Harvard Physicist: Climate Science in Real Trouble

Harvard physicist Willie Soon insists that the American National Academy of Science (NAS) is “100 percent corrupt” in its support of CO2 alarmism and the climate scientists who put up the content at the NAS are”really dangerous”, likening their solution to global warming to amputating a patient’s arms and legs in order to cure his headache.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is in good company with NAS in its unconditional support of the IPCC CO2 alarmism.

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

Jag har idag skickat följande brev till KVA:

Till KVA

kopia: Henning Rodhe, Lennart Bengtsson

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

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

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

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

Hälsningar

Claes Johnson
prof em i tillämpad matematik KTH

KVA Omprövar Klimatuttalande: Koldioxidalarmism Saknar Vetenskaplig Grund

Så är den till slut på gång, den av många efterfrågade revisionen av KVAs klimatuttalande från 2009, som utgick från IPCC. Wibjörn Karlen anger utgångspunkten för KVAs nya uttalande värdigt en vetenskaplig akademi, denna gång grundat på vetenskap istället för politik:

• Förekomsten av växthusgaser i atmosfären, främst vattenånga, bidrar till att en rimlig temperatur råder vid jordytan. Andra gaser som koldioxid, metan och klorfluorkarbonater vars förekomst påverkas av människans aktivitet, betraktas också som växthusgaser men omfattningen av deras inverkan på klimatet är osäker.
• Koncentrationen av CO2 i atmosfären kommer att öka. I vad mån denna ökning kommer att påverka klimatet är inte känt. Trots den ökade koncentrationen av CO2 i atmosfären under de senaste arton åren har inte den global temperatur stigit. Effekten av andra växthusgaser är inte väl känd. 
• Att dra långtgående slutsatser om trender i klimatet på grundval av data från några 10-tal till ett 100-tal år kan leda till dyra och meningslösa åtgärder.

Lennart Bengtsson som skrev uttalandet från 2009 har under senare år ändrat ståndpunkt till att vara uttalad skeptiker till den koldoxidalarmism som predikas av av det politiska organet IPCC. LB torde instämma i WKs ovanstående beskrivning av den vetenskapliga grunden för IPCCs koldoxidalarmism: Någon sådan vetenskaplig grund finns inte. 

När väl KVA senare i höst satt detta på pränt kommer den svenska klimatpolitiken att skrivas om. Notera att LB och WK är Sveriges mest meriterade klimatvetenskapsmän och borde vara de som svenska politiker och svenska folket lyssnar på, istället för tungomålstalande gröna aktivister.  

Korrespondens med Lennart Bengtsson (som lovar att fightas för vetenskapen)

Brev från mig till Lennart Bengtsson 11/5:

Hej Lennart
Som Du förmodligen noterat har jag upprepade kommentarer till Dina inlägg i media
uppmanat Dig att verka för att KVAs klimatuttalande skrivs om från politiskt korrekt stöd av IPCC till korrekt vetenskaplig analys av dogmen om koldioxidalarm.

Du har inte svarat på mina kommentarer men jag hoppas att Du vill svara på detta direkta mail och tala om hur Du ser på KVAs uttalande och om Du anser att det nu måste skrivas om. KVAs uttalande ligger till grund för svensk klimatpolitik och Du har som författare och ledande vetenskapsman ett stort ansvar att bära.

Vänliga hälsningar, Claes

Svar från LB:

Jag kan bara meddela Dig att just har blivit allvarligt kritiserad av en akademikollega att KVAs klimatyttrande var urvattnat och det var jag som var skuld till detta. Samtidigt anklagar Du mig för att jag skrivit ett alarmistiskt yttrande. Detta går väl knappast ihop? Jag förslår att Du kontaktar professor Olle Häggström så får Ni komma fram till en ny formulering som Ni båda kan stödja. KVA kommer i alla händelser skriva om yttrandet med detta blir knappast med min medverkan.

