Nobel Prize in Physics to Climate Models which Do Not Model Climate

The Nobel Committee in Physics has as an act of scientific political correctness today given half of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann for the physical modelling of Earth's climate quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming.

In other words, the Prize has been given to Climate Models which Do Not Model the Climate, as is shown in the following graph of Global Warming over time comparing Climate Model predictions with Real World observations (second image from Roy Spencer Global Warming) : 

These graphs must have been unknown to the Committee. What is the meaning of "reliably predicting global warming" when the prediction has nothing to do with the actually observed absence of observable global warming (0.2 C over 40 years)? Is the "reliability" that all climate models show too much warming, or that the spread is so big that even virtually no warming is included in the predictions?

Föredragen från Climate Sense 2018 som Video

Nu finns föredragen från Climate Sense 2018 tillgängliga i videoform hos Klimatrealisterne, inklusive mitt eget.

Utmärkta presentationer, väl värda att ta del av!

Är (Klimathots)Skeptiker Inte Överens?

Per Welander som representerar Klimatupplysningen säger i intervju i SvD under klimatkonferensen Climate Sense 2018, att

• Någon gemensam syn på forskningsläget har inte "klimathotsskeptikerna".
• Det är inte fel att vara oense inom en organisation heller. Men vi slåss inte. Vi är vetenskapligt lite oense.

Jag har bett Per, som kommentar till Pers rapport från Climate Sense 2018 på Klimatupplysningen, utveckla denna utsaga och tala om vad det är som skeptiker inte är överens om.

Naturligtvis är det så att om skeptiker ägnar sig åt att (mest) träta inbördes, så försvagar det skepticismens röst. 

Det skall alltså bli intressant att höra vad Per nu anför som meningsskiljaktigheter skeptiker emellan. Det kan väl inte vara den gamla "återstrålningen" som spökar?

Här är meningsutbytet på Klimatupplysningen:

Claes:

Per, enligt SvD säger Du: ”Någon gemensam syn på forskningsläget har inte ”klimathotsskeptikerna”. Vad är det som skeptikerna inte är överens om?

Att påstå att skeptikerna inte är överens, är mumma för alarmister, eller hur?

Per:

Claes Johnson #32: Jag håller inte med dig. Jag berättar vad jag tror är sanningen och det anser jag inte gynnar alarmisterna.

Jag sa också i meningen efter att ”Vi är vetenskapligt LITE oense” (min kursiv.). Det som förenar klimathotskeptiker är att vi inte tror på stora delar av IPCC:s rapporter. Likaså tror vi inte att vi med stor säkerhet vet att mänskliga utsläpp kommer att orsaka en stor uppvärmning. . Vi anser också att media och politiker grovt förvanskar vetenskapen. 

Men vi har inte alla svar om hur klimatet drivs. Vetenskap innebär att testa nya hypoteser, granska dessa och eventuellt falsifiera hypotesen. Bland skeptikerna är vi inte helt överens om hur mycket solen påverkar, kosmiska strålningen och koldioxiden utan återkoppling. Vi vet inte säkert. Det finns de av skeptikerna som säger att koldioxiden har noll påverkan, andra att det har en modest påverkan.

Vi har inte all kunskap om klimatet. Långt ifrån. Att testa nya hypoteser driver oss framåt. Och ju mer kunskap vi får desto lättare blir det att tydligt falsifiera alarmisterna. Kanske redan innan verklighetens klimat gjort alarmisterna till åtlöje.

Claes:

Per, på min fråga om vad det är som skeptiker inte är överens om, svarar Du att det finns osäkerheter som ingen vet svaret på. Men det innebär väl inte att skeptiker är oense? Man kan väl inte vara oense om något som är oklart, utan man delar väl istället uppfattningen att det är oklart? Och då är man väl inte oense?

Du tror inte det skadar skeptikernas sak om man trumpetar ut att skeptiker är oense.
Hur resonerar Du för att komma till denna slutsats?

Min erfarenhet är att skeptiker i Sverige, inte minst Klimatupplysningen, ägnar en massa kraft åt internt käbbel, vilket skadar saken. Jämför med Klimatrealisterne i Norge, som inte håller på med sånt trams. Eller hur ser Du på saken? Finns det något hos Klimatrealisterne som vi i Sverige skulle kunna ta efter?

