torsdag 30 september 2010

Royal Society in Free Fall

The Royal Society has by a group of Fellows been forced to issue a new guide to the science of climate change:
  • The guide summarises the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers, highlighting the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain.
So what do we then find in the new guide? Is it different from the old guide? We read:
  • There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.
  • The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.
  • Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.
What is then the strong evidence? Yes, of course the greenhouse effect:
  • The surface is thus kept warmer than it otherwise would be because, in addition to the energy it receives from the Sun, it also receives infrared energy emitted by the atmosphere. The warming that results from this infrared energy is known as the greenhouse effect.
So there we have it! Take a close look at this amazing statement produced by the combined brains of RS:
  • The surface receives IR energy emitted by the atmosphere!

The cold atmosphere thus heats the warm surface, by IR energy! Once this is understood the strong evidence is completed by making CO2 equal to clouds and water vapor:
  • in addition to clouds, the two gases making the largest contribution to the greenhouse effect are water vapour followed by carbon dioxide (CO2).
This is a stunning collapse of science:
  • incorrect description of the effect of clouds and water vapor
  • incorrect attribution to CO2 of the same effect as clouds and water vapor.
Neverthless, armed with this amazing power of thinking RS concludes:
  • There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century.
  • However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
  • Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.
What decisions? Why not a big heap of money to (well established) climate science?

The message of the new guide is the same as in the old guide, just a little more of convincing comforting uncertainty. What was wrong with the old?

PS Note the clever use of the term well established science. This is not science which has been shown to be correct, but populistic science selling "truths" which serve a certain political agenda. There are many contradictory well established truths in different political circles,
which are not truths at all, and in science the truth cannot be contradictory. DS

onsdag 29 september 2010

Why Radiation before Thermodynamics?

What sets the lapse rate and thus the global Earth surface temperature? There are two competing ideas:
  1. thermodynamics with gravitation under radiative forcing
  2. radiative equilibrium with thermodynamics adjustment.
In short: 1. thermodynamics or 2. radiation?

The "greenhouse effect" of CO2 alarmism is based on 2, but the science of 2. is missing.

On the other hand 1. makes sense from a scientific mathematical point of view.

That politicians may believe in 2. is understandable, but how is it possible that scientists gathered in Royal Academies also buy 2. when it is very clear that science does not?

Why do scientists not buy 1. Because it is wrong? No. Because thermodynamics is feared by scientists as a subject beyond comprehension, with its 2nd Law about entropy which nobody
claims to understand.

But there is a version of thermodynamics without entropy which anyone with a bit of incentive can understand, presented in Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere and in more detail in Computational Thermodynamics.

So with a proper understanding of thermodynamics 1. makes a lot of sense, and the more you
understand the more silly 2. appears.

Why buy something cheap and simple which does not work, when the real thing is there if you just open your mind to grab it?

Frågor till KVA om Växthuseffekten utan Svar?

I inbjudan till seminariet Framtidens Klimat 6/10 arrangerat av KVA/IVA ges uppmaningen:

  • Alla anmälda till seminariet är välkomna att skicka in frågor som man önskar att forskarpanelen ska besvara. Detta ger oss möjlighet att gruppera likartade ämnen varmed fler åhörare kan förväntas få sina frågeställningar besvarade.

Jag har anmält mig och ställer följande frågor:
  1. Vad är växthuseffekten och i vilka huvudsakliga vetenskapliga grundarbeten beskrivs och analyseras denna effekt?
  2. Är denna växthuseffekt grunden till den CO2-alarmism som IPCC framför och KVA stödjer?
Jag har tidigare ställt dessa frågor till KVA i följande form:

The Royal Academy states in The Scientific Basis for Climate Change that
  • The effect of greenhouse gases is well established.
Since this statement is critical as concerns a possibly alarming global warming from CO2 threatening humanity, I would like the Royal Academy to answer the following scientific questions related to the scientific statement:
  • What effect of greenhouse gases is well established?
  • Which are the original scientific sources demonstrating the effect?
Fick jag något svar? Nej, KVA genom sin sekreterare Gunnar Öquist talar inte med mig sedan 27 nov 2009 då jag fick följande besked efter att förgäves sökt få svar på mina ovanstående frågor:
  • Akademien har gjort ett uttalande i klimatfrågan och i det uttalandet finner du Vetenskapsakademiens ställningstagande i frågan.
  • ....jag är inte beredd att fortsätta diskussionen efter detta eftersom den knappast blir särskilt fruktbar.
Så vi får väl nu se om forskarpanelen utvald av KVA kan ge en motivering till KVAs påstående att: The effect of greenhouse gases is well established. Om detta är fallet så måste den väl vara väl beskriven i den vetenskapliga litteraturen? Eller har "well established" en annan innebörd?

Rapport från mötet kommer att ges...

Vad som brukar framföras, av tex Christian Azar, är Manabe-Strickler Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment (1964) som jag diskuterar i slutet av Intervju med Azar.

Har panelen månne något bättre att komma med?

tisdag 28 september 2010

Lapse Rate vs Radiative Forcing vs CO2 Alarmism

In Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere I give an argument connecting lapse rate to radiative heat forcing, indicating that increased radiative forcing of the thermodynamics, e.g. from increased CO2, is compatible with a non-increased lapse rate and thus global non-warming.

The lapse rate is the drop in temperature with altitude, observed to be 6.5 C/km.

