Om KlimatUpplysningen och Cancel Culture

KlimatRealisterna KlimatUpplysningen KU presenterar sig på följande sätt:

• Klimatrealisternas uppfattning är att den vetenskapliga grunden för klimatpolitiken är otillräcklig för att motivera den nedbrytande omställning av samhället som nu pågår.  
• Vi vill visa på den osäkra vetenskapliga grunden och klimatpolitikens negativa konsekvenser. 
• Målet är att bidra till att förhindra denna skadliga och meningslösa politik.

Ingemar Nordin, professor em vid institutionen för kultur och kommunikation vid Linköpings Universitet, har en ledande funktion inom KU. Speciellt kan Ingemar stänga av kommentarer från personer som Ingemar av någon anledning inte gillar. Det gäller speciellt min person som drabbats av denna form av censur efter att ha deltagit med kommentarer till ett inlägg av Gabriel Oxenstierna med den tankeväckande  rubriken

• Atmosfärseffekt i stället för växthuseffekt. –Men hur mäter man den?

Detta är en fråga som jag studerat ingående och mitt arbete (redovisat på denna blogg) har givit mig en plats i Klimatrealistenes Vitenskaplige Råd, detta trots att jag är matematiker och inte fysiker.

Jag har därför en del noga genomtänkt att säga om inlägget ovan om Atmosfärseffekten, speciellt om den massiva sk "återstrålning" från en kallare atmosfär till en varmare jordyta som anses uttrycka en "växthuseffekt" som hotar med katastrofal global uppvärmning. Jag har i mitt arbete visat att denna "återstrålning" representerar  fiktiv icke-fysik som inte kan finnas av flera skäl och speciellt inte därför att den trotsar termodynamikens 2a lag, en av fysikens hörnpelare. Inlägget ovan ifrågasätter också "växthuseffekten".  Mina argument för att "återstrålning" är icke-fysik presenteras här på ett lättsamt sätt.

När jag som kommentar till inlägget uttrycker min åsikt grundad på noggrann analys, att någon "återstrålning" omöjligen kan finnas, så censureras fortsatta kommentarer av Ingemar.  Det är inte roligt att bli utsatt för censur (av vetenskap), vilket jag tyvärr har viss erfarenhet av. 

Det är också kontraproduktivt om man jämför med KUs ovan angivna mål, eftersom jag ger argument som  visar att den vetenskapliga grunden för klimathotet inte bara är osäker utan dessutom grovt felaktig.

Nåväl, jag klarar mig utan KU, men tråkigt är det för den gemensamma saken att stoppa en skadlig och meningslös klimatpolitik. 

Man kan se Ingemars tilltag som ett uttryck för den Cancel Culture som nu florerar på stormedia inkl Wikipedia och Google, där en hord av vakthundar ser till att viss korrekt information effektivt silas bort detta utan motivering. Det kan gälla vaccin, krig, korruption och inte minst klimat. Det främjar inte ett öppet demokratisk samhälle och för vetenskapen är ett fritt meningsutbyte livsviktigt! Låt oss slå vakt om det!

Ingemar uppmanas härmed att motivera sin censur i kommentar till denna post. Censur av vetenskap är emot vetenskapens grundprincip om fritt meningsutbyte, nota bene i ett öppet demokratiskt samhälle.  Censur av vetenskap är både skadlig och meningslös politik.

Stöd för min linje ges speciellt i denna kommentar med intressant förslag! 

Jag uppmanar läsare av denna post att tycka till om "återstrålning" är icke-fysik eller fysik.

PS1 Ingemar motiverar sin censur på följande sätt på KU:

• Du vill att KU skall föra fram dina ofysikaliska åsikter där man förnekar vanlig strålningsfysik, kvantmekaniken och fotoner. Ja, jag vet. Men detta är inte din blogg. På din egen blogg kan du framföra precis vad du vill, men inte här. Adjö!

Skälet skulle alltså vara att jag i kommentar framför ofysikaliska åsikter, som Ingemar tror att jag vill att KU skall föra fram. Men hur vet Ingemar som inte är fysiker att mina åsikter är ofysikaliska? Vilken fysiker har han frågat för att ge denna dom? Och inte kräver jag att KU skall föra fram mina åsikter, det räcker med att jag själv får föra fram dem utan censur.

PS2 För att se klimatalarmism i ett vidare perspektiv lyssna på denna podcast med Matthew Ehret! 

War Against Spencer-Braswell Low Climate Sensitivity

The recent article by Spencer and Braswell On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance has caused an uproar by climate alarmists with an immediate rebuttal by Dessler and resignation of the chief editor in charge.

