldts Research Prize vilket inte alla på KTH har fått? Har det något intresse eller betydelse i sammanhanget?
• Är det bra att (morgon)dagens forskningsledare hindras att leda på KTH? Om inte forskningsledarna skall leda, vem skall då ha den uppgiften?
• Har Rektor kommunicerat med Johan Hoffman och känner till hans berättelse?

Rektors svar, om det blir något hörbart, kommer att publiceras här...

KTH-gate: Surprising Happy Resolution

KTH-gate is the scandal that hit KTH in the fall 2010 with censorship of my educational literature

• BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (MST)

two weeks after the start of the second year course Numerical Methods II, accompanied by a student driven mediastorm, where KTH-President Peter Gudmundson motivated the censorship by:

• The book contains completely unacceptable material which simply has to be deleted.
• In fact the whole book has to be deleted, except a very small excerpt which is judged to be appropriate for the young innocent minds of the KTH-students.

But two weeks before the end of the course, it was discovered by some talented KTH-hackers that the tsunami almost wrecking KTH, came out from an unfortunate mix-up of MST with the following work

• BodyandSoul: Masoschistical Stimulation Techniques, by Sarah Pahlin.

Once the real BodyandSoul was introduced to the innocent by then disoriented students, the protests vanished and were replaced by a veritable euphoria:

• It is wonderful, it seems I am flying, it is so good, everything so new, so clear and yet so thrilling.
• This is the new IT-world brought right into the heart of education.
• What we have been dreaming of since we started at KTH.
• Simulation Technology makes me feel competent and knowledgable, and I am sure I will get a very good job with these amazing computational tools we´re learning, which will allow me to construct any number of exciting Apps for the Ipad.

The President Peter Gudmundson is relieved by the miraculous resolution of a problem that bogged him down for weeks and had him think of resignation:

• Reading the real BodyandSoul made me think that after all we are doing something meaningful here at KTH, something that can have a real impact. I am so glad.
• In particular I am extremely thankful that Professor Claes Johnson moved his position from Chalmers to KTH and saved us from sclerosis academica.
• Next year the whole education at KTH will be directed by the visionary writings of this eminent scholar and friend. Horray!

Compare with Christian Science Monitor: Scientists admit global warming is hoax.