The argument is thus that more CO2 will not cause warming. If this is true CO2 alarmism collapses.

The atmosphere is a thermodynamic system subject to radiative heat forcing and thus
thermodynamics may have an answer:

  • dE = -W + D + Q, dP = W - D, (thus dE + dP = Q),
with (assuming the kinetic energy is small)
  • E = heat energy
  • P = potential energy = int Rho U g dx dt
  • Rho density, U convective velocity
  • W = work
  • D = turbulent dissipation
  • Q = heat forcing = 120 W/m2 (observation)
  • dE rate of change of E, dP sim.
We consider a column of (rising) air above a squaremeter at the Equator reaching to the top of the atmosphere (at 5 km). Let L be the lapse rate which can vary from 0 (isothermal atmosphere) to 10 C/km (isentropic). Balancing potential energy (increase of altitude of rising air) with loss of heat according to the lapse rate, we have dE/dP = - L/10 and thus recalling that dE + dP = Q,
  • dP x (1 - L/10) = Q
  • with Q = 120 and L = 6.5 we get dP = 350 (W/m2)
With Q = 0 (no heat forcing) it is natural to assume L = 10 and thus (1 - L/10) = 0 and dP is not determined. If now Q is increased to the observed 120 W/m2, then L decreases to an observed 6.5 C/km and dP settles at 350 W/m2.

The key question is what happens with the lapse rate L if Q is further increased reflecting increasing effective radiative forcing of the thermodynamics from the presence of more atmospheric CO2 (more heat to be transported by thermodynamics). We have
  • L = 10 x (1 - Q/dP )
1. We see that if dP stays constant, then increasing Q will decrease L and thus cause cooling.

2. If dP increases like Q (increasing rising velocity U) then L may stay constant without cooling or warming.

3. Including also phase change (evaporation/condensation), we have that increased forcing will
lead to increased evaporation/condensation which will tend to reduce the lapse rate by
lowering temperature at low altitudes and increasing temperature at high altitudes. The lapse rate will thus react to increased forcing in a battle between
  • possibly increasing dP by increasing vertical convection
  • decreasing L from phase change.
Case 1-2 gives no warming, while 3 may cause warming depending on the balance between
convection and phase change.

Observation indicates that out of a forcing of Q = 120 W/m2 the major part of 100 W/m2 gets allocated to phase change, which may give an indication of what sets the lapse rate: convection or phase change. Benchmark computations are on the way. Stay tuned...

Note that CO2 alarmism is based on a postulate of a "greenhouse effect" from radiation without thermodynamics, which by definition leads to warming by increased CO2. But science
by definition is empty science, and so is global climate without thermodynamics.

There is substantial evidence that the lapse rate is determined primarily by thermodynamics, not by radiation, and thus that the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism lacks scientific value.

The above connects to interesting observations of temperature (lapse rate) for regions
below sea level (The Dead Sea and deep in mines) brought to the light by Charles R. Anderson in NOAA's U.S: Standard Atmosphere Tables: Who Needs Greenhouse Gas Warming?
upon suggestion from Marty Hertzberg and Alan Siddons.

måndag 27 september 2010

Lord Turnbull about Royal Swedish Academy

As a preparation for the upcoming seminar organized by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in support of IPCC, the following facts expressed by Lord Turnbull in A climate overhaul is needed to win back public trust, present themselves:
  • climate science needs to be less dogmatic, welcoming rather than suppressing diverse views  
  • “an ethos of suffocating group think” with the investigators almost as much part of the group as the scientists
  • The UK’s climate policy has been based on the assessment of the IPCC...emissions must be cut globally by 50 per cent by the middle of the century, with industrialised nations cutting by 80 per cent.
  • Given the enormity of the sacrifices expected of families and businesses, and the current economic prospects, it is not surprising people question if this is how it has to be. Worse, people are questioning whether the science is as “settled” as often claimed.
This describes also Swedish climate politics, ultimately based on the stated support of IPCC by the Royal Swedish Academy, so fittingly described by Lord Turnbull: "suppresses diverse views" and "suffocating group think", as demonstrated e.g. in the arrangement of the seminar only allowing IPCC to speak. 

The Academy could also profit from reading Dr. Judith Curry on No Consensus on Consensus. 
Maybe even some perspective: The Coming Ice Age (in 1974)

Lord Turnbull was UK Cabinet Secretary 2002-05. He is a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Dr. Judith Curry is IPCC scientist and has the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

lördag 25 september 2010

Will Royal Academy Save IPCC from Collapse?

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences arranges a seminar in support of IPCC CO2 climate alarmism on Oct 6. The question is if this will help IPCC from collapsing?

Not so, according to former ardent CO2 climate alarmist George Monbiot: Climate change enlightenment was fun while it lasted. But now it's dead.

fredag 24 september 2010

Atmosphere: Boiling Pot Air Conditioner

In Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere, I give mathematical evidence that the atmosphere acts as an air conditioner keeping the Earth surface at comfortable 15 C upon radiative forcing from the Sun.

Like a boiling pot of water the atmosphere reacts to increased heat forcing by increased vaporization and turbulent convection, while keeping the temperature constant.

I thus present mathematical evidence that the Earth surface temperature is determined by
thermodynamics rather than radiation, which indicates a small climate sensitivity to radiative forcing e.g. from increased CO2.