Climate science is fascinating: It concerns the complex system of global climate but it is studied using very simplistic mathematics. The Spencer-Braswell paper concerns fitting a very simplistic mathematical model of global climate of the form

• C dT/dt = F(t) - lambda T(t)

to measured data in order to determine the (positive) feedback coefficient lambda. Here T(t) can be sea surface temperature SST as function of time t, C is the heat capacity of the Earth-atmosphere system, F(t) is radiative forcing and S = 1/lambda measures climate sensitivity as change dT of T vs change dF of F in stationary state:

• dT = S dF

If lambda is small, then the sensitivity S is large and a small change of forcing dF can have a large effect dT on temperature T.

S is the holy grail of climate science: If S = 1 (large) then there may be reason for climate alarmism. If S = 0.1 (small) then there is no reason for alarm. The climate system is then so stable that an effect of doubled CO2 can never be measured or detected.

If S = 0.1 then a change of radiative forcing of 10 W/m2 (quite big out of a total of about 250 W/m2 with natural variability about 5 W/m2) could cause 1 C of warming. Nothing to worry about.

The radiative forcing from doubled CO2 can be estimated to be in the range 0f 1 - 4 W/m2, which with S = 0.1 gives a climate sensitivity of 0.1 - 0. 4 C, which is not at all alarming.

Now Spencer and Braswell determine the coefficients C and lambda in the above model from a best fit to measured time series of T(t) (from SST) and F(t) (from ERBE), and make the following observations:

• S < 0.3
• IPCC models give S > 1
• if F(t) is not properly measured then S cannot be reliably determined.

That this has caused an uproar is understandable: If S < 0.3, then climate alarmism collapses.

Now, there is a wealth of measurements of time series T(t) and F(t) which all indicate that S is smaller than 0.2, presented in work by Spencer, Lindzen and many others.

One can also use variations over time (diurnal, seasonal) and space (regional) of T and F to estimate S, see a summary of my posts on climate sensitivity on Basic Science: Climate Sensitivity < 0.3 C.

The Spencer-Braswell paper in all its innocence is thus a blockbuster to climate alarmism, and it is clear that it has to be eliminated, one way or the other no matter what the costs are.

Spencer is expecting the worst: More Thoughts an the War Being Waged Against Us.

The story is unfolding in real time with an IPCC in free fall...see What is IPPC Afraid Of? ...

IPCC Stops Scientific Debate ...Dessler launches a video presenting his trivialities ...

PS A simple model correctly illustrating some fundamental real aspect, is valuable because this helps understanding . The above model can serve this purpose in the stable case with lambda > 1, but the model is too simple to detect a small lambda and large sensitivity.

Presentation at Censored Workshop on Climate Change Controversy

Fred Singer: IPCC is finished. No warming sinc 1970, IPCC warming is fake. Doesn't exist.

My presentation at the SEII Think Tank Workshop Critical Thinking and Complex Systems Analysis applied to the Climate Change Controversy Sept 1-2 in Brussels, is now available as

• CO2 Climate Alarmism Debunked by Mathematics.

Follow the drama on World News Net, American Thinker, EIKE, NoTricksZone, Il Foglio, The Telegraph and a recorded broadcast of the seminar.

For the background see IPCC Censorship. It is not the first time I am censored because of my mathematics: In Dec 2010 my own university KTH under massive media attention burned one of my math books including some analysis of basic climate models, an event which I have documented as KTH-gate.

The last time a math book was burned was in 1632, then with the motivation that the book was "vehemently suspect of heresy". The suppression of scientific mathematical analysis by KTH thus has historic dimensions and the motivation was also the same.

Political correctness is not a virtue of science and in combination with active suppression of scientific discussion and burning of math books, it is could be viewed as alarming, maybe showing the real meaning of climate alarmism.

Cf article by Stephen Wilde on Unifying Theory of Earth's Climate.

EU as Green Peace Project

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele who managed to suppress a planned seminar with Fred Singer and myself at SEII/Fondation Universitaire in Brussels, is not only Vice Chair of IPCC but also closely connected to Greenpeace, as evidenced in his report Impacts of Climate Change in Belgium commissioned by Greenpeace:

The Foreword to the report delivers the following frank message:

• The fight against climate change will require deep changes in the Belgian energy system
• It is urgent that Belgium also develops a long-term political vision enabling it to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% between now and 2050.
• This long- term policy must include efforts in all sectors (industry, electricity production, households and transport).
• It must therefore also be perceived as an opportunity for Belgium to reduce its energy dependency and increase the safety of its supplies.
• Belgium currently imports almost all its primary energy sources (oil, gas, coal and uranium) and this puts the Belgian economy at the mercy of fluctuations in world raw material prices and the expected rise in the costs of fuels as a result of their increasing scarcity.
• Oil dependence and the associated geopolitical tensions are well known. Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel and has no place in a low-carbon economy.
• As for nuclear energy, it has proven a source of insolvable problems (in terms of waste, in particular), unreliable, very expensive and dangerous. Terrorist threats only reinforce the risks. Nuclear energy is also unable to compete with other sources of energy without the backup of enormous subsidies.

