Svar från KVA: Akademien Svarar Aldrig på Brev från "Privatpersoner"

KVA har svarat på mina brev angående den vetenskapliga dokumentationen av fenomenet "återstrålning", vilken utgör grunden för den CO2 alarmism som dikterar att västvärlden inklusive Sverige måste  "ställa om" till ett förindustriellt "fossilfritt" stadium:

Bäste Claes Johnson,

Akademiens kansli har meddelat mig att akademien aldrig svarar på brev från privatpersoner.

Jag har diskuterat din begäran om ett sammanträffande med "de för svarets utformning ansvariga". Vi anser att det inte finns anledning anordna något seminarium av den typ du föreslår innan dina, från gängse uppfattning avvikande, teorier om grunden för atmosfärens växthuseffekt publicerats i en vetenskaplig facktidskrift med peer review.

Hälsningar

Henning Rodhe

Professor emeritus

Meteorologiska institutionen

Stockholms universitet

Min kommentar:

1. Huruvida jag som professor vid KTH är en "privatperson", eller om Henning Rodhe som prof em vid SU är det, är inte klart.
2. Jag har begärt att KVA för mig skall redovisa den vetenskapliga dokumentationen av fenomenet "återstrålning", inte att som Henning Rodhe skriver ta del av mina "avvikande teorier".

Så här går det till i den vetenskapliga debatten i Sverige av idag. Här är mitt svar till KVA och Henning Rodhe:

Till KVA

Bäste Henning Rodhe

Du har valt att missförstå min begäran: Den avser redovisning av det fenomen av "återstrålning", som  enligt den "gängse uppfattning" Du hänvisar till, ligger till grund för KVAs nuvarande och kommande uttalande om den vetenskapliga grunden för atmosfärens "växthuseffekt". Du svarar på denna min klart framställda begäran med:

" Vi anser att det inte finns anledning anordna något seminarium av den typ du föreslår innan dina, från gängse uppfattning avvikande, teorier om grunden för atmosfärens växthuseffekt publicerats i en vetenskaplig facktidskrift med peer review".

Någon begäran att KVA skall betrakta min "avvikande teori" har jag inte framställt, varför Ditt svar inte är något svar. Jag upprepar därför ånyo min begäran. Om den av mig efterfrågade vetenskapliga dokumentationen de facto finns, så finns det ingen anledning för KVA att dölja den för mig och den vetenskapliga världen.

Skulle detta ske med avsikt, så skulle vetenskapens grundläggande princip om öppen redovisning brytas. Att KVA skulle stå bakom något sådant är för mig närmast otroligt. 

Jag ser alltså fram emot den av mig begärda redovisningen av KVA av den vetenskapliga dokumentationen av fenomenet "återstrålning" som anses ligga till grund för "växthuseffekten".

Vänligen,

Claes Johnson

prof em med fullmakt i tillämpad matematik KTH   

Schwarzschild, Chandrasekhar, Back Radiation and Ghost Detection

Non-physical two-way back-and-forth energy transfer with "back radiation". Notice that with N layers the "back radiation" to the surface increases like N x F into an absurdity for many layers. Nevertheless (or because of that), pretending to understand "back radiation" has come to be viewed as the sign of deep scientific knowledge acknowledged by all CO2 alarmists and quite a few (so called) skeptics, which differs the expert from the man in the street, who cannot understand how such a back-and-forth process can be real. See also posts under category "radiative heat transfer" connecting to the old controversy between Pictet and Prevost.

The notion of "back radiation" can be traced back to the Schwarzschild equations for radiative transfer from 1906, which formally mathematically decompose net radiative heat energy transfer into the difference of opposite two-way energy transfers, in order to faciliate symbolic solution by analytical mathematics. This method is also used by Chandrasekhar in his book on radiative transfer, and there correctly referred to as "formal solution".

Both Schwarzschild and Chandrasekhar thus use a formal mathematical decomposition similar to formally rewriting a physical Stefan-Boltzmann law

• $Q=\sigma (T_1^4-T_2^4)$                         (1)

for one-way net energy transfer $Q$ from a body with temperature $T_1$ to a body of lower temperature $T_2$,  into a non-physical form:

• $Q =\sigma T_1^4 - \sigma T_2^4$,                      (2)

formally expressing the net $Q=Q_1-Q_2$ as the difference of two opposite transfers with $Q_1=\sigma T_1^4$ from warm-to-cold and $Q_2=\sigma T_2^4$ from cold-to-warm, as if emitted to a background at 0 K (which is not the case).