This is a main argument showing that the socalled "greenhouse effect" belongs to fiction and not science.

tisdag 21 september 2010

Svar från IVA/Vattenfall 3

Svar från Lennart Billfalk:
  • När det gäller din nya fråga så tycker jag att jag tidigare kommenterat hur Vattenfall rimligen måste agera. 
  • När det gäller IVA:s seminarium så föreslår jag att du anmäler dig till det samt formulerar skriftliga frågor rörande klimat och klimatmodellering som du önskar att panelen skall diskutera. Jag tror att en kunnig publik kan få ut mycket information genom att panelen får belysa kritiska, faktabetonade frågor.  Tanken med seminariet är dock inte att diskutera IPCC. Den diskussionen får vi eventuellt återkomma till. 
Vi kommer väl inte längre...tänk om Vattenfall visste vad som väntar...eller åtminstone vore intresserat av att veta...

Svar från IVA/Vattenfall 2

Lennart Billfalk svarar:
  • Jag har nog inte så mycket att tillägga till det jag skrev i mitt förra mail. Några ytterligare kommentarer bara till ditt senaste mail. Din första "fråga" har jag väl egentligen redan kommenterat. Jag är väl medveten om att det finns forskare som är skeptiska till koldioxidens effekter på klimatet. Förutsägelser om framtidens klimat är en mycket komplex frågeställning som kräver djupa kunskaper inom ett flertal vetenskapliga discipliner. 
  • För mig och många företag är därför sammanvägda bedömningar baserade på tillgänglig kunskap inom många områden nödvändiga för att kunna ta ställing till allvaret i klimathotet. IPCC:s vetenskapliga rapporter  är de mest omfattande sammanställningarna som görs och de uppdateras ju med jämna mellanrum med nya forskningsrön som framkommer. 
  • Det känns dock också mycket angeläget att t ex vetenskapliga akademier,  som t ex KVA,  tar på sig den grannlaga uppgiften att uttala sig om en så allvarlig frågeställning som klimatfrågan. Politiker och företagare måste ju rimligen basera sina beslut på sådana sammanställningar snarare till enskilda forskares uppfattning. 
  • När det gäller fråga två vill jag för egen del hänvisa till det jag säger ovan, dvs jag har svårt att värdera enskilda studier och utgår därför från att den vetenskapliga världens arbetsformer leder till att en större grad av enighet växer fram kring klimatfrågan. Jag har svårt att förstå hur du kan påstå att de inbjudna föredragshållarna skulle kunna kallas alarmister. Jag uppfattar att de är mycket respekterade inom sina forskningsfält.
Min reaktion:
  • Det verkar inte som LB inser att IPCC är på väg att kollapsa och att IPCC är ett politiskt organ som ger en skev bild av klimatvetenskapen och speciellt koldioxidens roll.
  • LB inser att KVAs stöd av IPCC utgör grunden för svensk klimatpolitik, men vet inte att KVAs stöd inte bygger på en egen vetenskaplig analys.
  • LB ser inte att alla talare har nära koppling till IPCC.
Min fråga: 
  • Borde inte IVA/Vattenfall eftersträva en bred belysning av den viktiga sakfrågan, och därför låta även skeptiker till koldioxidalarmism komma till tals?

French Academy of Sciences Debates Climate

Science and Le Monde reports that the French Academy of Sciences finally produced a statement after a full day of debate on climate change Monday that had been shrouded in secrecy:
  • Concernant les gaz à effet de serre, dont le CO2 émis par les activités humaines, s’il existe un consensus sur leur impact direct, le rôle de leurs effets indirects est encore controversé. 
  • (Concerning CO2 emitted by human activity, even if there is a consensus on its direct impact, its indirect effects remain controversial).
In other words, there is no consensus on the role of CO2 for global warming, since only the 
total effect (including direct and indirect effects) is of any interest to science and humanity
(and nobody knows what the direct effect is anyway).

No consensus! NO CONSENSUS! Controversy! CONTROVERSY!

This is to be compared with the upcoming climate seminar organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences October 6, where only one side of the controversy is allowed to speak.

Sweden is a society with One King, One Academy and One Truth about the controversial 
role of CO2.  France and the US are not.

The Sinister Intention of Climate Alarmism

  • Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries.
This is precisely what I have been suspecting...not so nice...