No questioning of this verdict is allowed, not in Belgium and neither in Germany, where the complete reformation of society demanded by Greenpeace has already started.

The following questions present themselves:

• Is EU a green peace project?
• Is suppression of freedom of speech the solution of the EU economic crisis, with inspiration from the Chinese economic wonder?

PS From the shocking report to Greenpeace by van Ypersele, preparing for a totalitarian EU:

• A rise in sea level and temperature could cause serious difficulties at certain tourist destinations.
• Winter sports resorts in the Alps could be affected by a serious lack of snow, particularly at low altitude.
• In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter.
• Initially, agriculture would not be damaged and certain crops could even profit from a small heat increase.
• In terms of the 21st century and for Belgium, the initial effects of climate change will probably be relatively limited.

The projected lack of snow in the Alps gives Sarkozy the mission to command the people to get green.

IPCC Censorship

This article has been published in Contrepoints (translated into French). A comment makes a quite funny parallel to a plastic ball Earth in the hands of a great man.

Here is a fresh example how IPCC suppresses science which does not support the CO2 alarmism IPCC presents to the world and its leaders:

I was invited to participate in discussions on climate science in Brussels Sept 1-2 with the following letter of August 20:

SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels, Prof Henri Masson) organizes a conference for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson at the Fondation Universitaire in Brussels on September 1, at 18 h00. Official invitation from SEII follows by E-mail.

The next day 2 September there will be a workshop with some of our Think Tank . Our preliminary programme looks as follows:

• 18h15 S. Fred Singer : What is new in climate change?
• 19 h 00 Claes Johnson : Blackbody radiation and Climate Thermodynamics
• 19 h45 to 20 H30 : Questions and Answers

We are very happy to have this opportunity to bring together scientists and some politicians (we hope) and get some useful and interesting discussions.

No official invitation by SEII followed. Instead the following letter was sent on August 22 by Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice-Chair of IPCC, Membre de l'Académie royale de Belgique, on mission in the US, to Fondation Universitaire:

Objet : La SEII et l'honnêteté scientifique

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,

La SEII soutient-elle implicitement le déni climatique, à la veille du congrès mondial des ingénieurs à Genève consacré aux défis énergétiques (où j'aurai l'honneur de donner une "keynote lecture") ?

L'utilisation du papier à lettres de la SEII par votre administrateur M. Masson pour l'invitation ci-jointe le suggère malheureusement, malgré une phrase hypocrite pour indiquer que la SEII ne "sponsorise" pas l'événement.

Vous devez savoir que MM Fred Singer est une personne dont l'honnêteté scientifique laisse fortement à désirer. Ses activités de désinformation sont financées par les lobbies des combustibles fossiles (voir XXXXXXXXXXXXXX) , et il est scandaleux qu'une telle personne puisse être associée, de près ou de loin, à la SEII et à la Fondation universitaire.

Des collègues éminents m'ont écrit que M. Johnson ne valait pas mieux. Un de ses "textbooks" récents, où il parlait à tort et à travers des changements climatiques, publié par le Royal Institute of Technology (KTH, Suède), a dû être rétracté par ce dernier tellement il contenait d'erreurs.

Merci de me dire très rapidement quelles mesures la SEII compte prendre pour se distancier de cet "événement"? Je serais heureux également de savoir quel est le mandat de ce "think tank" de la SEII sur les changements climatiques que Mr Masson préside (alors que son CV n'est pas disponible sur le site de l'Université d'Antwerpen, et que je n'ai jamais entendu parler de ses compétences en matière de climat).

Cordialement, Prof. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele

The effect of the letter was that the SEII/Fondation Universitaire seminar was cancelled, stopped, censored. IPCC managed to suppress questioning of the science presented by IPCC, by a forceful intervention by one of its vice-presidents.

What to say about this? Well, I am not surprised. I read that the burning of my mathematics book by KTH supported by media and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (documented as KTH-gate), is now used to motivate to also mute my voice.

But why these hysteric reactions from IPCC? There must be something in what I am saying (and/or Fred Singer), which is very dangerous to IPPC.

What is it? Van Ypersele knows. He must have previewed my presentation: CO2 Climate Alarmism Debunked by Mathematics. See also later post with program.

But will van Ypersele succeed in preventing IPCC from collapse under scientific scrutiny?

To burn books because they contain some incorrectnesses would be an overwhelming task: All books contain something which is incorrect. The only real reason to burn a book or suppress an oral presentation is that what is presented is correct, but unpleasant to some.