(PS det där med LITE oense har bortfallit i SvD intervjun, och det visar väl faran med att snacka om att skeptiker inte är överens?)

Per:

Claes Johnson #35: Du bidrar just nu till interna käbblet på Klimatupplysningen. Men nu är vi utanför dagens ämne så vi slutar debatten här och nu.

Det finns säkert saker vi och även Klimarealistene kan bli bättre på. Men vi tar vår diskussion på annan plats än i kommentarsfältet.

Claes slutkommentar: Ja, där ser man hur svårt det är att få till en meningsfull dialog med Klimatupplysningen. Synd på så rara ärtor.

Groupthink of Global Warming Alarmism Shattered

Global warming alarmism from the use of fossil fules has taken its grip of Western countries in a wave of groupthink with the following characteristics, as presented in the excellent study Global Warming, a case study in groupthink by Christopher Booker, recalling the three rules formulated by Irving Janis in Victims of Groupthink from 1972:

• belief not based on reality, hard to disprove
• consensus replaces factual evidence
• chase of "deniers" or "heretics" questioning the belief.

Booker ends his study with the following prediction:

• But the groupthink driving both that belief itself and the political response to it has always essentially been centred on those countries of the Western world, which not only originated the panic over global in the first place, but have remained its main drivers ever since. 
• Indeed, it is precisely this fact which is now turning out to be the crux of the whole story.

Yes, the crux is that global warming alarmism is groupthink of people in Western countries (but not all) and certainly not in the rest of world, where the use of fossil fuels will continue to rise to lift people out of poverty.  The disintegration of the Western groupthink of global warming started with the retreat of the US from the Paris agreement, somehow emerging from a Trumpian gut feeling that the agreement was unfair. 

With a cynical (realistic) view it may seem that Western politicians once launched the fossil fuel scare with a (maybe unconscious) agenda to prevent developing countries to take their bigger share and develop and take over the world scene. 

The Paris agreement shows that this prevention does not work. Even worse, putting emission limits only for Western countries will speed up rather than slow down the decline of the West. When this understanding enters the minds of Western politicians, as it did with Trump, fossil fuel alarmism will be over (and then be replaced by a new scare with som other hidden agenda).  It may not take very long... 

Sanningen vs Faktaresistens

Åsa Wikforss gavs ett nytt tillfälle i söndags att sälja sitt budskap/bok om Faktaresistens till svenska folket i ett nytt avsnitt betitlat Sanningen av SVTs storsatsning Idé-världen, en "tänkande talkshow". Om tidigare tillfälle se här.

Som främsta exempel på medborgare som är faktaresistenta utpekar Åsa s k klimatskeptiker dvs bildade personer som studerat det vetenskapliga underlaget för koldioxidalarmismen och funnit det vara synnerligen bristfälligt och ingalunda giltigt som skäl för att driva mänskligheten mot ett fossilfritt samhälle (Sveriges uttalade mål till 2040) som bara låter de rika överleva.

Jag har tidigare frågat Åsa hur hon kan vara så säker på att hon besitter Sanningen utan att behöva äga kunskap om (något av) alla de fakta som vi klimatskeptiker så hårt sliter med att tillägna oss och rätt tolka. En del av dessa fakta presenterades i de 500 skeptiska artiklar som publicerades 2017.

Jag har ställt frågan igen och även frågat om Åsa skulle vilja komma och ta del av de fakta som kommer att presenteras på det kommande klimatmötet Climate Sense 2018 i Mölndal 16-17/2, där flera världskända forskare presenterar fakta de funnit i noggranna studier.

Åsa har inte svarat på denna fråga. Så har väl då att se fram emot nya presentationer i statlig svensk TV/Radio av Åsa av begreppet faktaresistens med klimatskepticism som skräckexempel.

Climate Sense 2018

The Program for the upcoming Nordic Conference on Climate: Climate Sense 2018, February 16-17, Mölndal, features myself among prominent people in the first session (slides for my talk will  soon be posted):

Klimatalarmism Möter Skepticism i StorMedia i Norge

Stavanger Aftenblad frågar sig idag följande i en mycket intressant och välskriven artikel där klimatalarmism möter skepticism:

• Styr vi vädret med bilen - eller gör Naturen det själv?