Svar från IVA/Vattenfall

Jag skickade följande brev till Lennart Billfalk, senior advisor till Vattenfall samt medlem av IVAs miljöråd och arrangör av klimatseminariet 6/10:
  • Som framgår av min blogg är jag mycket kritisk till IPCC som med KVAs stöd utgör den vetenskapliga grunden till svensk klimat/energi-politik. Vilken är Vattenfalls syn på dessa frågor? Köper Vattenfall IPCC/KVAs koldioxidhysteri? Planerar Vattenfall som om koldioxidutsläpp är ett reellt miljöhot som måste begränsas?
Lennart Billfalk svarar:
  • Jag har haft en lång karriär inom Vattenfall. Jag lämnade mitt jobb som ansvarig för den koncernstab som ansvarade för bl a strategisk planering, FoU och miljö för tre år sedan. Jag har sedan dess en roll som "Senior advisor". Mitt svar tiill dig bygger alltså på den kunskap jag har om Vattenfalls tidigare ställningstaganden. Jag tror att de gäller även idag men om du vill ha mera information  rekommenderar jag att du kontaktar Vattenfall direkt. 
  • Som du säkert känner till så har Vattenfall tagit flera initiativ, dels för att långsiktigt reducera egna utsläpp av CO2 dels för att få till stånd internationella och marknadsanpassade styrmedel. Ett ganska omfattande initiativ togs av Vattenfalls förre VD, Lars G Josefsson, då han samlade ett stort antal internationella storföretag till organisationen "Combat Climate Change"; se vidare Combat Climate Change. 
  • Vattenfall har inte egen sakkunskap vad gäller klimatforskningens frontlinjer. Bolaget följer dock utvecklingen och måste naturligtvis förhålla sig till de den kunskap som växer fram. Jag tror att man enklast kan säga att Vattenfall följer det som brukar kallas försiktighetsprincipen, dvs inled en omställning av elproduktionsapparaten till lägre utsläpp av CO2. Naturligvis måste även rent affärmässiga bedömningar göras. Vi har ju som du vet ett handlessystem för utsläppsrätter att ta hänsyn till i vår planering. 
  • Naturligtvis finns fortfarande oäkerheter vad gäller de långsiktiga effekterna av förhöjda halter av växthusgaser i atmosfären. Fortsatt forskning kring dessa frågeställningar är mycket angelägen. Vattenfall, liksom många andra energiföretag bedömer dock att hotet om klimatfärändringar kräver handling nu. 
  • Det måste dock ske på ett klokt sätt. Det måste framför allt ske genom någon form av internationellt ramverk. Det blir ju till exempel både dyrt och meningslöst om endast några mindre länder som t ex Sverige vidtar kraftiga åtgärder nationellt. 
Vad kan säga om detta? Lennart B säger att Vattenfall inte har någon (egen) sakkunskap vad gäller klimatforskningens frontlinjer, men att Vattenfall följer den kunskap som växer fram.

Jag frågar då Lennart B. följande:
  • Den nya kunskap som växer fram är att koldoxidalarmismen är överdriven. Det finns inga vetenskapliga belägg för att koldioxid nämnvärt kan påverka jordens temperatur.
  • Är Du/Vattenfall/IVA intresserad av att ta del av denna kunskap?
  • Varför är alla talare vid IVA/KVAs klimatseminarium representanter för koldioxidalarmism?

måndag 20 september 2010

KVA Svarar 2

Så här svarar KVA genom Leif G. Anderson:
  • Kunde inte hålla mig för att läsa vad du skrivit på bloggen. Det är med stor förvåning som du har punktat svaret på ett sätt som bryter ett av de stycken jag skrivit och därmed också ändrar syftningen. Men det är väl bara ett sätt som du hanterar din sanning på.
  • Jag ägnar mig inte åt bloggande.
Mina fråga till KVA/Leif G. Anderson: På vad sätt har jag ändrat syftningen? Vad är det i "min sanning" som inte är Din?
Jag upprepar min fråga angående Dina motsägande uppgifter om seminariets syfte, som Du inte svarat på.

Här är det ursprungliga mailet utan punkter:
Syftet med seminariet är att belysa dagens kunskapsläge vad gäller klimatet och klimatmodeller och därför har vi frågat ledande forskare inom detta område att ge presentationer. Det har heller inte varit rimligt att gå allt för långt utanför landets gränser för att finna dessa personer. I arbetet att välja lämpliga presentatörer har jag aldrig funderat på detta med "IPCC-troende" eller ej, men när jag tänker efter har nog de flesta som håller på med dessa modeller (och därmed är kompetenta) på något sätt varit med i IPCC arbetet. Och när nu syftet är att belysa styrkor och svagheter i detta arbete ser jag inte hur det kopplar till IPCC arbetet direkt.
En sak som vi inte vill ha med detta seminarium är just diskussionen om det finns en antropogen klimatförändring eller inte. Det får vänta till ett annat tillfälle om så är önskvärt.

KVA Svarar

KVA ger svar på mina frågor i Framtidens Klimat enligt IPCC och KVA genom prof Leif G. Anderson, ordf. i KVAs miljökommitee:
  • Jag fick din fråga sänt till mig eftersom jag representerar KVA som ordförande i dess miljökommitté. Syftet med seminariet är att belysa dagens kunskapsläge vad gäller klimatet och klimatmodeller och därför har vi frågat ledande forskare inom detta område att ge presentationer. Det har heller inte varit rimligt att gå allt för långt utanför landets gränser för att finna dessa personer.
  • I arbetet att välja lämpliga presentatörer har jag aldrig funderat på detta med "IPCC-troende" eller ej, men när jag tänker efter har nog de flesta som håller på med dessa modeller (och därmed är kompetenta) på något sätt varit med i IPCC arbetet. Och när nu syftet är att belysa styrkor och svagheter i detta arbete ser jag inte hur det kopplar till IPCC arbetet direkt.
  • En sak som vi inte vill ha med detta seminarium är just diskussionen om det finns en antropogen klimatförändring eller inte. Det får vänta till ett annat tillfälle om så är önskvärt.
Vad skall man säga om detta?

Leif G. drabbas plötsligt av insikten att samtliga talare varit med i IPCC arbetet, men ser inte hur det kopplar till IPCC arbetet direkt. Nähä, får man väl då säga. Det var väl synd.

Leif G. skyndar sig att påpeka att KVA
  • inte vill ha med frågan om antropogen klimatförändring.
Låt oss jämföra med vad Leif G. skriver i inbjudan, första meningen:
  • Vilken långsiktig påverkan på klimatet har människans aktiviteter på jorden? Den frågan har fått allt större uppmärksamhet och den upplevs idag av många som en av mänsklighetens ödesfrågor.
Jag frågar nu Leif G.: Hur går detta ihop? Varför bluffar Du mig rakt i ansiktet?

