The Wobbling Sun Gravito-Radiative Global Warming Effect

In PS4 of the previous post a comparison was made between (one-way) electromagnetic-radiative heat/energy transfer by (two-way) electromagnetics waves, which is very real, and hypothetical gravity-radiative heat transfer by gravitational waves for which experimental support is very weak. 

If gravitational wave transfer of energy is real, a wobbling Sun would have a heating effect on the Earth transmitted by gravitational waves, which would add to the familiar electromagnetic-radiative heating, and so add to global warming. But no such a scenario is mentioned in the reports by IPCC.  We can thus conclude that it is not real, since IPCC supposedly takes in all real effects on global warming. 

Of course, a lack of gravity radiation effect from the Sun, could be that in fact the Sun is not wobbling enough to give a measurable signal. In any case, its effect on global warming appears to be small. This should come as a consolation in difficult times.

  

John Clauser: Crisis of Nobel Pseudoscience

2022 Physics Nobel Laureate John Clauser has found by investigating the current status of climate science that the climate alarmism propagated by IPCC and the new International Panel on Information Environment formed by the Nobel Foundation,  is pseudoscience:

• Now I am not alone in observing the dangerous proliferation of pseudoscience. Recently, The Nobel Foundation has formed a new panel to address the issue called the International Panel on Information Environment. They plan to model it after the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
• I think personally that they are making a big mistake in that effort because in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.

This connects to the previous post on the conflicting views of Clauser and the Nobel Foundation. To help sort out pseudoscience from realscience, Clauser gives the advice to use mathematics: 

• Recall, if you want pseudoscience to be true, just simply spin it and it becomes true. Importantly, a referee must know and use mathematically based physics. A good scientist must also know how to derive and solve differential equations. That was the first thing I learned as an undergraduate at Caltech.
• Follow the teaching of Sir Isaac Newton. He found that the world is governed by differential equations. He had to invent calculus to do it, but he did it. A referee must correctly identify the dominant processes. That’s the starting point. The best way to do this is with order of magnitude estimates of the various conceivable processes.

This is the approach I have used with particular focus on discovering magnitudes by computation. 

In particular, there is no known or even thinkable physics indicating that a minor increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 from use of fossil fuel can cause measurable warming of a global climate subject to major impact from the Sun, clouds and ocean circulation. Zero. 

Global Warming: Measuring Temperature vs Flux of Heat Energy vs Radiative Forcing

OLWR (right) as measured by CERES

The central concept in the prediction of global warming from human emissions of CO2 presented by IPCC, is that of radiative forcing as a warming effect of 3-4 W/m2 upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial time with corresponding global warming of less than 1 C. From this non-alarming warming is obtained alarming warming by up to 4 C by various positive feed-backs. If the 1 C was instead 0.3 C corresponding radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 instead of 3-4 W/m2, there would be no reason for alarm. And of course not, if feed-backs are smaller (very likely) or even negative. 

Let us now check how IPCC comes up with a radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 as the central argument behind alarm.    

The radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is obtained from a radiative perturbation computation starting from measured spectra of Outgoing LongWave Radiation OLWR or radiative flux from the Earth into space by bolometers in CERES satellites as shown above. The computation estimates the radiative forcing as the  change of OLWR from doubled CO2. See lecture by Will Happer.

The advantage of this approach is that knowledge of the complex physics of turbulent convective heat transfer and phase change behind the present measured OLWR is not needed. The radiative computation concerns the change of OLWR from a change of radiative properties of the atmosphere from doubled CO2 everything else being the same. The radiative forcing is thus obtained from a radiative heat transfer computation based on radiative properties.    

A bolometer measures temperature (in degrees Kelvin K) through a temperature dependent resistance which is translated to OLWR (in W/m2) through some form of Planck's Law. 

That primarily temperature is measured, is seen from the fact that CERES delivers the altitude from where OLWR is coming, because altitude directly connects to temperature, which would not be possible if OLWR was the prime measurement.