Compare with Fourier's law of heat conduction $Q=\sigma (T_1-T_2)$ (or in differential form $Q=\sigma dT/dx$), which nobody would even think of splitting into $Q=\sigma T_1- \sigma T_2$ (or in differential form $Q=\sigma T_1/dx-\sigma T_2/dx$), not even a first year student, since a system acting like that with "back conduction", would be unstable and thus could not exist. "Back radiation" is as un-physical and unstable as "back conduction". Fourier would turn in his grave at the mere thought of such a horrendous concept.

Confusion arises if the non-physical form (2) is interpreted as a describing actual physics including the transfer $Q_2$ from cold-to-warm in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The confusion can lead to serious errors (as any violation of the 2nd law), with errors resulting from working with differences of gross quantities subject to perturbations (like all physical quantities), which easily may be unstable, instead of working with net quantities as being more stable. 

In the setting of CO2 global warming alarm, gross two-way energy transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere is postulated to be about 350 W/m2, while net transfer is about 35 W/m2. As acknowledged by Henning Rodhe in the discussion we had, the difference is a factor 10 reduction of alarm from 3 C to 0.3 C = no alarm. 

The lesson is: Do not confuse manipulations of symbols on a piece of paper with actual physical processes. Do not confuse the correct physical form of Stefan-Boltzmann's law (1) with the incorrect non-physical form (2). If you follow this lesson, then CO2 global warming alarm collapses to zero.

For an illuminating comparison of one-way and two-way equations for radiative heat transfer, see this article by Joseph Reynen.

Notice that another way of formally rewriting (1) is:

• $Q =\sigma T_1^4+GHOST_1 - (\sigma T_2^4 +GHOST_2)$,         

where $GHOST_1=GHOST_2=GHOST$are equal (odorless, weightless) "ghost quantities" emitted by the bodies. By measuring $Q$ as the net energy absorbed by body 2 and postulating that body 2 is emitting $\sigma T_2^4 + GHOST$, one can argue that the measurement gives instrumental evidence of the existence of the quantity $\sigma T_1^4+GHOST$ and thus instrumental evidence of the existence of the quantity $GHOST$, which as you understand can be anything (odorless and weightless). The instrument is thus a perfect "ghost-detector" and as such potentially has a huge commercial market. Right? Anyway here is a handy instrument affordable to anyone in need of "ghost detection":

This is the way a pyrgeometer measuring DLR as atmospheric "back radiation" functions.

PS1 David Andrews states on p 84 of An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics, about two-way radaitive heat transfer:

• We find F-up and F-down by a sequence of tricks.

Yes, it is a "sequence of tricks" with no physical correspondence.

PS2 The fundamental error is clearly exposed in the above book:

• If the Earth is assumed to emit as a black body: $Q=\sigma T^4$...(page 5). 
• The ground is assumed to emit as a black body (page 6).

But the ground does not emit as a black body emitting into a backgound at 0 K. The Earth-atmosphere system emits into a background at 3 K, and the ground emits into an atmosphere of about 255 K, thus vastly different form 0 K. The fact that physicists of today do not react to this fundamental violation of basic physics, can only be understood as a degeneracy of modern physics away from scientific principles into black magic. The day of reckoning is approaching and the verdict in the history of science to be written will be harsh. Assuming the Earth is flat is a small error in comparison.

Phlogiston Theory vs Radiation Theory with Back Radiation

Phlogiston theory and radiation theory with "back radiation" shares a common theme: Both describe  phenomena taking place as if in a vacuum, without input from the actual environment:

Phlogiston theory states that a phlogistated substance burns by consumption of phlogistons (or "fire elements") inside the substance in a process of dephlogistication without input from the environment, as if taking place in a vacuum. 

Radiation theory with back radiation states that all bodies of modest temperatures radiate infrared photons (or "light elements") out of the body independent of the temperature of the surrounding environment, as if taking place in a vacuum.  

Phlogistons have never been identified and observed, and neither have infrared photons. Both are elements believed to be hiding inside a substance capable of escaping into a surrounding vacuum.

For an earlier post on phlogistons and infrared photons, see here.

PS You can buy an infrared detector like an infrared camera reacting to infrared light. Is an infrared camera a collector of infrared photons, like a butterfly net collecting butterflies flying through the air?

No. A cooled infrared camera absorbs heat energy from a warmer object and an uncooled infrared camera emits heat energy to a cooler object. In neither case does the camera collect a nominal flow of "light elements" supposedly being emitted by an object into a surrounding vacuum. Compare with previous posts under category "infrared thermometer".

You can use your on body as detector of a colder or warmer environment than your skin, by noticing a feeling of being cooled or heated, but your perceived sensation is not evidence of  "infrared photons" flying in and out of your body.