Mitt svar till LB:

Tack för svar Lennart.Varför kommer Du inte att deltaga i författandet av KVAs nya klimatuttalande, som Du säger är på gång? Är Du sågad eller väljer Du självmant att överlåta ansvaret till personer som vet mindre än Du? Hur bär Du i så fall Ditt ansvar som vetenskapsman?

Svar från LB:

Jag var tillsammans med flera medlemmar i akademins 5e klass ansvarig för det yttrande som blev klart i september 2009 och som sedan godkändes av KVA med två reservationer som jag kan erinra mig. Olle Häggström var inte en av dom så vitt jag vet utan han var i stort sett positivt. Han konsulterades under arbetets gång vid ngt tillfälle. Om nu akademien väljer att författa ett nytt yttrande så är kanske inte jag den rätte personen att göra detta efter alla personliga attacker jag utsatts för. KVA vill kanske ha en mindre kontroversiell person än jag som leder detta och som också är mer i linje med den uppfattning som föredras från politiskt håll. Jag kan förstå detta men delar inte en sådan uppfattning. Mitt ansvar som vetenskapsman är en personlig fråga och den kommer jag självklart att behålla. Att jag därför som nu utsätts och säkert kommer att utsättas för alla slag av kritik från både "vänster" och "höger" får jag naturligtvis leva med. Huruvida kritiken är befogat eller inte är det knappast för mig att avgöra. Här är det min uppfattning att Du delar den kritiska uppfattningen med Olle Häggström.

Mitt svar till LB:

Jag anser att Du har ett vidare ansvar än bara personligt för att KVAs nya yttrande kommer att baseras på vetenskap och inte politik. Du har modigt i media framfört Din övertygelse som vetenskapsman, och det är beundransvärt. Jag hoppas att Du nu inte viker Dig på grund av illasinnade påhopp utan gör det Du kan för att KVAs nya uttalande blir ett uttalande värdigt en vetenskaplig akademi och inte en ny soppa av politisk korrekthet. Kan Sverige räkna med detta?

PS Var vänlig och bunta inte ihop mig med OH, som gillar mig lika lite som Dig. Jag delar väsentligen Din uppfattning såsom varande en vetenskapligt baserad hållning, så långt vetenskapen nu har nått. Jag hoppas bara att Du fortsätter att hävda Dina insikter. Min enda kritik skulle uppkomma om Du avstår från att göra det.

Svar från LB:

Tack för Dina uppmuntrande ord. Jag lovar att fight back...

Lennart Bengtsson, IPCC Alarmism and The Royal Swedish Academy

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) announces in a press release:

• Professor Lennart Bengtsson, one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists, has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

Judith Curry comments:

• The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong. (Lennart Bengtsson)
• I regard this as a very interesting and significant event, that runs counter to the near universal trend in academic circles to attempt to ignore and marginalize organizations and individuals that are skeptical of UNFCCC/IPCC global warming science, impacts, and/or solutions.

LB has thus withdrawn his earlier support of IPCC climate alarmism as expressed in the Statement on the Scientific Basis of Climate Change by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences authored by LB. 

LB has thus turned into a skeptic of climate alarmism led by his conscience as scientist. By the same logic LB now has to withdraw also his Statement in the name of The Royal Academy in support of IPCC.  

Let us hope that LB has the courage to do so. When that is done current Swedish climate politics will have no scientific basis and will collapse, the sooner the better.

PS LB now uses Der Spiegel to propagate his message as converted skeptic.

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

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

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

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

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Echoes IPCC CO2 Alarmism

Echo and Narcissus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staffan Normark KVA

Hej Staffan:

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

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

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

Vänliga hälsningar, Claes

Claes Johnson, prof i tillämpad matematik KTH

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Platform for IPCC

IPCC announces to release its 5th Assessment Report on September 27 on a platform offered by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences under the title Climate Change: the state of the science:

• On 27 September 2013, IPCC’s Working Group I releases the Summary for Policymakers of the first part of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. This is the first event at which the Working Group I Co-Chairs present the findings of the newly approved report to the general public.