The translation from measured temperature in K to OLWR in W/m2 is tricky. To see the difficulty, let us consider heat conduction with heat flux corresponding to radiance and Planck's Law replaced by Fourier's Law taking the following form (in one space dimension): 

• $Q = C \frac{dT}{dx}$ 

where $T$ is temperature $Q$ heat flux, $x$ a spatial coordinate and $C$ is a coefficient of heat conductivity. Now, temperature can be directly measured by a thermometer corresponding to the bolometer in CERES, while to determine the heat flux Q the coefficient of heat conductivity must be known. Temperature is a primary measured quantity and heat flux is a secondary computed quantity requiring knowledge of a heat conduction coefficient and temperature derivative. 

To measure inside and outside temperature of a wall is direct and precise using a thermometer, while determining the heat flux through the wall requires (i) detailed data on the design of the wall or (ii) experiments with known heat source. 

Measurement of OLWR in CERES carries the same difficulty. What is directly measured by the satellite bolometer are temperatures of different spectral bands as seen from the bolometer, while the translation to OLWR requires detailed knowledge of atmospheric emittance corresponding to heat conductivity of a wall. Measured OLWR is thus subject to large uncertainties as well as the computation of radiative forcing. Experiments corresponding to (ii) cannot be made. 

Total OWLR is about 240 W/m2 and so a radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is a small perturbation which is difficult to assess. It could as well be 2 or 0 or even negative. The central element of the IPCC global warming message to the World thus cannot be viewed to be scientifically settled. If the estimated radiative forcing was 1 W/m2  instead of 3-4 W/m2, then there would be no alarm.  

Radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is by IPCC presented as the basic scientific argument behind the present march in the West into a fossil free society of pre-industrial standard and population.  The theory and observation supporting the argument is highly uncertain and cannot motivate continued march.   

UN Declares Successful Control of Ozon Layer: Climate Next!

Washington Post happily reports that the Earth’s ozone layer is recovering:

• The atmospheric layer that protects Earth’s inhabitants from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays is slowly rebuilding itself, according to a United Nations report published Wednesday.
• Scientists credit the recovery to the phasing out of chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners and aerosol cans in the 1980s, ... through the Montreal Protocol,
• “It’s a victory for diplomacy and for science and for the fact that we were able to work together,” said chemist Mario Molina, who won a Nobel Prize for his research into the ozone layer.

To UN this gives undisputable evidence that UN is capable of controling global climate by suitable protocols. After the observed declared undisputable success with the Montreal Protocol, the UN focus for world leaders now shifts to the Kyoto Protocol: And yes, the observed "hiatus" with no global warming over the last 18 years, gives similar strong evidence that UN is capable of controling not only the ozon layer, but also global temperatures. The fact that the hiatus is achieved with only a minor effect from the Kyoto Protocol, effectively followed only by Sweden, shows its undisputable operational power. The only trouble is an apparent conflict between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols:

• Paradoxically, the heat-trapping greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming are actually helping rebuild the ozone layer. Paul A. Newman, who co-chairs the U.N. panel, told the AP higher levels of carbon dioxide and other gases help cool the upper stratosphere, which increases the amount of ozone.

Large scale climate engineering thus has its difficulties, like any strong medication possibly curing one disease while killing the patient by a side-effect.  We can only hope that UN is not capable of controling any aspect of global climate, by any UN protocol. There is reason to be hopeful...

Lennart Bengtsson vs Royal Swedish Academy on Swedish Climate Science and Politics

Lennart Bengtsson indicates that the statement from 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change, authored mainly by himself as leading Swedish climate scientist and expressing (cautious) support of the CO2-alarmism propagated by IPCC, is due to a revision.

Since 2009 LB has turned from supporter to skeptic of IPCC CO2-alarmism, which he has made very clear in media outside Sweden. The question is now if LB will participate in forming the revision or not?

If the standpoint of LB as skeptic will dominate the revision, which is reasonable since he is the leading climate scientist in the Academy,  then the new statement will express skepticism to CO2-alarmism and there will be no scientific foundation for the current Swedish climate politics.

If the standpoint of LB shows to be incompatible with that of the Academy, then the revision will be formed without the participation of the leading climate scientist in Sweden and then will have no weight, and the result will be the same.

It seems that interesting times are awaiting the Academy and Swedish climate science and politics.

For an account of the related GWPF story see Climate Depot.

LBs recent article pointing to small climate sensitivity has been rejected to publication on political grounds since it question the dogma of climate alarmism. See article in The Times and Roy Spencer.