Nytt Brev till KVA om "Återstrålning"

Till KVA

Efter samtal idag med Henning Rodhe har jag anledning att förnya min begäran om möte med KVA angående den fysikaliska grunden för den "återstrålning", som anges vara ett fundament i den vetenskapliga beskrivningen av den så kallade "växthuseffekten". Vi samtalet bad jag Henning redovisa fysiken bakom "återstrålning" och den version av Stefan-Boltzmann's strålningslag som anses beskriva detta fenomen. Henning hänvisade till att denna fråga fanns utredd i litteraturen, men ville inte ge någon referens.

Frågan återstår alltså att besvara och jag anser att KVA på anmodan måste kunna leverera ett svar på denna fråga inom ramen för KVAs kommande nya uttalande om den vetenskapliga grunden för klimatförändringar. Det kan inte var möjligt för KVA att avge ett vetenskapligt uttalande utan att vara berett att redovisa grunden för detsamma. 

För att föra frågan framåt konstruktivt anmodar jag KVA att snarast besvara min fråga om den vetenskapliga grunden för fenomenet "återstrålning" och dess dokumentation i den vetenskapliga litteraturen. För att komma till avslut begär jag att svaret levereras till mig vid ett seminarium där de för svarets utformning ansvariga är närvarande.

KVAs nya uttalande kommer att lägga grunden för svensk klimatpolitik fram till 2050, och det är av yttersta vikt för det svenska samhället att detta uttalande är grundat på så korrekt vetenskap som möjligt.

Minsta misstanke om att "återstrålning" skulle kunna vara ett fiktivt fenomen utan fysikalisk grund, som härrör från en misstolkning av Stefan-Boltzmann's strålningslag, måste föranleda utredning, av KVA.

Vänligen,

Claes Johnson

PS1 Det finns medlemmar av Royal Society som har förmåga att se igenom den religion av koldioxidalarmism som predikas av sällskapet. Läs och begrunda. Tänk om det fanns en säger en sådan person i KVA.

PS2 Notera att bevisbördan ligger hos de som påstår att "återstrålning" är en realitet, inte hos de som ifrågasätter existensen av detta fenomen. Att påvisa att något som inte finns, som " återstrålning", de facto inte finns kan vara näst intill omöjligt, såvida inte icke-existensen följer av en logisk semantisk motsägelse. Att visa att det inte finns några "andar" eller "telepati" eller "psykokinesi" är svårt, men inte heller det som den vetenskapliga frågeställningen gäller. Det är istället att påvisa existensen av dessa fenomen för de som så påstår. Det är alltså KVA som på anmodan skall kunna redovisa det vetenskapliga underlaget för "återstrålning". 

Comparison of Two Basic Models of the Greenhouse Effect

Let us compare the two models of the "greenhouse effect" from the previous post.

The too-simple-model is used to predict the following "basic postulates of global warming":

• Postulate1: "Total greenhouse effect" = 33 C.
• Postulate2: "Added greenhouse effect" of global warming of 1 C from doubled CO2. 

Here Postulate2 results from a differentiated form of Stefan-Boltzmann $dQ=4dT$, from an estimated "radiative forcing" of $dQ=4 W/m2$ from doubled CO2 from an estimated 10% broadening of the "ditch" the CO2 OLR-spectrum.

The value of a model depends on what data is used as input and what is the realism of the model. Let us compare the too-simple-model with the not-too-simple-model from these points of view. We have:

1. Too-simple-model for "total greenhouse effect":

• data1: 15 C ground temperature.
• model1: Stefan-Boltzmann for blackbody.
• output1: Total greenhouse effect = 33 C.

2. Too-simple-model for "added greenhouse effect":

• data2: $dQ=4 W/m2$ from estimated 10% change of the CO2 "ditch". 
• model2: Differentiated form of Stefan Boltzmann $dQ=4T$.
• output2: 1 C added warming by doubled CO2.

3. Not-too-simple-model for "total and added greenhouse effect":

• data3: 15 C ground temperature at 5/6 closed window. Earth surface emissivity = 0.7.
• model3: Stefan-Boltzmann for fully open window.
• output3: Total greenhouse effect = 2 C.  Added effect 10% of total = 0.2 C. 

We see that both data2 and model2 rely on estimates of small changes, while both data3 and model3 are based on gross quantities. We understand that gross quantities in general are more reliable than changes of gross quantities, since relatively speaking gross quantities are less affected by perturbations than changes thereof.  Further, data3 includes more information than data2. The not-too-simple model thus includes more relevant information than the too-simple-model and thus may be expected to be more reliable.

The estimate of the "total greenhouse effect" of 2 C thus can be expected to be more reliable than both postulates of global warming, in particular more reliable than Postulate2 as the foundation of CO2 global warming alarm.

PS1 Concerning the absolute madness of strangling Western economies by costly meaningless reductions of CO2 emissions, read about the US-China deal set by Obama.