Jag understryker ännu en gång att KVA med sitt uttalande till stöd för IPCCs klimatalarmism
agerar vetenskaplig garant till Sveriges miljö/energi-politik. Utan KVAs stöd till klimatalarmismen skulle Sveriges miljö/energipolitik vara en annan.

Alla vet idag att IPCC är ett politiskt organ med egen politisk agenda, och att IPCCs vetenskap
inte finns, och därför inte kan granskas. Trots detta ger KVA sitt stöd, som om IPCC vore ett kompetent vetenskapligt organ.

Jag frågar nu Leif. G: Varför gör KVA detta?

söndag 19 september 2010

Controling O2 Instead of CO2

Instead of seeking, in order to avoid a threatening global overheating, to directly control emissions of carbon dioxide one way or the other (which has shown to not be so easy), one may ask if instead indirect control through the consumption of oxygen could be more effective.

Without O2 there will be no CO2.

The control could easily be effectuated by equipping each person with oxygen tubes with a certain ration per day. When the daily ration is consumed one would simply have to stop breathing until the next day. Simple and effective.

lördag 18 september 2010

Framtidens Klimat enligt IPCC och KVA

KVA och IVA arrangerar ett seminarium 6 oktober om
Inbjudna talare representerar det vetenskapliga etablissemang som utgör basen för IPCCs koldioxidalarmism, vilket framgår av presentationen:

Lennart Bengtsson, Professor vid University of Reading UK:
  • En huvudpunkt har varit att undersöka hur tropiska och extra-tropiska stormar kommer att påverkas av en allmän temperaturhöjning som en följd av ökande växthusgaser.
Helge Drange, Professor i oceanografi vid Universitetet i Bergens geofysiska institut:
  • Drange har medverkat i utvecklingen av Bergen Climate Modell, en av fyra klimatmodeller som levererade klimatsimuleringar till FNs klimatpanels rapport 2007. Hans forskning är fokuserad på: modellutveckling och -verifikation, identifikation av naturliga klimatförändringar och de skapade av mänsklig aktivitet.
Kevin Noone, Professor i kemisk meteorologi vid Institutionen för tillämpad miljövetenskap SU:
IPCC är nu i fritt fall, eftersom den vetenskapliga grunden för koldioxidalarmismen har försvunnit. Vetenskapliga belägg för att koldioxid orsakar uppvärmning saknas.

Men KVA kan inte förmå sig att lämna det sjunkande skeppet, utan biter sig fast i sitt tidigare stöduttalande, som nu följs upp med ett stödseminarium med minst två uttalade koldioxidalarmister och utan minsta skeptiker.

I inbjudan meddelas:
  • Alla anmälda till seminariet är välkomna att skicka in frågor som man önskar att forskarpanelen ska besvara. Detta ger oss möjlighet att gruppera likartade ämnen varmed fler åhörare kan förväntas få sina frågeställningar besvarade.
Vilken lysande ide att bara tillåta skriftliga frågor, men så fjärran från vetenskapens grundprincip om fritt tankeutbyte. Motiveringen att denna inskränkning skall ge "forskarpanelen" möjlighet att besvara fler "frågeställningar" från fler "åhörare", är ovanligt korkad. Är det KVA som hittat på detta?

Mina frågor är:
  • Varför blockerar KVA vetenskaplig diskussion genom att bara låta IPCC-troende tala?
  • Varför vidhåller KVA sitt stöd till IPCC?
Betänk att Sveriges klimat/energi-politik ytterst vilar på KVAs uttalade stöd till IPCC. Betänk att Sveriges framtid som industri, kunskaps och välfärdsland ytterst vilar på klimat/energi-politiken.

torsdag 16 september 2010

CO2: Warming or Cooling?

Ingemar Johansson vs Floyd Patterson Yankee Stadium 1959

The lapse rate (decrease of temperature with altitude) of 6.5 C/km sets the Earth surface temperature to 15 C from a top of the atmosphere TOA at -18 C (at an altitude of 5 km) with a total warming of 33 = 5 x 6.5 C.

The role of the atmosphere is to transport 180 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth surface from insolation, to the TOA for radiation to outer space. The atmosphere thus acts like an air conditioner keeping the Earth surface at 15 C under radiative forcing.

Since the TOA temperature of -18 C is determined by constant insolation, the lapse rate determines the Earth surface temperature: Increasing lapse rate means warming and decreasing lapse rate means cooling.

A basic question in climate science thus concerns what physics determines the lapse rate. There are two main candidates, both setting up an initial lapse rate of 10 C/km to be moderated to the observed 6.5 C/km:
  1. radiation according to Planck's Law
  2. thermodynamics: convection + evaporation/condensation + gravity according to the equations of fluid dynamics.