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: CO2 Warming Can Prevent New Ice Age

The Royal Swedish Academy has issued a New Statement on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change giving up its former support of the CO2 global warming alarmism of IPCC and returning to the standpoint of the legendary foremost leading member of the Academy Svante Arrhenius, Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903, who in Worlds in the Making (1908) suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population, of particular importance for the Swedish people under immediate threat of being covered under 1000 m solid ice:

• Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries. (p54)
• Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? 
• There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree. (p61)
• By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind. (p63)

A major revision of Swedish and European climate politics is expected to follow from the U-turn in the  scientific view of the Academy. The Swedish King says he is ready to act, and turn on the heat in his many huge poorly insulated royal castles.

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Echoes IPCC CO2 Alarmism

Echo and Narcissus.

I have repeatedly asked the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to revise its Statement THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE from 2009 based on IPCC AR4  from 2007, in particular in the light of the new IPCC AR5. The reaction I get from the main author of the Statement, professor Lennart Bengtsson, is that the Statement is so wisely formulated that it fits any thinkable new development and thus does not need to be revised.

To see if this is true, let us analyze the main messages of the Statement by the Academy:

The Academy first makes it clear that the Academy considers IPCC Working Group I to represent the scientific basis of climate science/change:

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) has given a broad, systematic summary of the scientific literature on climate change and has concluded that the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases has led to an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth. 
• IPCC has undertaken modelling studies to estimate the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols on climate during the next 100 years based on different emission scenarios. These studies indicate a global surface warming at the end of the 21st century of 1.5-3.5 °C compared to present-day conditions. 
• With the warming projections examined by IPCC other changes may follow, for example in the hydrological cycle, that might cause more problems than the temperature changes themselves. Whilst the lower range of warming may be acceptable, at least in some regions, the upper range is likely to cause very severe problems worldwide.

With this solid scientific basis the Academy then delivers the following General Advice to the Swedish King, Government and People to serve as the basis for Swedish Climate Politics:

• In view of the potential long-term negative effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases on climate and ocean chemistry (for example, acidification), development of mitigation technologies should be given priority. These should seek ways of reducing CO2 emission and the other components of anthropogenic forcing (including CH4, N2O, tropospheric ozone and black carbon aerosols) as well as focusing on CO2 sequestration, involving both the biosphere and the geosphere.

We read that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences echoes IPCC science without independent evaluation and questioning, and then accordingly echoes IPCC politics with a direct message to Swedish politicians to reduce CO2 emission and focus on CO2 sequestration. 

But, since the Academy evidently is an echo of IPCC, the Academy now must revise its Statement in accordance with the new IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers:

• It is extremely likely (95%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed zero warming during the last 17 years.

Isn't this correct, Lennart Bengtsson and the Royal Academy? Then go ahead and revise the Statement!

If the Academy simply echoes IPCC passively, then its Statement should be revised to reflect AR5 instead of AR4. If after all, the Academy is a real scientific academy of real independently thinking scientists and is not simply a passive echo of IPCC, then the Statement should be completely rewritten.

PS Here is a copy of a another letter sent today asking the Academy to revise its Statement (in Swedish):

Staffan Normark KVA

Hej Staffan:

Jag upprepar min begäran att KVA måtte revidera sitt Statement The Scientific Basis for Climate Change i ljuset av IPCC AR5: http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/11/royal-swedish-academy-of-sciences.html

Jag har framställt denna begäran flera gånger men inte fått någon som helst respons från KVA. Jag skulle uppskatta någon form av svar på min framställan och inte bara tystnad som om den inte nått KVA.

KVAs Statement utgör grunden för svensk klimatpolitk med fokus på minskade koldioxidutsläpp. Om KVA skulle ändra sitt Statement bort från koldioxidalarmism, så skulle också svensk klimatpolitik ändras. KVA bär således ett huvudansvar för svensk klimatpolitik och måste agera därefter.

Vänliga hälsningar, Claes

Claes Johnson, prof i tillämpad matematik KTH

What Is Wrong with (IPCC) Climate Models?

CO2 alarmism is now falling apart because the global warming predicted by the IPCC ratified climate models show little similarity with observations of no warming the last 17 years. This is commonly viewed as evidence that mathematical modeling of global climate is impossible because weather and climate is "chaotic" and thus unpredictable.