This historic event expresses the historically strong bond between IPCC and the Royal Swedish Academy and Swedish climate science, with IPCC determining the state of science and the Academy acting as platform for the political CO2 alarmism of IPCC. If IPCC falls so will the Academy.

PS A key finding to be reported is:

It's come to this: "The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there"

Climate change: IPCC cites global temperature rise over last century | Environment | The Observer

"The heat is still coming in, but it appears to have gone into the deep ocean and, frustratingly, we do not have the instruments to measure there," said Professor Ted Shepherd of Reading University. "Global warming has certainly not gone away."  [ViaGWPF]

Royal Society and Royal Swedish Academy vs Science

Andrew Montford provides in Nullius in Verba The Royal Society and Climate Change:

• a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority

as expressed by Richard Lindzen in a foreword.

Since the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences closely follows in the foot-steps of the Royal Society, the words by Lindzen also applies to its Swedish adherent.

The world now sees the alarmism of IPCC freezing away, because the science is cold and the scientific credibility supplied by the Royals has little weight. It seems that the Royals are aiming at the same influence in science as that of the King of Sweden in politics, as expressed by The Telegraph:

• The Royal Society is a Joke.

And if the RS is a joke, then so is the Royal Swedish Academy.

A Dark Side of CO2 Alarmism and The Royal Swedish Academy

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences hiding behind a statue of Anders Retzius, father of racial biology with his cephalic index.

The CO2 climate alarmism behind the 3rd Nobel Laurate Symposium on Global Sustainability, organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, goes back to the Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius, who

• received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903
• invented the CO2 greenhouse effect to explain ice ages
• created The State Institute for Racial Biology in 1922, originally proposed as a Nobel Institute, as a leading a member of The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909, supporting forced sterilization (63.000 people until 1975),
• (in cooperation with Gustaf Retzius son of Anders R. advocating a "scientific racism" with the "Nordic race" as the highest race of mankind)
• was a leading member the Nobel Commitee in Physics and Chemistry 1901-27
• was a leading member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 1901-27.

The Stockholm-Memorandum signed by an invited group of Nobel Laurates states that

• Humans are now propelling the planet into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene

and makes the following Call:

• Fundamental transformation in all spheres and at all scales to stop and reverse global environmental change.
• Greatly increase access to reproductive health services...
• reduce birth rates.

What is "reproductive health services"? How to "reduce birth rates"? Is there a connection to Arrhenius, or is it just a fantasy? Why was the Symposium held behind closed doors?

I have already expressed my protest against the uncritical support of CO2 alarmism by the Royal Academy in a symbolic resignation.

What is a Princess Allowed to Say? About CO2 and Great Transformation?

Crown Princess Victoria of the Kingdom of Sweden stated in her presentation at the 3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences:

• Burdens must be shared by everyone (including masses of poor people).
• Wind turbines, solar connectors, panels and geothermal energy, why is it that countries are using soo little of renewable energy sources despite having the knowledge and technique?
• We can and must change our life styles and the manner in which we use energy.
• What are we waiting for? The work has to start here and now.
• The world succeeded to come together and decide upon removal of freons.
• To succeed we need to reconnect humanity with the biosphere.
• This is no small task. I see no better persons though than Nobel Laurates to carry this critical message to the world:
• The need for a Great Transformation.
• Our generation has the knowledge and ability to create a sustainable world for future generations.

The presentation poses the following questions

• Does the Princess make political statements?
• Is the Princess allowed to make political statements?
• Is the Princess allowed to advocate specific techniques for generating energy?
• Is the Royal Swedish Academy influenced by Royals?

Any answers? See also my Newsmill article about biased jury.

The Princess speaks the same words as Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, main organizer and ideolog of the symposium, according to New York Times known for his "aggressive stance on climate policy":

1. Earth’s population could be devastated by buildup of greenhouse gases.
2. In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.

Does the Princess understand what she is saying?