PS2 GWPF questions the CO2 alarm sent by the Royal Society, but does not question Postulate2 as the very basis of the alarm. But if the 1 C of Postulate2 is replaced by 0.2 C on better scientific grounds, then no further questioning is needed. It is strange that skeptics like Lindzen et al, who are able  to question just about everything the Royal Society says, are unable to question Postulate2. It appears that Postulate2 serves as a dogma so strong that questioning is unthinkable. This is how a true dogma can persist to hold its grip. Questioning is unthinkable. And if questioning is unthinkable, then a dogma with weak scientific support can continue to serve as the truth.

Basic Model of Greenhouse Effect: Climate Sensitivity=0.2 C

Model of an Earth-atmosphere system absorbing energy from the Sun, which is partially transferred to the ground surface thermodynamically and emitted to outer space partially from the ground through an "atmopsheric window" and partially from the atmosphere. The effect of "closing the window" is at most 2 C as the maximal "total greenhouse effect" of all "greenhouse gasses", thus  with a "climate sensitivity" as a 10% change from doubled CO2 emission of at most 0.2 C, which is so small that it can never be observed. The model indicates that CO2 global warming alarm of 3 C is false alarm. 

The standard basic model of the Earth's energy budget predicts a "total greenhouse effect" of 33 C as the difference between the presently observed global Earth surface temperature of + 15 C and a projected temperature of - 18 C of an Earth with fully transparent atmosphere without any "greenhouse gas", or an Earth without any atmosphere at all like the Moon, cf. PS2 below.

The projection of - 18 C results from a direct application Stefan-Boltzmann's law as the radiative equilibrium temperature of a black body (or grey body) at the same distance to the Sun as the Earth.

This model is extremely simplistic but yet is used as a starting point for projections of alarming global warming from small changes in the radiative properties of the atmosphere by human emission of CO2. A 10% change of  a "total greenhouse effect" of 33 C is presently sending an alarm of 3 C propagated to humanity by IPCC.

Following Einstein one should always seek a model which is as simple as possible, but not too simple. Viewing the above 1-stage model as too simple, we consider instead the following 3-stage model of an Earth-atmosphere system "without greenhouse gas effect":

1. Radiative absorption of 240 W/m2 out of incoming 340 W/m2 from the Sun with absorptivity 0.7 by Earth+atmosphere system.
2. Thermodynamic transfer of 240 W/m2 from Earth+atmosphere to Earth ground surface (without loss).
3. Radiative emission of 240 W/m2 from ground directly to outer space through "fully open atmospheric window" with emissivity 0.7 at 280 K = 7 C according to Stefan-Boltzmann $240 = 0.7\times\sigma\times 280^4$ with $\sigma = 5.67\times 10^{-8}Wm^{-2}K^{-4}$.  

We compare with present observation of ground temperature of 15 C with emission of 40 W/m2 directly from the ground to outer space, with thus "1/6-open atmospheric window".

Extrapolation to fully closed window, then predicts a ground temperature of 15+ 8/5 C, say 17 C.

The total effect of closing the present atmospheric window of 40 W/m2 by massive emission of a greenhouse gas, thus could at most cause a warming of 2 C.

We have thus with a less simplistic model arrived at a "total greenhouse effect" of 2 C instead of the 33 C by the too simple model.

Incidently, this connects to the so-called "2-degree goal", but now with the 2 C as the maximally possible "total greenhouse effect", with thus 10% changes of size 0.2 C as an upper estimate of climate sensitivity as global warming by doubled CO2. Reducing 33 C to 2 C reduces global warming alarm to nothing.

The maximal change of global temperature under varying radiative properties of the atmosphere including clouds and "greenhouse gasses", could thus be estimated to be at most 2 C. This conforms to the observed temperature variation during the last 10.000 years after the last ice age, see below where the alarming dotted 3 C prediction reflects the too-simple-model.

Note that the crucial element in the not-too-simple model is the thermodynamic step 2 separating emission from absorption resulting in a double reduction with absorptivity=emissivity= 0.7, to be compared with one reduction with absorptivity=emissivity in the too-simple-model.

Notice further that the thermodynamics including lapse rate et cet is included in the observation of 15 C with 5/6 closed window.  The model thus isolates the crucial role of the "greenhouse effect" in the CO2 global warming scenario through a variable "atmospheric window".

PS1 The too-simple-model is used to predict the "total greenhouse effect" to be 33 C and is also used for the basic prediction of CO2 global warming of 1 C by Stefan-Boltzmann from an estimated "radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2 from doubled CO2 from an estimated 10% broadening of the "ditch" of the CO2 OLR-spectrum.  For a comparison with the not-too-simple model, see the next post.

PS2 The max and min temperatures of the Moon at the equator is 390 K and 120 K, respectively, which gives a mean of about 255 K = - 18 C.