  • Radiation according to Planck's Law sets the lapse rate to 10 C/km (by dQ = 4 dT with dQ = 180 W/m2 and dT = 45 C)
  • thermodynamics enters to reduce the lapse rate to 6.5, because a lapse rate of 10 is unstable
  • radiation sets the main lapse rate with thermodynamics as secondary moderator.
  • An isentropic (adiabatic) lapse rate of 9.8 C/km is determined by thermodynamics without convection (still air) and without radiative forcing and heat transfer
  • radiative forcing drives heat transfer by convection + evaporation/condensation which reduces the lapse rate to 6.5
  • thermodynamics without heat transfer sets the main lapse with radiatively forced convective thermodynamics as secondary moderator combined with radiation for residual heat transfer acting on the lapse rate set by thermodynamics.
The two main scenarios are thus:
  1. primal radiation + secondary thermodynamics = radiation
  2. primal thermodynamics + secondary radiation = thermodynamics.
Consider now the effect of increased atmospheric CO2:
  1. radiation: increased lapse rate: warming
  2. thermodynamics: more heat transfer by convection: decreased lapse rate: cooling.
Which scenario is closest to reality? Radiation or thermodynamics? Warming or cooling?
Stay tuned to get an answer or think for yourself, maybe with inspiration from Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere.

The basic idea is thus that increased heat transfer causes
  • increased lapse rate - warming, if radiation dominates
  • more vigorous convection/phase change - decreased lapse rate - cooling, if thermodynamics dominates,
which expresses a fundamental difference between heat transfer by radiation/conduction and
by convection/phase change.

Climate Alarmism Without Energy

Climate alarmism feeds on a "greenhouse effect" resulting from "backradiation" as illustrated
  • 100% backradiation 
  • 117% =390 W/m2  outgoing radiation from the Earth surface
  • 48% total incoming radiation from the Sun to the Earth surface 
  • 30% transported by convection/evaporation from the Earth surface to the atmosphere.
This represents a severely underfinanced budget with 117% going out and 48% coming in. In politics this may pass as inevitable (for some time), but in science this is catastrophical.

In Computational Blackbody Radiation I show that the "backradiation" creating the NASA budget miracle, is unphysical and purely fictional.  This eliminates the main source of energy 
to climate alarmism. 

onsdag 15 september 2010

Why Radiation by Particles is Too Simple

In the updated Computational Blackbody Radiation I point to a basic difference between
  •   wave propagation
  • propagation of energy by waves,
which comes out of an analysis of a vibrating resonant string subject to damping representing
radiation. This model displays 
  • two-way wave propagation 
together with 
  • one-way propagation of heat energy (from warm to cold).
In a particle model this distinction is not possible because heat energy is tied to particles. 
Since particles may travel two-ways, this leads into an idea of two-way propagation of heat energy. Radiative heat transfer between two bodies will then be described as a two-way stream of particles (photons) with the warmer body spitting out more energetic photons than the colder, thus winning a two-way heat transfer contest. 

This is the basic idea of climate alarmism with an absorbing atmospheric layer "backradiating" particles to the Earth surface in a two-way transfer of heat energy with a warming effect.

What to say about this? Is radiation waves or particles? Is there a two-way transfer of heat energy? 

Well, one may say that the particle model is simpler than the wave model, since a distinction is not made between propagation of waves and propagation of energy. Is it too simple?

Probably, because the wave equation model is as simple as possible, and according to Einstein in the previous post, one should reject a model which is simpler.    

An aspect of too simple, is that the particle model is unstable: Zero heat transfer between bodies of the same temperature would result from cancellation in heavy two-way transfer, which is not stable. 

The basic idea of CO2 climate alarmism is thus based on unstable physics, and unstable physics
will collapse under perturbation, as can now be observed in the aftermath of climategate now beyond the tipping point of climate alarmism...

Simplistic Climate Science

Climate science is a young science with a variety of contradictory simplistic theoretical arguments offering a wide range of predictions such as climate sensitivity (global warming from doubled CO2) anywhere between 0 and 5 C. Some of the simplistic arguments may capture some true essence of global climate, others are completely misleading, following the device by Einstein.

Consider now the following simplistic argument:

The Earth surface temperature is set by the lapse rate (decrease of temperature with height) since the effective top of the atmosphere TOA temperature is determined to -18 C. The observed lapse rate is 6.5 C/km corresponding a TOA at a height of 5 km and an Earth surface temperature of 15 C with a temperature drop of 33 = 5 x 6.5 C.

The lapse rate of an atmosphere in equilibrium without convective motion and phase change (evaporation/condensation) may range from 0 (isothermal) to 9.8 C/km (adiabatic). In such an
atmosphere (without also radiation) there would be no heat transport from the Earth surface to TOA.

Suppose we now view the observed lapse rate of 6.5 C/km as being obtained from the adiabatic rate 9.8 by adding effects of convection/phase change transporting an observed 180 W/m2 from the Earth surface to TOA (with 60 out a total of observed 240 transported by radiation).
This corresponds to giving thermodynamics the leading role as concerns the lapse rate, that is,
global warming/cooling.

We would then view the reduction of the lapse rate from 9.8 to 6.5 as an effect of the heat transport from the Earth surface to TOA by convection/phase change: Increased heat transport coupled to increased convection/phase change, would then correspond to a further reduction of the lapse rate and thus correspond to global cooling.

Now, increased CO2 would require more heat to be transported by convection/phase change (under constant insolation of 240 W/m2), which with the above argument could cause global cooling.

We have thus presented a simplistic argument suggesting that climate sensitivity may very well be negative: more CO2 could cause global cooling. Is this argument correct? Maybe. At least it appears to be as plausible as any other simplistic argument floating around suggesting a climate sensitivity in the range 0 - 5 C. Maybe even more plausible, if the lapse rate is determined by thermodynamics rather than radiation.

tisdag 14 september 2010

Lindzen-Spencer: Confused Skepticism

After giving support to "backradiation" as the physics behind "global warming" Roy Spencer now follows up by giving praise to the basic idea of climate alarmism of a "greenhouse effect" capable of warming the Earth surface to 30 C, if it was not curbed by convective effects reducing it to 15 C, an idea also propagated by Richard Lindzen.