It is true that weather is not predictable over more than a week, but climate as averaged weather may well be mathematically predicatble over long time. For example, the simple climate model of no change of global temperature, may well be a good model over centuries, until the next ice age.

The IPCC climate models predict global warming (at variance with observations) because they are so constructed, that is to show warming even if there is none, not because it is impossible to construct climate models which fit observations.

The defunding of mathematical climate modeling to be expected because of the failure of the IPCC models thus lacks rationale in a world in which prediction is needed and may be possible by clever use of computational mathematics.

In any case the question of the role of climate modeling is now on the table.  

Hans Rosling: Consider the Facts! Help the World!

Below are the answers to my questions to Hans Rosling posed in the previous post, delivered by Rosling with the following introductory comment:

• Thanks for the questions, it is sad for me to learn that I was so unclear that you missed what I tried to say on so many points, but here are my answers to your not so easy to understand questions.

My general message to Hans Rosling is as follows:

• You tell us that the living conditions for the poor people in the world are improving and you know that this is directly related to the increasing use of fossil fuels. 
• You have uncritically accepted the IPCC founding dogma that CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming and thus have to be drastically reduced. This dogma is not fact-based since there is no scientific evidence that this effect is real. 
• What you should do is to use your own Gapminder principle of fighting devastating ignorance with a fact-based worldview, and you should then start by reading the reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
• You will then find that there is no scientific fact-based reason to limit CO2 emissions, a message which you will greet with great joy and satisfaction since it allows poor people to improve their living conditions.      

My Question 1: You say that you are not at all involved in climate science, yet you assure the world that IPCC science is truely, truely good. Is this a fact-based message or does it rather reflect ignorance?

Roslings Answer 1: As you rightly write I commented on the summary for policy makers. I was explicit about not being a climate scientist, but my judgement is that this summary for policy maker is as good a summary of research as policy makers, public and researchers in other fields can ever hope to get.

My Comment 1: You make a judgement about climate science based on ignorance in climate science admitted by yourself.  Doing so you violate your own Gapminder principle to fight devastating ignorance with a fact-based worldview.  

My Question 2: You claim to know that humans are changing the climate, but not how much, how fast, in which way, or where this or that will happen. What do you mean by this statement? Does it have a content? Is that not an example of the devastating ignorance you are fighting?

Rosling's Answer 2: No it is not me claiming, it is IPCC claiming that humans are changing the climate, I accept their consensus on this point, but pointed out that their projections have a very wide range of uncertainty. I think I was very clear about the distinction between accepting the consensus that humans are changing the climate and my observations that the uncertainties in the projections are so wide that they range from almost negligible changes to potentially catastrophic.

My Comment 2: You accept the consensus of IPCC which you interpret to range from almost neglible change to catastrophic. According to NIPPC it is negligible. Why not accept NIPCC instead of IPCC?

My Question 3: You know that massive use of fossil fuel is required to improve the living conditions for billions of poor people, yet you support the idea that the use of fossil fuels must be reduced, drastically reduced. How are you going to resolve this contradiction?

Rosling's Answer 3: No I do not know how to solve this contradiction, but it do exist! My suggestion in the end is that the richest, that have by far the highest emission must lower their emission first before they demand restrictions by those with much lower emission.

My Comment 3: You admit to pose a contradiction, which you cannot solve as long as you uncritically accept IPCC. If you critically accept NIPCC after looking at the facts, the contradiction will disappear. Why are you stuck with a contradiction?  

My Question 4: You compare with smoking and cancer and HIV. What is the connection to climate science?

Rosling's Answer 4: The connection is that the a scientific consensus regarding a causal link between smoking and cancer as well as between sexual transmission of HIV and Aids was of greatest importance for human behavior, as well as for health, economic and trade policy. The ways those consensus were reached and communicated were far more haphazardly done then IPCC, but then again I said that IPCC is in a more difficult position as they are making predictions rather than concluding about causal links in the present time.

My comment 4: You don't answer my question about the connection between human emissions of CO2 and smoking/cancer and HIV. I take it that you mean that there is no connection.

My Question 5: You say we have to get things done. What do we have to do?