Correspondence with Pierrehumbert on Back Radiation

Here is a response on my letter to Raymond Pierrehumbert:

Dear Claes,

“Back radiation” is simply the name given to the downward infrared flux evaluated at the surface.  The flux computation (in any direction) proceeds directly from the Planck distribution, Kirchoff’s Laws, and measured emissivities of the atmospheric constituents.  These have been established beyond doubt, both by theory and measurements, so if you have come to a conclusion that “back radiation” doesn’t exist, there is clearly an error in your calculation, and I’m afraid I have other things I need to be doing and can’t take the time to plow through it and see where it is.  “back radiation” doesn’t exist as a concept distinct from radiation fluxes in general, so it is impossible to “disprove” its existence without throwing out the whole of radiative transfer theory as well — which is about as well established as the Newton’s Laws of Motion.  

There have been a great many fallacious arguments about back radiation that have appeared in the past.  The following blog post has useful citations to the literature on radiative transfer, and also some discussion of where some of the other attempts to “disprove” back radiation have gone wrong. 

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/

Perhaps studying those will help you spot the error in your own derivation.

m.v.h.

—Ray Pierrehumbert

Here is my response and continued correspondence:

Dear Raymond:

Thanks for your answer. I understand that you base your climate science on a non-physical incorrect form of Planck's and Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation laws, where physical net heat transfer from warm-to-cold is artificially decomposed into two opposite transfers warm-to-cold and cold-to-warm. This is artificial as a procedure performed by symbols on a piece of paper, because heat transfer cold-to-warm violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you do not make a clear distinction between symbolic manipulation and physics, gross mistakes can be made. 

The correct forms of Planck's and Stefan-Boltzmann's laws can only be understood by properly understanding the proofs of these laws. I thus ask you about your proof of these laws? What is it based on? What are the main arguments? I don't ask you to read my proof. I only ask you about your own. Since this is central to climate science and you represent the expertise, you must be willing to give an answer. 

Looking forward to your reply,

Sincerely, Claes

Claes,

If you think you have a theory of radiative transfer that gives completely different results from that developed by Planck, Einstein and Chandrasekhar, you’d better be ready to show that it can account for the way stars shine, their photospheric temperature, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the successful retrieval of temperature in the atmosphere by satellite measurements of outgoing infrared and microwave radiation, the successful match of the spectrum of OBSERVED downward radiation flux to the ground and about a hundred thousando other ways that radiative transfer is applied throughout physics — and not just in climate problems.  Again, I urge you to study the basic physics and take another look at your derivation to see where you have gone wrong. Until you do, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

—Ray Pierrehumbert

Dear Raymond

I asked you about your proof of Planck's and Stefan-Boltmann's laws, but did not get any answer.

So I repeat my question. I don't think that you as leading climate scientist are in a position, where you can simply close the discussion without giving a proper answer to my question.

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely, Claes

From Pierrehumbert:

Oh for goodness sakes, “my” proof of Plank’s radiation law (and Kirchoff’s law) is no different from Einstein’s or the proof you will find in any elementary statistical physics textbook. Let me put this in the simplest terms I can:  a body with a temperature radiates.  In local thermodynamic equilibrium the radiation emitted is isotropic. That means some of the radiation flux is downwards. The sum of all the downward radiation flux reaching the ground from each layer of the atmosphere is what is commonly called “back radiation” it depends only on the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, and is completely independent of how the atmospheric temperature is maintained.  In particular, it  doesn’t require you to keep track of what happens to the radiation emitted upwards from the ground (that’s part of the separate computation of what maintains the atmospheric temperature.  

If you are underneath something with a nonzero temperature that has a nonzero emissivity, it is going to warm you. You will experience the downward flux. This is routinely measured at any number of observing stations around the globe (for references see the link I sent you earlier).  If you think you have a way of making the emitted thermal radiation anisotropic, good luck with making that consistent with the observed properties of the Universe and the objects of which it is composed.  

For the record, while back-radiation is important in determining the surface energy balance of a planet, the greenhouse effect can be understood more simply in terms of the top-of-atmosphere energy budget (which is purely radiative), and the vertical structure of the atmosphere as determined by the adiabat. (As explained in Ch. 3 and 4 of my book, Principles of Planetary Climate).  

Please do not expect any more correspondence from me. I’ve already put more time into this than I can spare.

My answer to Pierrehumbert:

OK Raymond you refer to Einstein, but he did not give any proof of Planck's and Stefan-Boltzmann's laws (including back radiation). You say: A body with temperature radiates. I ask you: Radiates into what? Into an environment at 0 K? Into an environment at higher temperature? After insisting heavily that "back radiation" is real, you take a step back and say that after all the "greenhouse effect", does not depend on any "back radiation". What is the logic? 