For a summary of my criticism of IPCC climate science, see also my presentation at the annual meeting of the Stockholm Initiative.

PS1 Here is a reaction from Fred Singer:

• Why am I not surprised by this disreputable action of this IPCC officer.After all, we know from Climategate emails that these people will go to any length to suppress scientific dissent. Even to libel and to use bald-faced lies.
• Of course, I am not supported by fossil-fuel industry. That is complete nonsense and invention
• My Europe visit is paid by the Ettore Majorana Foundation -- to give an invited talk at a climate conference in Erice. I am using the occasion to accept additional invitations to speak (without lecture fees) at the Univ of Hamburg, Imperial College, Univ of Paris - Jussieu, and of course at the KNMI in De Bilt. By happenstance I was also invited to address 100+ engineers in Zurich.
• Our IPCC colleague van Yp also questions my honesty. Well now -- the IPCC has been using me as a scientific reviewer, I publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals and am an elected Fellow of several scientific societies. So there must be some who disagree with van Yp.

PS2 The cancelled meeting will resurface as a strictly private meeting at a strictly private location after a strictly private invitation of a strictly private group of guests through a strictly private letter. Hopefully these precautions will make it impossible for IPCC to stop the discussion...but there are some strange 1984 vibrations...

PS3 The following letter from Founding President of SEI Michel van Hecke to meeting organizer Henri Masson, exhibits political correctness in full swing suppressing academic

scientific inquiry:

Mon cher Henri,

En ce qui concerne le problème climatique, il est très clair, et ce n'est
pas nouveau, que l'animosité s'accroît de jour en jour entre les deux
parties en présence. La politique s'en mêlant, les arguments échangés
deviennent de plus en plus violents et de moins en moins rationnels.
L'émotivité s'accroît et le débat, qui devrait n'être que scientifique,
devient un conflit destructeur.

Il est évident que la SEII doit se tenir à l'écart de ce genre de conflit
destructif. Elle ne peut prendre parti, d'autant plus qu'elle se veut être
le lien entre le monde de l'industrie et le monde académique, comme cela
apparaît bien dans ses statuts. Ses premières années d'existence lui ont
permis de bâtir une image et un réseau de relations qui s'avèrent bénéfiques
et prometteurs. Il n'est évidemment pas souhaitable de mettre cela en
danger.


Dans le cas qui nous occupe, tu as été amené à décider de l'organisation
d'une réunion et du lancement des invitations dans une certaine urgence qui
a empêché toute concertation avec le bureau. Cela aurait pu n'avoir aucune
conséquence ennuyeuse si le sujet n'avait pas été d'une telle sensibilité.
Malheureusement, les diverses réactions, totalement négatives, que nous
avons immédiatement enregistrées, émanent de personnes (van Yperzele, Paul
Vandenplas, André Berger, Fondation Universitaire, ...) avec qui nous avons
eu, et avons encore, des relations de qualité que nous considérons comme
importantes à sauvegarder.C'est une des raisons pour lesquelles les
décisions d'entreprendre des activités, ou d'organiser des événements, sont
prises de façon collégiale par le bureau. C'est une règle qui a été suivie
depuis le début et qui n'est pas remise en question pour le moment bien
qu'elle entraîne quelquefois une certaine lenteur dans l'exécution.

Il en résulte que la seule décision judicieuse à prendre par la SEII, pour
sauvegarder ses acquis d'image et de réputation, est d'annoncer
immédiatement que cette réunion n'est, en aucune façon, patronnée par elle.
Le mieux serait, d'ailleurs, d'annoncer, sans commentaire, l'annulation de
la réunion (qui ne peut, d'ailleurs, plus avoir lieu à la Fondation
Universitaire) et, éventuellement, une postposition après examen plus
approfondi. Cette annonce devrait être faite aux destinataires de
l'invitation, et à eux seuls, ce qui implique que tu t'en charges
directement. Il est évident que tu es libre d'organiser cette évènement sous
ton propre nom sans que la SEII soit nommée en aucun cas et sous aucune
forme.

Je regrette vivement ces circonstances car, comme tu te souviendras
certainement m'avoir entendu le déclarer, je suis partisan convaincu du
droit de chacun d'exprimer ses opinions (pour autant, bien entendu, que cela
se fasse sans porter atteinte à autrui). Je pense que nous sommes tous
d'accord sur ce point de vue mais il est clair que c'est au bureau de
décider collégialement.


Je souhaite vivement recevoir tes commentaires, le plus vite possible, sur
la façon de mettre fin, comme suggéré ci-dessus, à cette situation
regrettable.

Bien amicalement.

Michel Van Hecke