Rosling's Answer 5: If we should avoid a possible catastrophic climate change we, that is we humans, have to reduce or at least stop to increase the CO2 emission.

My comment 5: Again, if you look at the facts, then you will understand that it is better for humanity to use its limited resources in a fact-based meaningful way to improve living conditions for the poor, instead of wasting these resources on meaningless non-fact-based restriction of CO2 emissions.  

Hans Rosling compares AGW to Smoking and Cancer

             Hans Rosling and Bill Gates working together on the Global Poverty Project.

The Swedish media mega-star and Gapminder edutainer Hans Rosling releases all of his media authority (and Swedish home-made charm) in his talk 200 Years of Global Change in support of IPCC at the presentation in Stockholm September 27 of the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers:

• I am not at all involved in the climate research, heh, just standing at the side, looking at the factors that contribute to the climate change and the impact it will have on humans.
• I can assess really as an outsider that this IPCC Summary for Policymakers is as good as science can do. It is a truely, truely, good report! (Applause)
• I've been through quite a lot of similar things...smoking and cancer...bottlefeeding of young children...HIV...
• I am completely independent...they didn't even pay me to come here...(laugh).
• IPCC have spent all their effort up to the press conference just to see that the entire content is as correct, meticulously correct and well weighed as it could be.
• When I read through the report as an experienced researcher and scientist, I like very much the way the arguments are weighed, and the different wordings: this we know, this is very sure, this we don't know so well, heh,  this is is as good we can... And it is especially difficult this report:    
• Smoking and cancer was easier because it was a practice here and now and a disease here and now...this (report) is about future and future is is almost impossible to do research about, heh?
• I think the work now being done in climate science will have importance and implications for science in many other fields that need to do predictions, how you should do and work.
• I am not so much professor, I am mainly edutainer at Gapminder, an independent foundation, that fights devastating ignorance with a fact-based worldview that everyone can understand.
• It is very clear that the sea level is rising......the uncertainties are shown so clearly...
• As I read it, today the question, does human change climate, yes or no, that's over! That's over, that's set!
• The big question now is, how much will it change, how fast will it change, in which way will it change and where will this or that happen? The background was already done by Arrhenius in 1900....
• We must take this IPCC report seriously and get things done...
• We think we have done more than we have and we haven't understood how much we have to do, thank you!

My questions to Hans Rosling are:

1. You say that you are not at all involved in climate science,  yet you assure the world that IPCC science is truely, truely good. Is this a fact-based message or does it rather reflect ignorance?
2. You claim to know that humans are changing the climate, but not how much, how fast, in which way, or where this or that will happen. What do you mean by this statement? Does it have a content? Is that not an example of the devastating ignorance you are fighting?
3. You know that massive use of fossil fuel is required to improve the living conditions for billions of poor people, yet you support the idea that the use of fossil fuel must be reduced, drastically reduced. How are you going to resolve this contradiction?
4. You compare with smoking and cancer and HIV. What is the connection to climate science? 
5. You say we have to get things done. What is it we have to do? 

I invite Hans to answer as a comment. 

Watch the shocking alarming increase of atmospheric CO2 as humanity is lifted out of poverty 1800 - 2013.

PS1 Will Rosling answer my questions? I bet 100 Skr that he will not. My bet is based on long experience and many observations...

PS2 Rosling shows only one graph to support the CO2 alarmism he is selling , not over global temperature which does not rise anymore, but over global sea level which continues a steady slow rise since long before CO2 emissions started to grow:

PS3 In talks during 2012 Rosling supported his alarm message with the following picture of a quickly shrinking arctic ice cap:

But in 2013 Rosling keeps silent about the arctic ice cap since it is quickly growing and the reason for alarm is gone. What remains of alarm is a steady very slow rise of the sea level as the world is slowly recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is the alarm which is shrinking to zero, not the arctic ice cap.

Whereof the Royal (Academy) Can(not) Speak

The Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf  is, according to the Swedish Constitution from 1975, not allowed to speak out on anything of importance and thus has only a ceremonial role.

However, the King being a devoted environmentalist with a sharp brain has found a canal to reach out to the Swedish people through his Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in charge of the Noble Prizes  (delivered from the hands of the King) with the 2013 prizes to be announced the coming week.

