## fredag 6 maj 2011

### Presentation at Stockholm Initiative: The IPCC Trick

The Hustler (1886-1905) by Ernst Josephson (student at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in 1867)

Here is a summary of a short presentation at the annual meeting of the Stockholm Initiative
at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts, May 7.

1. IPCC Climate Sensitivity = 3 C
• The CO2 climate alarmism of IPCC is based on an estimate of climate sensitivity (global warming by doubled CO2) of 3 C obtained by positive feedback from a no-feedback sensitivity of 1 C.
• No-feedback sensitivity is obtained by definition from Stefan-Boltzmann dQ ~ 4 dT with dQ = 4 W/m2 assumed "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2.
• Note: A definition says nothing about reality. The 4 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" is a theoretical assumption rather than observed reality. Insolation constant.
2. The Question
• What is the global warming effect of a 1 % change of atmospheric radiative properties?
• 4 W/m2 is about 1 % of gross insolation of 360 W/m2
• 3 C = 1 % of gross temperature 288 K
• Reasonable?? Unreasonable??
3. Observation + Simple Models: Climate Sensitivity = 0.3 C

Combining basic mathematical models and direct observation of
• temperatures, lapse rate, insolation and thermodynamics,
one obtains a climate sensitivity which is 10 times smaller than IPCC:
• 1 % change of atmospheric radiative properties
• 0.3 C is about 1% of "atmospheric effect" of 33 C (= 288 - 255 K)
• wellposed (stable): 1% forcing gives 1% = 0.3 C
• Real radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere: 30 - 60 W/m2
• 1 % change of atmospheric properties: 0.3 - 0.6 W/m2 net radiative forcing
• IPCC backradiation exchange: 300 - 400 W/m2
• 1 % change of atmospheric properties: 4 W/m2 gross radiative forcing
• view 3 C as 1% of gross temperature 288 K, not 1% of "atmospheric effect".

In Computational Blackbody Radiation I give a new mathematical derivation of Planck's radiation law showing that backradiation is fiction. This is mathematical evidence that the 3 C of IPCC is based on fiction: 10 times too big.

5. Wellposedness: Butterfly in Brazil vs Torando in Texas

IPCC claims that a small cause (1% or 0.1% change of atmospheric properties) can have a big effect (global warming of 3 C = 10% of atmospheric effect 33 C).

6. The Lorenz Model

Can a butterfly in Brazil set off a torando in Texas?
• Can be disproved by removing butterfly and observing tornados.
• Can never be proved, because a very precise model is required (both butterfly and tornado).
Requires unstable system: small cause - big effect.

7. Is global climate unstable?

Observations say No rather than Yes. Atmosphere as air conditioner: Radiative forcing changes intensity of thermodynamics with little temperature change.

Compare with boiling water: heat forcing gives more vigorous boiling at steady temperature.

8. KTH-gate

KTH censored my mathematical analysis of climate models. Unique in (Swedish) modern academic history (after 1632). At present my professors union SULF hesitates to take up my case, as if my union and KTH were acting in tandem to silence my voice. How is this possible?

Well, in the new university system in Sweden 0f 2011, it is the administrative hierarchy of rector, dean and prefect, which determines the scientific truth and not the professor (as during 1632 - 2010).

The censorship of my work is therefore fully logical and apparently accepted even by the professors union, and also by Swedish professors. Only one has questioned the censorship, Ingemar Nordin.

#### 4 kommentarer:

1. Interesting invitation.. Just make sure you don't make things complicated now. In my view there are two things to notice:

The radiative properties of CO2 should have a slight cooling effect. If it was a warming effect then EITHER it must be a runaway effect OR a flagrant violation of the second law since it demands a cooling of the upper atmosphere at the same time as the lower part warms.

ON THE OTHER HAND

It should have a slight warming effect since an increased atmospheric mass leads to higher pressure and heat capacity.

I thus estimate a climate sensitivity of around 0.0 degrees C upon a doubling of CO2.

2. Well, 0.3 C is practically speaking the same as 0.0 C. To prove that climate sensitivity is identically zero is much more difficult than showing that it is less than 0.3 C. Why kill a fly with a bomb?

3. Generally, I agree with Anders. If the science/technology is wrong why give any concessions. The AGW believers (eg IPCC) are saying their hypothesis of human cause of temperature increase by release of CO2 is 95% certain. They do not concede that the climate sensivity of CO2 close to zero. Further in the face of huge amount of evidence they promote that a small change of temperature will cause irreversible and increasing difficulties for human living. They do not concede that an increase in temperature and CO2 may in fact be beneficial such allowing crops to once again be grown in Greenland.
Keep well cementafriend

4. Climate dogma arbitrarily puts the burden of proof on anyone who would dare claim a small sensitivity. The scientific burden of proof, however, is on those who claim the sensitivity is not zero, since the clear Venus/Earth data

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

shows it MUST be zero. A substantial portion of the population now knows the climate "consensus" is fundamentally just the cover for a tyrannous political movement. The academic promulgators of it are in denial and think they can bluster their way through, by ignoring the incontrovertible evidence against them. The stage is set for unavoidable revolution, and only the magnitude of the destruction, to all of science, is still in doubt.