Raymond, what you are saying does not make any sense, and I understand that you cannot continue the discussion. But you cannot stop the world nor scientific evidence:  "Back radiation" is non-physical illusion. How come you invest all your money into such a hopeless non-physical idea, which not even Einstein did embrace?  

It may well be that we will meet in person in connection with the new statement on the scientific basis of climate change to be issued by KVA/Henning Rodhe, and then the discussion will continue.  

Sincerely, Claes

Summary: 

Pierrehumbert does not answer my question. The only reference given is to the blogosphere http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/. The derivation of Planck's law by statistical physics says nothing about back radiation. I think that it is possible to properly understand the meaning of a mathematical theorem only if you know a proof and a physical law only if you know the arguments behind the law. To read a physical law like a lawyer reads a judiciary law seeking the meaning by inspecting the symbolic wording, can easily lead to misinterpretation confusing symbols with physics. This mistake is done in the case of "back radiation". A related logical fallacy is to say that if Einstein's or Planck's proofs say nothing about the non-existence of "back radiation" as physical reality, then it follows that "back radiation" is a real phenomenon. This is an elementary form of "argumentum ad ignorantiam"; the less you know, the more sure you can be that you are right.

PS See later post on phlogiston theory and "back radiation".

Double Albedo Model: Greenhouse Effect Reduced from 33 to 8 to 2 C

The albedo of a radiating body can be seen as a "transaction cost" as the fraction of incident radiation which is not absorbed and converted to heat for subsequent emission = absorption. The albedo of the Earth-atmosphere system subject to incident sun light mostly in the visible and ultraviolet frequency range, is about 0.3. The albedo of the Earth surface as emitter of infrared radiation is also about 0.3.

The "effective blackbody temperature" of the Earth+atmosphere system is 255 K, as the temperature of a blackbody emitting the 240 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth+atmosphere out of a total of 340 W/m2 incident sun light, thus with an albedo of 0.3.

The "effective emission altitude" is about 5 km as the altitude where the temperature is 255 K. The difference 33 K between the ground temperature of 288 K and 255 K is commonly termed the "total greenhouse effect" as the ground temperature difference of an Earth with and without an atmosphere.

But to compare Earths with and without atmosphere is not reasonable, unless you want to argue that with a "total greenhouse effect" as large as 33 C, a perturbation of 10% could represent an global warming of 3 C, which would seem very alarming.

It is more reasonable to compare Earths with different "atmospheric window", as the part of the total emission from the Earth-atmosphere system emitted directly from the ground surface. With a full window and a ground albedo of 0.3, the ground temperature emitting the 240 W/m2 would be about 280 K. The corresponding "total greenhouse effect" would thus be 8 K, to be compared with the standard estimate of 33 K. Closing the current window of 40 W/m2 could then increase the effect with 2 K.

With a "total greenhouse effect" of 8 K and "closing window effect" of 2 K,  instead of 33 K,  the effect of perturbations will be correspondingly smaller.  The 1 K upon doubling of CO2 in the standard perspective as no-feedback climate sensitivity, would be reduced by a factor 4 or 10 and thus not be measurable.

This analysis can be viewed to reflect a phenomenon of "double albedo", a first from absorption of sun light and a second from emission of infrared, as a double "transaction cost", in accordance with the analysis of blackbody radiation presented as Computational Blackbody Radiation.

We thus have the following emission scenarios with varying atmospheric windows and corresponding ground temperatures, all under absorption of  240 W/m2 by the Earth-atmosphere system:

1. Observed: Window 40 W/m2. Temperature 288 K. 
2. Estimated: Window 240 W/m2. Temperature 280 K.
3. Estimated: Window 0 W/m2. Temperature 290 K.

Doubled CO2 has been estimated to have a window effect of at most 4 W/m2 with a corresponding temperature effect of 10% of 2 K, thus not measurable.

The 2 K variation between 1. and 3. is consistent with the observed temperature variation since the end of the last ice age 10.000 years ago. Global cooling by more than 2 K would then seem to require increased system albedo, which could result from vast glaciation during an ice age, while a corresponding scenario for global warming larger than 2 K would seem to be difficult to dream up.

Listen to prof Richard Lindzen: The whole thing is pretty absurd.

PS1 More precisely, we are led to a 2-level system, where the Earth+atmosphere system absorbs 240 W/m2 by radiation from the Sun with an albedo of 0.3, which are then transferred thermodynamically to the Earth surface. With a fully open atmospheric window, these 240 W/m2 can then be emitted by radiation with an albedo of 0.3 at a temperature of 280 K.

PS2  Even more precisely, we are led to a 3-level system: radiative absorption - thermodynamic transfer - radiative emission, where both absorption and emission are subject to a "transaction cost" captured as albedo of about 0.3.  This gives a "greenhouse effect" of 8 K, to be compared with the standard 33 K resulting from a model with only absorption-emission. I will elaborate this idea in an upcoming post.   