Tänk om en sådan artikel kunde publiceras i DN eller SvD. En tidsfråga förstås. Kanske imorgon?
Vad skulle effekten bli?

Se utförlig diskussion av artikeln hos Klimatrealistene.

The Weak Science behind CO2 Alarmism to be Exposed

Washington Post reports:

• EPA chief pushing governmentwide effort to question climate change science.

This means that the very weak scientific support of fossil fuel CO2 alarmism will finally be exposed to the world and the dooms day bubble will collapse. All poor people can now look forward to a brighter future with improved living conditions from cheap fossil fuel without dangerous climate impact:  New York Times reports that 1600 new coal plants are about to be built around the world.

Compare with this new frontier research discovery giving new perspective and insight into human condition and global warming.

Trumps Reason to Withdraw from the Paris Accord

When President Trump declared that the US will pull out from the Paris Climate Accord, he did not repeat his earlier analysis that CO2 climate alarmism is a hoax without scientific support.

He could have done that on very good grounds, but he did not get into the question whether CO2 emissions from human activity is a real threat to the planet or not, which some climate skeptics regret.

Trump simply referred to the fact that even if all commitments of a Paris Accord where fully fulfilled, or more, the total effect according to the very dogmas of CO2 climate alarmism, would be at most 0.2 C reduction of global warming at the end of the century, that is zero effect. His logic was that it would be immoral to deliberately deny poor people access to cheap fossil fuel and keep them in poverty, if the effect on climate would be zero.

This shows the true dilemma of climate alarmism: If there is a real threat, then the planned measures to avoid catastrophe are totally inadequate and thus meaningless and then immoral by causing human suffering.  If there is no real threat, then the planned measures are even more meaningless and immoral.

This dilemma is covered up by main stream media selling climate alarmism, but comes out in the  true face of climate alarmism as expressed by Joachim Schellnhuber, climate advisor to Merkel and the Pope, asking for a "great transformation" of human civilisation. This is something completely different from buying an electrical car.  Think of that.

PS When Scott Pruitt as new Director of EPA and chief architect together with Mylon Ebell of Trumps CO2 agenda and decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord, was asked if he knew what  Trump was "thinking about climate",  Pruitt responded that frankly he did not know and that he had not discussed this question with Trump. To Pruitt and Ebell (and to the world) it is enough to know that their agenda is supported by Trump. This fits with Trump's decision to refrain from repeating his claim that climate alarmism is a "hoax" (which is impossible to prove), because the Paris Accord is meaningless, "hoax" or not.

Towards a New EPA Without CO2 Alarmism

The US Environmental Protection Agency EPA is facing a complete revision along a plan drawn by CO2 alarmism skeptic Mylon Ebell, but EPA still trumpets the same old CO2 alarmism of the Obama administration under the head lines of Climate Change:

• Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.
• Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 
• Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect... and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.

The reason that this propaganda is still on the EPA web page can only be that the new director of EPA Scott Pruitt has not yet been confirmed. It will be interesting to see the new web page after Pruitt has implemented the plan of Ebell to dismantle CO2 alarmism...in the US...and then...

Deconstruction of CO2 Alarmism Started

Directly after inauguration the White House web site changes to a new Energy Plan, where all of Obama's CO2 alarmism has been completely eliminated:

• Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil.
• For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.
• Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. 
• The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans.

Nothing about dangerous CO2! No limits on emission! Trump has listened to science! CO2 alarmism will be defunded and why not then also other forms of fake physics...

This is the first step to the Fall of IPCC and the Paris agreement and liberation of resources for the benefit of humanity, see phys.org.

The defunding of CO2 alarmism will now start, and then why not other forms of fake science?

PS1 Skepticism to CO2 alarmism expressed by Klimatrealisterna is now getting published in media in Norway, while in Sweden it is fully censored.  I have recently accepted an invitation to become a member of the scientific committee of this organisation (not yet visible on the web site).