The idea is thus that a lapse rate of about 10 C connecting the Earth surface at 30 C to the top of the atmosphere TOA at -18 C (at the height of 5 km) is determined by radiation alone, which then by convection is reduced to the observed 6.5 C.

The Earth surface is thus supposed to radiate 390 W/m2 of which 240 is radiated to outer space from TOA and 150 are absorbed by the atmosphere and then "backradiated" to the Earth surface contributing to global warming.

I have questioned the physics of "backradiation" as non-existing, and I argued that the lapse rate is not primarily determined by radiation, but by thermodynamics, with radiative heat transfer from the Earth surface to TOA acting passively on the thermodynamic lapse rate.

In this setting there is no "backradiation": Out of the total incoming 180 W/m2 to the Earth surface, 120 is transferred to TOA by convection and 60 by radiation acting on a lapse rate of 6.5 C/km (with 60 absorbed by the atmosphere out of total 240).

It is strange to see leading climate scientists, appearing as skeptics to climate alarmism, still propagating basic misconceptions of climate alarmism such as a powerful "greenhouse effect"
based on radiation alone.

Cannot Lindzen and Spencer understand that the lapse rate primarily must be determined by thermodynamics and not radiation? Why buy the basic argument of climate alarmism,
without subjecting it to scientific scrutiny? Why not scientific skepticism instead of confusion?

onsdag 8 september 2010

Climate Sensitivity 0.5 C

Frank Lanser has a guest post on WUWT arguing that climate sensitivity (global warming from doubled CO2 concentration) is at most 0.5 C. I agree and have come to the same conclusion, using similar reasoning: The simple argument goes as follows: 

Out of the present total warming effect of the atmosphere of 33 C, at most 15 % may be due to CO2, say at most 5 C (probably less).  Now, the warming effect of CO2 could well be logarithmic in its dependence on concentration,  and thus the effect declines with each doubling. With 10 doublings to reach the present level, each doubling would correspond less than 0.5 C, as a first crude estimate of total climate sensitivity including feedbacks. 

Another crude estimate is to say that doubled CO2 may give a "radiative forcing" of 1% of
total incoming radiation with a corresponding 1% change of a total temperature drop of 33 C, that is 0.3 C, according to Fourier's Law, including feedbacks.

Yet another crude estimate is to say that a "radiative forcing" of 2 W/m2 would correspond to a 2% increase of the 120 W/m2 delivered from the Earth surface by convection/latent heat 
under a temperature drop of 30 C, with a corresponding 2% increase of the temperature drop of 0.6 C , including feedbacks.

This is to be compared with IPCC's first crude estimate = 2 - 4.5 C, a factor 5 - 10 bigger. Climate alarmism is solely based on this factor 5 - 10, which lacks scientific rationale.  

tisdag 7 september 2010

Light: Waves or Particles?

Is light electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell's equations, or a stream of "light particles" or "photons" as described by Newton? Is heat transfer by radiation an electromagnetic wave phenomenon, or is it a stream of small packets/particles of "energy quanta"?

This is a basic question in physics and also of climate science since our climate is a thermodynamic heat engine powered by radiation from the Sun in the visible spectrum, and cooled by infrared radiation to outer space, with the Earth absorbing high-frequency light and emitting low-frequency light like a blackbody.

Until 1900, the answer was clear: Maxwell's equations was a wonderful gift to humanity as an amazingly compact yet complete description of light and propagation of light, from scientific
point vastly superior to the primitive particle idea of Newton. Educated people would say waves and not particles.

But there was a problem: The phenomenon of blackbody radiation when approached with wave mechanics led to an "ultraviolet catastrophy" with infinite radiated energy in direct contradiction with observation. To save physics from catastrophy something had to be done and it was Max Planck who took on the responsibility, as the successor of the great Kirchhoff at the University of Berlin and a very ambitious member of the newly formed German Physical Society aimed at giving The Kingdom of Prussia a leading role in the scientific world.

After much agony Planck in 1900 gave in and sacrificed rational deterministic wave mechanics, replacing it with irrational statistics of "energy quanta" described by himself as:
  • the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be...
And so modern physics was born with the catastrophy elegantly handled by a Salomonic:
  • light is both waves and particles, sometimes this sometimes that, and you are free to chose whatever suits you the best, also referred to as wave-particle duality.
In 1905 the young Einstein used Planck's energy quanta to explain the photoelectric effect,
which added to the success of the revival of Newton's primitive particle theory, requiring wave-particle duality because after all the full particle primitivism of Newton was untenable. But also wave-particle duality is a form of scientific primitivism: Of course you can as a reasonable human being sometimes act like a fool, but duality is here called schizophrenia, and schizophrenic science is crazy science, in our time represented by CO2 climate alarmism ultimately based on radiation as particles.