In particular, the King made a statement in support of the IPCC Assessment Report 4 from 2007 sending the world a global warming alarm in the form of The Scientific Basis for Climate Change presented under Science in Society on the web site of the Academy.

Accordingly the Academy acted as the forum for the presentation to the world of the new IPCC Assessment Report 5 with even more alarm, supported by Climate Change: the state of science and a tribute to the first chairman of IPCC: Climate Change: Bert Bolin and beyond.

The King is now working on an update of his statement The Scientific Basis for Climate Change to make it accurately represent the increased alarm (from 90% to 95%) expressed in the new IPCC Assessment Report 5.

The Republican Party, which finds no scientific evidence of alarming global warming from human CO2 emissions, claims that the support of IPCC alarm expressed by the King and his Royal Academy violates the Swedish constitution and a constitutional crisis now seems inevitable. In the worst scenario the Royal Academy will have to be shut down along with all Royal Castles, which is alarming (96%) to Swedish interests all over the globe and thus to the world.

Thomas Stocker's Defense of IPCC Climate Models at Variance with Observations

Global temperature increased according to observations in the periods 1920 - 40 and 1978 - 1996 with about 0.35 C, while the temperature was slightly decreasing in the periods 1880 - 1920, 1940 - 1978, 1997 - 2013.

The main argument used by IPCC co-chairman Thomas Stocker when defending the climate models of IPCC AR5 predicting steady warming, was that the 17 year period 1997 - 2013 with no warming was too short to allow any conclusion that CO2 forcing was too small to be observed, while the 18 year period 1978 - 1996 with warming was long enough be able to attribute with 95% likelihood the warming to CO2 forcing.  Stocker clarified the argument by adding that a period of 30 years would be required to be able to detect a trend in global cooling.

PS1 The temperature curves for the periods 1920 - 1950 and 1973 - 2013 are very similar with first warming and then slight cooling, only shifted with a steady rise of about 0.5 C/century after the Little Ice Age. The rise 1920 - 1940 is not attributed to CO2 by IPCC while the rise 1976 - 1996 is. The logic is missing.

PS2 The above graph produced by IPCC appears to present lower than actual temperatures before 1960 thus enhancing the warming thereafter.  

Will Skeptics Now Be Able to Unite?

As the IPCC along with its politicized scientific apparatus now sinks into the Deep Ocean, it is natural to ask if skeptics of different brands, from IPCC refugees over lukewarmers to socalled deniers, will now be able to unite instead of beating each other with secteristic fervor?

In particular, I could ask if the ban of my writings on some skeptics blogs, because of my questioning of the reality of a Holy Sky Spirit of Back Radiation or DLR (Downwelling Longwave Radiation),  can now be lifted?

In particular, can the lack of global warming since 1997 under steadily rising CO2 levels, be viewed as evidence of non-existence of radiative forcing as an effect of DLR from a Holy Sky Spirit? Is DLR fictional in the same sense as the Holy Spirit, when confronted with observed realities?

PS One of the blogs where I have been banned is Roy Spencer's because of my insistence that back radiation is non-physical and that the starting point of 1 C warming from doubled CO2 is a definition based on a simple algebraic relation (Stefan-Boltzmann's law), which does not have any real meaning for the complex system of global climate. Roy sums up the basic physics supposedly carrying climate
modeling as follows:

• It is sometimes said that climate models are built upon physical first principles, as immutable as the force of gravity or conservation of energy (which are, indeed, included in the models). But this is a half-truth, at best, spoken by people who either don’t know any better or are outright lying.
• The most physically sound portion of global warming predictions is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes about a 1% energy imbalance in the system (energy imbalances are what cause temperature to change), and if nothing else but the temperature changes, there would only be about a 1 deg. C warming response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (we aren’t even 50% of the way to doubling).
• But this is where the reasonably sound, physical first principles end (if you can even call them that since the 1 deg estimate is a theoretical calculation, anyway).

Roy thus appears to question the 1 C and so we agree on this point. The red card must then result from back radiation.

Judith Curry: From Sick to Healthy Climate Science

Judith Curry has gone a long way from supporter to opponent of the CO2 global warming science of IPCC, by realizing that the science of IPCC is sick and therefore has to be eliminated to allow healthy climate science to develop:

• The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.
• We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. 
•  Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.