Öppet Brev till KVA om "Återstrålning" och "Växthuseffekt"

Jag har idag skickat följande brev till KVA:

Till KVA

kopia: Henning Rodhe, Lennart Bengtsson

Efter förslag av Lennart Bengtsson har jag skickat nedanstående brev till Henning Rodhe och Raymond Pierrehumbert.

Brevet behandlar det fenomen av "återstrålning" från atmosfären till jordytan, som utgör grunden för den vetenskapliga beskrivningen av "växthuseffekten" med hotande global uppvärmning från fossil energi, vilken ligger till grund för nuvarande svenska klimatpolitik med inriktning mot ett fossilfritt Sverige 2050.

Efter grundliga studier har jag kommit till slutsatsen att "återstrålning" är ett fiktivt fenomen som inte har fysisk realitet, vilket har konsekvenser för realiteten av "växthuseffekten".

Enligt uppgift är KVA nu i färd med att utarbeta ett nytt uttalande om den vetenskapliga grunden för "växthuseffekten" under ledning av prof Henning Rodhe. Med anledning av frågans utomordentliga betydelse för svensk klimatpolitik önskar jag få tillfälle att för KVA personligen framlägga resultatet av min vetenskapliga undersökning av "återstrålning" och dess betydelse för "växthuseffekten".

Hälsningar

Claes Johnson
prof em i tillämpad matematik KTH

KlimatAnpassningsPerspektivet Skall Ingå i All Utbildning

Statskoll meddelar att SMHI vill ta över ansvaret i kampen mot klimatförändringen med följande huvuduppgift:

• Nationellt kunskapscentrum för klimatanpassning vid SMHI får i uppdrag att, genomföra en rikstäckande kartläggning av grundskole-, gymnasium- samt universitets- och yrkesutbildningar där klimatanpassningsperspektivet är eller bör vara en del av undervisningen, samt att baserat på detta ge rekommendationer till universitet och Skolverket.

Ett utomordentligt initiativ i Lysenkos och PropagandaMinisteriets anda.

Bengtsson and Pierrehumbert: Back Radiation, Fossil Fuel and Pre-Industrial Hell

Lennart Bengtsson is Sweden's leading climate scientist and main author of the Statement by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change, which is the scientific rationale of Swedish climate politics aiming at a fossil free society by 2050.

When I ask Bengtsson as top Swedish expert about the scientific origin and documentation of the element of radiative heat transfer from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface named "back radiation", which serves as a key element to support CO2 global warming alarmism, Bengtsson responds by saying that he is not able to give an answer and then kindly suggests that I pose instead my questions to Raymond Pierrehumbert presently King Carl XVI Gustaf Visiting Professorship in Environmental Science at the University of Stockholm:

• Chance took Ray Pierrehumbert to Stockholm where he fell for the city - and Sweden. On the King's environmental professorship, he now works on to illuminate the complex systems that explain the earth's climate and to get decision makers to switch to a fossil free society.
• "We are most likely going to pass the point where the earth's climate will be two degrees warmer”. 
• According to Ray Pierrehumbert that does not mean it´s automatically a disaster for humanity, but the risk of a catastrophic development increases the more the temperature rises.
• "The decisions we make today determine how the climate will be for the next ten thousand years!”
• “When the total amount of coal burned and ended up in the atmosphere amounts to three trillion tonnes, the earth's average temperature rises by two degrees. So far, we have transferred two trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is humanity's greatest challenge”.
• Ray Pierrehumbert practices what he preaches. He has not owned a car in 20 years, he travels by public transport or by bicycle, lives in a small apartment and does not buy things unnecessarily. The problem from a climate perspective for him, and many other researchers, is air travel. But he is trying to use telephone conferencing and Skype as much as possible.
• Accordingly, he has informed King Carl XVI Gustaf that heating of the Royal Castle will no longer be allowed. 

We read that Prof Pierrehumbert has invested heavily in CO2 alarmism. When Bengtsson suggests me to ask Prof Pierrehumbert to check if my analysis of "back radiation" as non-physics is correct, he can safely count on a negative answer or no answer. This is clever, but why does Bengtsson bother at all? Why does Bengtsson not say simply stick to his earlier statement that my work is BS? Why involve Pierrehumbert? 

Here you can listen to Pierrehumbert crushing Lindzen, Spencer and Christy. What would he say about LB? Or watch: We are climate scientists, Chicago style.

A fossil free Sweden may be possible, with our nuclear and hydro power, but what about the rest of the world now surviving on 80% fossil energy? How much will human population have to get reduced to save itself by reducing fossil fuel to zero by 2050?

What if the King would read The Moral Case of Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein:

• Renouncing oil and its byproducts would plunge civilization into a pre-industrial hell—a fact developing countries keenly realize.