PS1 The verdict of the Jury of Nobel Laurates of the Symposium is expressed in the Stockholm-Memorandum:

• Humans are now the most significant driver of global change, propelling the planet into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene.
• Our call is for fundamental transformation and innovation in all spheres and at all scales in order to stop and reverse global environmental change.
• Greatly increase access to reproductive health services... reduce birth rates.
• Introduce strict resource efficiency standards
• Launch a major research initiative on the earth system.
• Scale up our education efforts to increase scientific literacy.

This is nothing but A New Brave World......but is there place for a Princess in this New Brave World? A resource efficient renewable Princess?

What Does a Nobel Laurate Understand about CO2? 1

Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1969 for the Standard Model of elementary particles, is one of the Nobel Laurates to decide about the future of humanity at the Nobel Laurate Symposium on Global Sustainability at The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, May 16-19,

The Executive Summary of Scientific Background states:

• Evidence that the Earth is warming by human emissions of greenhouse gases is unequivocal
• fossil fuel raising CO2 above the limits of the Holocene
• exit door from the Holocene had been opened
• Great Acceleration: human population tripled, consumption in the global economy grew many times faster
• Great Acceleration has not been an environmentally benign phenomenon
• eroding the Earth’s resilience, ocean acidification.

The agenda for the meeting is presented by The German Advisory Council on Global Change, chaired by Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, as a Summary for Policy Makers: World in Transition, A Social Contract for Sustainability:

• carbon-based model unsustainable
• low-carbon society is a Great Transformation
• global energy system decarbonised
• greenhouse gas emissions absolute minimum
• low-carbon societies
• quantum leap for civilisation
• universal consensus
• Global Enlightenment
• new social contract
• science subservient role
• sustainability is a question of imagination.

The purpose of the meeting is to get Nobel Laurates of Physics and Chemistry to confirm on scientific grounds that CO2 emission is the big threat to human civilization.

The Nobel Laurates will form the jury of a Tribunal facing Humanity with charges of destroying the Earth (by CO2 emission).

We ask the questions:

• Do Nobel Laurates understand the role of CO2 for global climate?
• Do Nobel Laurates say that society will have to be decarbonized by 2050?

and will report on answers..stay tuned...

PS Johan Rockström (organizer) and Andreas Carlgren (minister) write in DN Debate to prepare the Swedish opinion:

• To avoid catastrophical climate change, many scientists believe that CO2 emisssion from fossil fuels must stop by 2050.
• This requires resources to renewable energy of unprecedented size.

Note the term many scientists, not as before all scientists... This seems to be an acknowledgement that there are also many scientists who consider CO2 emission to not be harmful at all.

What if the jury was changed to the latter group of scientists? What would then the charges be? Who would then sit on the accused bench?

The Final Solution by The Royal Swedish Academy

The third Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability is coming up:

• Together with Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Beijer Institute for Ecological Economics and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences will bring together some of the world’s most renowned thinkers and experts on global sustainability, 16-19 May 2011 in Stockholm. Only for invited guests.

The agenda for the meeting is presented by The German Advisory Council on Global Change, chaired by Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, as a Summary for Policy Makers: World in Transition, A Social Contract for Sustainability:

• Normatively, the carbon-based economic model is also an unsustainable situation.
• The transformation towards a low-carbon society is therefore as much an ethical imperative as the abolition of slavery and the condemnation of child labour.
• This structural transition is the start of a "Great Transformation" into a sustainable society, which must inevitably proceed within the planetary guard rails of sustainability.
• By the middle of the century, the global energy systems must largely be decarbonised.
• Production, consumption patterns and lifestyles in all of the three key transformation fields must be changed in such a way that global greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to an absolute minimum over the coming decades, and low-carbon societies can develop.
• The extent of the transformation ahead of us can barely be overestimated.
• In terms of profound impact, it is comparable to the two fundamental transformations in the world‘s history:
• the Neolithic Revolution, i.e. the invention and spreading of farming and animal husbandry, and the Industrial Revolution, meaning the transition from agricultural to industrialised society.
• This would be something of a quantum leap for civilisation.
• It should in principle also be possible to reach a universal consensus regarding human civilisation's ability to survive within the natural boundaries imposed by planet Earth.
• This necessarily presupposes an extensive "Global Enlightenment".
• So nothing less than a new social contract must be agreed to.
• Science will play a decisive, although subservient, role here.
• Ultimately, sustainability is a question of imagination.