Since 97% of institutions and people of climate science reportedly have been infected by IPCC, Judith is asking for a revolution with a small group of healthy skeptics leading climate science into the future. Interesting perspectives...

PS1 Judith started her transformation from alarmist to heretic by suddenly realizing that "back radiation" as the basis of greenhouse gas alarmism, is non-physical, which was also my door to skepticism.

PS2 Judith makes the same analysis as Pointman:

• We’ve just witnessed the embarrassing and public humiliation of climate science as a field of honest scientific endeavour. It has lost all claim to be taken seriously and is now tarred with the same pathological science brush that aberrations like Lysenkoism or Eugenics were. It’s now up to the non-activist scientists in the field, who’ve stayed silent for far too long, to save it from that fate by speaking out and reclaiming their field from fanatics posing as scientists. As Elvis said, it’s now or never.

PS3 Judy's death sentence has now been printed in Financial Post.

IPCC Follows Warming into the Deep Ocean

Swedish Minister of Climate Lena Ek assisting IPCC Co-chairman Thomas Stocker when presenting the Deep Ocean explanation of the non-existence of global warming.

Here is a summary the 2 hour IPCC webcast press conference presenting the Approved Summary for Policymakers concluding the yet unpublished IPCC 5th Asssessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:

The key role is played by Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group 1, who reports that he has only slept 6 hours the last 4 days, which is less than 2 hours per night, and thus is very tired.

What has kept him awake is to come up with a convincing explanation why climate models predicting steady warming, while observations show no warming at all over the last 17 years, still can be used for reliable predictions over periods longer than 17 years.

No wonder that Stocker is tired, because his task has not been easy and lack of sleep is not the best precondition for good scientific work. Accordingly his explanation that the warming, which should have been observed on the Earth surface but was not observed, has been transferrred into the Deep Ocean where it cannot be observed, because it is so deep, was not convincing to media allowed to pose questions at the press conference. Nor the alternative of putting the blame on volcanic eruptions. In the Summary this was phrased as follows:

• The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). 
• The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions...

But Stocker did not mention during the press conference the third alternative presented in the Summary:

• There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.

This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean.

PS The consensus message from IPCC to world policymakers is that any connection between the Deep Ocean of IPCC and the Deep Throat of Watergate, very likely (96%) is unprecedented, unequivocal and therefore very alarming.

The Funeral of IPCC: Too Strong Response to Greenhouse-Gas Forcing

The leaked IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers tells the world and its leaders that climate models tuned to the observed warming 1970 - 1998, do not fit with the observed lack of warming 1998 - 2013: 

• There is very high confidence that models reproduce the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century.
• Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. 
• There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. 

IPCC thus admits that climate models are constructed to have

• too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing,

and are unable to capture

• unpredictable climate variability. 

This must be the end of IPCC since IPCC was formed on the sole doctrine of strong a response of green-house gas (CO2) forcing in climate model predictions. 

Since IPCC was born in Stockholm from the mind of the Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, it is fully logical that the funeral of IPCC now takes place in Stockholm along with the Bert Bolin Center for Climate Research.

PS Concerning climate predictions recall the prediction I made in 2009. 

Staggering Consequences of One IPCC Graph

Ross McKitrick comments on the reality facing the 5th Assessment Report of IPCC to be presented September 23 - 26 in Stockholm in IPCC Models Getting Mushy (Financial Post):

• Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.
• Models predict one thing and the data show another.
• There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

The message is the same as that Richard Feynman sent to his physics colleagues:

• It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Even if the climate theory of IPCC is ugly and IPCC lead authors have limited smartness, if it does not agree with observation, it is wrong. 

The graph shows that IPCC climate theory does not agree with observation. The implications for policy and global politics will be staggering.

PS Roy Spencer draws the same conclusion in Turning Point for IPCC and Humanity:

• We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations. 
• A few of us are not that surprised, as we always distrusted the level of faith that climate modelers had in their understanding of the causes of climate change.

LB and the BIG BLUFF: Good News for Humanity

DN rapporterar idag att Lennart Bengtsson förnyar sitt stöd för IPCC, som han tidigare formulerat i KVAs uttalande om klimatvetenskap:

• Det Lennart Bengtsson förmedlar avviker inte från vad forskarkollegerna i FN:s klimatpanel kommit fram till. 