Following Pierrehumbert Sweden will be returned to a restart as an early developing country without even a King.

PS1  Here is a copy of a letter I sent to Profs Raymond Pierrehumbert and Henning Rodhe KVA:

Dear Professors Raymond Pierrehumbert and Henning Rodhe

Upon suggestion by Prof Lennart Bengtsson I want to direct your attention to an analysis of the concept of "back radiation", as a key element in the standard description of atmospheric radiative heat transfer summarized in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget, which I present in detail on the web site https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com and in posts on http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se under the categories "myth of back radiation" and "DLR".

The analysis is based on a new proof of Planck's radiation law which indicates that "back radiation" has no physical reality. This is in direct contradiction to the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget, where "back radiation" has a key role. 

I asked Prof Bengtsson about the original scientific sources documenting "back radiation" as a real physical phenomenon, but I did not receive an answer. Instead Prof Bengtsson suggested me to contact Prof Pierrehumbert as world leading expert on planetary climate and Prof Rodhe in charge of the new statement on the scientific basis of climate change to be made by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

I thus pose the same question to you and I hope to get a clear answer. Since "back radiation" is such a fundamental part of the standard conception of CO2 global warming, documentation must exist.

I also hope that you will seriously consider my evidence of the non-physics of "back radiation " and of course I am willing to present this evidence directly to you in a meeting to get your view, if you would prefer.

Sincerely,

Claes Johnson

                                                                       Fossil free society.

PS2 Key posts on non-physics of Back Radiation and Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR are:

• The Inventors of DLR and thus GHE
• Josef Stefan: Back Radiation and DLR Pure Fiction
• The Big DLR/Back Radiation Bluff
• The Big Bluff of CO2 Alarmism: DLR

PS3 Recall that Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law for radiative transfer of heat energy $E>0$ between two blackbodies of temperature $T_1$ and $T_2$ with $T_1>T_2$ reads:  

• $E =\sigma\times (T_1^4-T_2^4)$,                 (1)

where $\sigma$ is a Stefan-Boltzmann's constant. Note that with $T_2=0$, (1) takes the form $E=\sigma\times T_1^4$ as the radiation from a blackbody of temperature $T_1$ into a background at 0 K. 

Back radiation/DLR results from a misrepresentation of  (1) of the form

• $E = E_1-E_2\equiv\sigma\times T_1^4 - \sigma\times T_2^4$,    (2)

where E comes out as the difference bewteen two fictitious opposite heat transfers $E_1$ and $E_2$.

Here $E_1$ and $E_2$ are fictitious because they represent heat transfers into a background of 0 K, which is not the case.

Thus the algebraic decomposition of (1) into (2) has no physical reality as a decomposition of one way heat transfer into net transfer of two opposite heat transfers, because the transfer from cold to warm violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

What is possible with symbols on a piece of paper, does not have to correspond to any reality. The fate of human civilization may depend on understanding this basic fact of science.

PS4 Read Wall Street Journal: Political Assault on Climate Skeptics. Of course I do not expect to get any response from Pierrehumbert and Rodhe. Climate skeptics are subject to suppression not only in the US.

PS5 Notice that Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish semi-god of CO2 alarmism, uses (1) and not (2) in his  legendary article from 1896 with the triggering title On the Influence of Carbon Acid in the Air upon the Temperature on the Ground, as observed in an earlier post from 2010.

PS6 The "effective blackbody temperature" of the Earth+atmosphere system is 255 K, as the temperature of a blackbody emitting the 240 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth+atmosphere out of a total of 340 W/m2 coming in from the Sun mostly as visible and ultraviolet light with a smaller portion as infrared. The "effective emission altitude" is about 5 km as the altitude where the temperature is 255 K. The difference 33 K between the ground temperature of 288 K and 255 K is commonly termed the "total greenhouse effect" as the ground temperature difference of an Earth with and without an atmosphere.

But to compare Earths with and without atmosphere is not reasonable, unless you want to find a  "greenhouse effect" which is as large as possible.

It is more reasonable to compare Earths with different "atmospheric window", as the part of the total emission from the Earth-atmosphere system emitted from the ground.  With a full window and a ground albedo of 0.3, the ground temperature emitting the 240 W/m2 would be about 280 K. The corresponding "total greenhouse effect" would thus be 8 K, to be compared with the standard estimate of 33 K. Closing the current window of 40W/m2 would then increase the effect with 2 K. With a "total greenhouse effect" of 8 K instead of 33 K, perturbations in the greenhouse effect will be correspondingly smaller: The 1 K upon doubling of CO2 in the standard perspective, would be reduced to 0.25 C and thus not measurable.

This analysis can be viewed to reflect "double albedo", a first from absorption of sun light and a second from emission of infrared, as a double "transaction cost".