PS2 Read Roy Spencer's analysis of the Trump Dump:

• As Bjorn Lomborg has recently estimated, efforts to “fight” global warming under the U.N.’s Paris Agreement could cost the world $100 Trillion in lost wealth by the end of this century. 
• That, I guarantee you, will lead to (preventable) deaths, due to poverty and all problems stemming from poverty.
• And for what gain? An unmeasurable decrease in further warming of maybe 0.1 deg. C at best (and that’s assuming climate sensitivity is high and that we are in for several deg. C of future warming — which I don’t). As someone who knows how temperatures trends are measured on the ground (I’ll bet none of the thermometer climate data “experts” passed NWS weather observer certification exams like I did) and by satellite (I’m the co-inventor), I can say that this level of future temperature reduction is unmeasurable by any system we have.

Bottomline: With plenty of energy, poverty can be eliminated. Unstopped CO2 alarmism will massively increase poverty with no gain whatsoever. Trump is the first state leader to understand that the Emperor of CO2 Alarmism is naked, and other leaders will now open their eyes to see the same thing...and skeptics may soon say mission complete...

See also The Beginning of the End of EPA.

Why Does Trump Not Play the Climate Card?

Trump is known to be skeptic to climate alarmism, according to The Guardian as the world's only national leader to express such an insight. It may come from a sound gut feeling that something is very fishy with that story.

Trump could tell the American people, and the people of the world, the truth that climate alarmism has no real scientific support and battling a non-existent climate enemy at a projected cost of 2-10% of GNP, thus is not needed. He could then say that these enormous resources could better be used for a meaningful purpose such as improving living conditions for the all the poor people of the world. That it would be more than enough to eliminate poverty.

But Trump is not playing such a strong climate card, which could tilt the game to his favour. Why?

Is it that this card would be harassed as being so much worse than any of the politically incorrect cards he has been playing, you name it, so bad that it simply cannot be played? Would freeing resources to eliminate poverty thus be so incredibly politically incorrect?

Or is Trump just waiting to play the card, to get maximal effect?

Physics by Law through Censorship of Climate-Alarm Skepticism

A report in the U.K. daily The Telegraph indicates that

• an international panel of judges is planning to prohibit talk of “climate skepticism.” The article by Christopher Booker said the legal change was endorsed by Prince Charles of the U.K., and would revolutionize the concept of free speech once and for all.
• Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.

This is a follow-up of the censorship at KTH that struck my math book Mathematical Simulation Technology (see left widget) in 2010  because of its mathematical climate-alarm skepticism in an orchestrated media race as KTH-gate, KTH-gate2 and KTH-gate3.

See also the Philippe Verdier story.

Why LukeWarmers Fight Deniers

The debate on global warming by CO2 emission is commonly divided into the following categories:

1. warmists
2. lukewarmers
3. "deniers".

As "denier" I have met a very hostile and aggressive attitude from many lukewarmers, and I have wondered how that can be. After the last onslaught by Fred Singer reported in the preceding post, I have come to think about this anew and the following explanation presented itself:

A denier is skeptic to CO2 global warming for a reason which is not shared by a lukewarmer. Notably this comes down to "back radiation" which a "denier" claims is unphysical nonsense, while a lukewarmer like Fred views "back radiation" as a real basic physical mechanism behind the "greenhouse effect", which keeps the Earth from freezing to ice.

On the other hand, most other skeptical views held by a lukewarmer are typically shared by a denier. In short, a denier has a richer skeptical arsenal than a lukewarmer, and this evidently makes the lukewarmer upset. It is as if this richer arsenal questions the very credibility of the lukewarmer as skeptic, and that is apparently unbearable. The result is that "deniers" have to be eliminated, not by warmists, but by lukewarmers. Such is life...

Lennart Bengtsson om Bränning av Böcker

Lennart Bengtsson kommenterar en debattartikel i dagens DN:

• Med det stora antalet akademiker bland undertecknarna kunde man kanske väntat sig lite mer kritiskt och öppet tänkande och inte bara detta sagolika flum. Att världen idag är beroende av fossil energi till mer än 80% och med 1.4 miljarder människor som saknar tillgång till el och där halva jordens befolkning är underförsörjda med energi verkar knappast bekymra denna ljusets riddarvakt det ringaste.
• Nästa steg blir väl att bannlysa det felaktiga tänkandet eller bannlysa eller rent av bränna olämpliga böcker som den framstående belgiske energiexperten Samuele Furfaris nyutkomna bok: ”Vive les énergies fossiles!” med undertiteln ”La contre-révolution énergétique” Det enda hoppfulla är väl att dessa untertecknare eller snarare deras klimatstridande studenter inte normalt läser böcker på franska. I slutstadiet får vi räkna med att även diverse olämpliga personer blir bannlysta i denna nysvenska omvända upplysningstid.