LB förtydligar för DN:

• Att koldioxid och andra växthusgaser höjer temperaturen är känt sedan över 100 år, och att människan bidrar till koldioxidhalten i atmosfären är det vid det här laget heller knappast någon som tvivlar på.
• Det är ingen tvekan om att människan har en påverkan.
• Vad vi inte är säkra på är varför uppvärmningen går så långsamt. 
• Det är möjligt att planeten kyler ned sig mer effektivt än vad vi tidigare räknat med. 

Detta är the BIG BLUFF som är grunden till koldioxid-alarmismen. Det finns ingen vetenskap som visar att spårgasen koldioxid skulle kunna påverka jordens klimat nämnvärt. LB bluffar väl medveten om att DN inte ifrågasätter koldioxid-alarmismen utom möjligen i rubriken:

• Vi skapar en väldig ängslan utan att det är befogat. 

LB vet att människan har  en påverkan, genom sina koldoxid-utsläpp, men tycker inte att ängslan är befogad, kanske därför att uppvärmingen konstigt nog "går så långsamt". 

Skall man tolka det som att LB som en modig man utan ängslan ser fram emot en kvävningsdöd i koldioxid eller som att detta med koldoxid bara är påhitt? Vad säger LB själv?  Kanske LB kan få lite vägledning av Rummukainen också i dagens DN:

• Om det visade sig att klimatkänsligheten snarare är låg än hög, är det goda nyheter.

Goda nyheter för mänskligheten, men inte för koldioxid-alarmismen och Rummukainen och LB.

PS LBs avslöjanden skapar nu svallvågor i klimatvärlden: Warming Not Noticeable without Meteorologists!

Mr Double-Speak LB Repeats a Zero Message

Mr Double-Speak Lennart Bengtsson uppmärksammas på Uppsalainitiativet för sin slutreplik på DN Debatt om global uppvärmning, där LB skriver:

• Vi bedömer att sannolikheten är låg för en temperaturökning på fyra grader då flera studier under senare år pekar mot en mindre klimatkänslighet än vad som antogs i IPCC-rapporten från 2007.
• Men redan en ökning på 2-3 grader motiverar kraftfulla motåtgärder.
• Det betyder en ökad sannolikhet för att vi genom utsläppsbegränsningar ska kunna undvika att jordens medeltemperatur stiger med mera än två grader. 
• .... vi menar ... att man måste undvika bristfälligt underbyggda påståenden. 
• Även en befarad uppvärmning till år 2100 på 2-3 grader ger ett fullgott skäl för att vidta kraftfulla motåtgärder.

LB hyllas även på Stockholmsinitiativet för sin insiktsfulla balanserade hållning till stöd för IPCC: LB tror inte på 4 graders uppvärming, men befarar 2-3 grader vilket är "fullgott skäl" för "kraftfulla motåtgärder" dvs "utsläppsbegränsningar"som "ska kunna undvika att jordens medeltemperatur stiger med mer än 2 grader". 

En befarad global uppvärmning om 2 grader skulle alltså med "kraftfulla motåtgärder" kunna begränsas till en uppvärmning om högst 2 grader. Men är det verkligen meningsfullt med "kraftfulla motåtgärder", som ju kostar mycket pengar, om effekten skulle vara så obetydlig?

Skulle det inte se bättre ut med en befarad uppvärmning om 4 grader, som med "kraftfulla motåtgärder" skulle kunna begränsas till 2 grader? Eller hur LB?

Snedvridet TCS: Varför Krama LB?

Lennart Bengtsson, garant för KVAs och svensk vetenskaps stöd till IPCCs koldioxidalarm, är en välkommen gästskribent på TCS, nu senast med ett inlägg under titeln Den Snedvridna  Klimatdebatten, som vanligt lovordat av TCS ledande hjärntrust, med följande deklaration:

• Koldioxid tillsammans med metan, lustgas och diverse freongaser absorberar jordens värmestrålning effektivt vilket innebär att temperaturen vid jordytan och i atmosfärens lägre skikt blir högre.

Men detta är ju precis det som TCS är till för att ifrågasätta. Hur kan debatten ha blivit så snedvriden?  Kanske någon på TCS kan förklara.