Both Planck and Einstein struggled to pay the price of introducing particles all through their lives with the logical tragical end:
  • All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta?”. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Einstein shortly before his death 1954)
  • I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of physics. (Einstein 1954)
  • What wanted to say was just this: In the present circumstances the only profession I would choose would be one where earning a living had nothing to do with the search for knowledge. (Einstein's last letter to Born Jan 17 1955 shortly before his death on the 18th of April, probably referring to Born's statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics).
  • Would it not be possible to replace the hypothesis of light quanta by another assumption that would also fit the known phenomena? If it is necessary to modify the elements of the theory, would it not be possible to retain at least the equations for the propagation of radiation and conceive only the elementary processes of emission and absorption differently than they have been until now? (Einstein)
  • We shall now derive strange properties of heat radiation described by electromagnetic wave theory. (Planck 1900)
  • We shall assume that the radiation in one direction is completely independent of the radiation in a different direction, even opposite. (Planck)
  • Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity,then the whole deduction of the radiation law was essentially an illusion representing only an empty play on formulas of no significance, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on sound physical conception...Mechanically, the task seems impossible, and we will justhave to get used to it (quanta) (Planck 1909).
  • Zur radikalsten Affassung neigt J.J Thompson und A. Einstein, welche glauben, das die Fortpflanzung der elektromagnetischen Wellen nicht genau nach den Maxwellshen Feldgleichungen, sondern nach gewissen Energiequanten h nu erfolgt. Ich meine dagegen, dass man einstweilen noch nicht genötig ist, so revolutionär vorzugehen, sondern das mann damit auskommen durfte, die Bedeutung des Energiequantums h nu lediglich in den Wechselwirkungen zu suchen, mit denen die Resonatoren einander beeinflussen. Eine definitive Entscheidigung uber diese prinzipiellen Fragen können aber erst weiter Erfahrungen bringen. (Planck 1908)
  • Despite the great success that the atomic theory has so far enyoyed, utimately it will have tobe abandoned in favor of the assumption of continuous matter (wave mechanics) (Planck 1882).
  • We therefore regard - and this is the most essential point of the entire calculation - energy to be composed of a very definite number of equal packages (Planck 1900).
  • The wave theory of light, which operates with continuous spatial functions, has worked well in the representation of purely optical phenomena and will probably never be replaced by another theory (Einstein).
  • I do not seek the meaning of “quantum of action” (light quantum) in the vacuum but at the site of absorption and emission (Planck 1907).
  • Despite the apparently complete success of the Einstein equation (for the photoelectric effect), the physical theory on which it was designed to be the symbolic expression, is found so untenable that Einstein himself, I believe, no longer holds to it (Millikan).
  • My futile attempts to fit the elementary quantum of action into classical theory continued for a number of years and cost me a great deal of effort. Many of my collegues saw in this something bordering on a tragedy (Planck shortly before his death).
  • Einstein is increasingly aloof and sceptical (about the quantum discoveries he pioneered). Many of us regards this as a tragedy (Born).
These confessions viewed as deep insights rather than simply expressions of senility, give a pretty grim outlook on "present circumstances" of modern physics, including climate science...What if Einstein and Planck were right?

In Computational Blackbody Radiation I present a way of turning the tragedy into a happy end
by keeping wave mechanics, according to Planck's and Einstein's innermost dream, only
making it more realistic by including an aspect of finite precision computation, instead of resorting to ad hoc particle statistics, which the scientific souls of Planck and Einstein could never accept.

lördag 4 september 2010

IPCC: Politics and Not Science

Pachauri confirms the assumption by the different reviews of IPCC including the last one by IAC, that IPCC is not governed by science but by politics:
  • Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments.
  • If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it’s an inter-governmental body and we want governments’ ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow, what are the questions they want answered. 
  • Unfortunately, people have completely missed the original resolution by which IPCC was set up. It clearly says that our assessment should include realistic response strategies. If that is not an assessment of policies, then what does it represent? And I am afraid, we have been, in my view, defensive in coming out with a whole range of policies and I am not saying we prescribe policy A or B or C but on the basis of science, we are looking at realistic response strategies. But that is exactly what this committee has recommended that we get out of — policy prescriptions. It is for this reason that I brought out that this what is written in the IPCC mandate. This is a misperception on the part of some people in the scientific community. And I hope I can correct it.
One (small) part of  the scientific community is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: It is now high time for the Academy to understand its misperception and withdraw its support of IPCC, since it is now completely clear that IPCC is politics and not science. Of course, if the Academy is also politics and not science, no action is necessary.

onsdag 1 september 2010

Updated Computational Blackbody Radiation

                  Planck in despair: A theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, 
                                                   no matter  how high that might be...

I have updated the (draft of) Computational Blackbody Radiation which can be inspected here.

I present a mathematical analysis of blackbody radiation, of central importance in climate science, based on deterministic wave mechanics subject to finite precision computation, as an alternative to Planck's classical analysis based on statistics of energy quanta or photons. 

The deterministic finite precision wave model offers the following advantages as compared to Planck's statistical particle model:
  • it is closer to physics: radiation/light is an electromagnetic wave phenomenon and not any stream of particles,
  • it is possible to analyze and thereby understand, while
  • Planck's statistical model was born in an "act of despair" and as such has caused a lot of confusion: blackbody radiation is still hundred years later considered to be "black magic"
  • it shows that the concept of "backradiation" as the driver of the "greenhouse effect" supposedly causing global warming, is fictitious non-physical and confusing,
  • it includes a 2nd law showing that heat energy can be transferred by radiation from a warm body to a cooler body, but not from cold body to a warmer.
This work will be part of my contribution to the Slaying the Sky Dragon of the Greenhouse Effect project.

Comments are welcome.