Mot detta står att LB deltog i det offentliga brännandet på KTH de 4e december 2010 (post with 4051 page views) av min matte-bok, eftersom matematiken hos enkla klimatmodeller ifrågasatte den då (och ännu) rådande dogmen av CO2-alarmism.  

Kan vi läsa LBs kommentar som ett uttryck för att LB inte skulle göra om samma sak idag?

Skulle man kunna säga att bokbränning inte är bra eftersom det leder till ökade CO2 utsläpp?

Questioning of Global Warming Silenced

Tallbloke and Lubos report on the burning of a new journal because it published the following sentence:

• This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.

It seems Enlightenment is over and Inquisition is back. Brr....

PS1 Here is one of the articles that caused the burning of a whole new journal: The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system, by N Scafetta. The parallel with Galileo is obvious.

PS2 Note the related post on WUWT: Cause of the "pause" in global warming, by Don Easterbrook.

PS3 The censorship of questioning of offical doctrine reminds me of Kth-gate, where a book of mine was censored by KTH because it asked engineering students to question the relevance and modernity of their education. 

Why Skeptics Soon Will Stop Quarreling

There are many brands of skepticism to CO2-alarmism, from "deniers" and "slayers" to "lukewarmers", which have been quarreling with each other frantically over the years, while there is only one brand of climate alarmism. How can it be?

This is probably because there may be many aspects which are wrong and thus to be skeptic about, in a message of alarm based on incorrect physics. There is no reason to quarrel about the exact formulation of a false statement, as long as the falseness itself is not an issue. But there may be many ways in which a false statement is wrong and to express what is the biggest error may be, and has been, stirring up quarrel.

This can be avoided by understanding that it is the union of all errors which forms the totality of skepticism, not the intersection with a least common denominator of error. As alarmism is now collapsing, I think skeptics will be led away from internal quarrels into more of unification, which however will not serve any real purpose, because CO2-alarmism is dead anyway, thanks to the choir of  all different brands of skeptics.    

Difference between Climate Skeptics and Deniers

Climate skeptics like Lindzen, Singer and Spencer (and Monckton and WUWT and Lubos...) are skeptical to CO2 alarmism, but they are all eager to state that they understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas GHG with in principle a warming effect (even if this effect is so small that it can never be observed). They are skeptical to all of the dogmas of CO2 alarmism of melting ice caps, rising sea level, bad weather and threatened ice bears, but there is one thing for which the skepticism is missing: CO2 as a GHG with some warming effect. Maybe 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling.

People questioning the warming effect of CO2 are called "climate deniers" and they are not highly valued by neither climate alarmists nor climate skeptics.

What is then the difference is between climate skeptics and climate deniers? Why are climate skeptics not skeptical to the capacity of CO2 to cause warming, when they are skeptical to just about everything else coming from the climate alarmist camp?

I think the answer is credibility, scientific credibility. If you like a denier questions everything from IPCC including CO2 as a GHG, then you could easily be viewed as a crank that does not understand anything at all and therefore can question everything. Like a fool asking more questions than many wise men can answer.

And you don't want to be (viewed as) a crank. To send the signal that your are not a crank, it may be a good idea to pretend to understand the deep physics of the spectrum of CO2 based on deep quantum mechanics by saying that you very well understand that certainly CO2 is a GHG, because advanced computer codes like Modtran produce spectra which can be interpreted this way.

The difference between climate skeptics and deniers thus seems to be that skeptics gain credibility by pretending to understand something, which may be incorrect, while deniers lose credibility by admitting to not to understand, what possibly cannot be understood.

PS Here is a recent statement by Spencer representative of a skeptics view on the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2:

• I’m just saying I think the no-feedback temperature response is pretty sound…although I admit it must be computed based upon theory, and can’t be observationally verified.