In other words, a Final Solution to the Carbon Question will be presented by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The basic idea is to comb Europe through from West to East from North to South for carbon and transport it to Eastern Poland, where it will be gassed (in special camps, see picture above).

This will secure a carbon-free sustainable Europe, which will serve as a model for the rest of the world including its 3 billion people who still do not have access to essential modern energy services.

The Symposium will conclude with a memorandum signed by key Nobel Laureates, crowned by a dinner hosted by King Carl XVI Gustaf.

Among the invited 50 of the world’s most renowned thinkers, we find:

• Martin Rees, President Royal Society,
• Mikhail Gorbachev, Nobel Peace Prize 1990
• Andreas Carlgren, Swedish Minister of Environment
• Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize in Physics 1969 for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles and their interactions.
• David Gross, Nobel Prize in Physics 2004 for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction.
• Johan Rockström, Stockholm Resilience Center
• Anders Wijkman, Stockholm Environment Institute.

Note that the key Nobel Laurates when signing the memorandum accept that science will play a subservient role.

It is natural to compare with Manifesto of the Ninety-Three and the suppression of quantum mechanics and relativity in the Soviet Union as "idealistic" and "bourgeois", and in Nazi-Germany as "Jewish physics".

DN: Rappakalja om Simuleringsteknik

Nu har också DN med Karin Bojs i spetsen hakat på racet mot min bok om matematisk simuleringsteknik BodyandSoul Mathematical Simulation Technology:

• Kurslitteratur på KTH hävdar att växthuseffekten är en myt. Enligt experter som DN talat med är boken otillförlitlig och politiskt vinklad rappakalja.

Döm själva genom att ladda ner boken från min hemsida, och läs.

För den oinitierade kan förvisso matematik se ut som rappakalja, men det betyder inte att det är det. Eller hur Lennart Bengtsson?

Ny Teknik låter även bokens författare få säga något. Och att matematik är svårt är nog i all fall de flesta överens om. Om det nu är nonsens det jag skriver, varför sådan uppståndelse? Nonsens tiger man väl lämpligen ihjäl.

Can You Sue a Scientific Society for Incorrect Science?

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences states in The Scientific Basis for Climate Change:

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

When I ask the Academy about the scientific basis of this "well established greenhouse gas effect", the Academy refers to work by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In previous posts I have shown that this work cannot be viewed to give a scientific justification of  the claim made of a "well established greenhouse gas effect".  It is very unclear what in fact is the "greenhouse effect" and to claim that it is "well established" lacks scientific evidence. And in science evidence is needed.

What is now the responsibility of the Academy  for its statement, including its message to society to reduce CO2 emissions with possibly far-reaching consequences for people?  

Is the Academy free to make incorrect scientific statements? Or can the Academy be sued for

incorrect science?  If you think of it for a while, it is likely that you will tend to answer Yes.

Another example is the recent statement by The Geological Society:

• The Greenhouse Effect arises because certain gases (the so-called greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere absorb the long wavelength infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-radiate it, so warming the atmosphere. This natural effect keeps our atmosphere some 30ºC warmer than it would be without those gases. Increasing the concentration of such gases will increase the effect (i.e. warm the atmosphere more).
  

The Society evidently takes the existence of a "Greenhouse Effect" for granted (it is even "natural"), but again the science is missing. Can the Society be sued for making incorrect scientific claims? Well, if an Academy can, then the same should hold for a Society.

Timely, The Geological Society brings  together scientists from around the world in London this week to study how the world coped with climate change in the past, with the warning: The Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming.

Compare with The Guardians Is Climate Science Disinformation a Crime Against Humanity?

Here skeptics are to be sued. And yes, the same rules should hold for all, alarmists as well as skeptics, and the only thing that should matter is science and scientific evidence.

My Resignation from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Encouraged by the resignation of Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society, I hereby announce that I would have resigned from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, had I been a member. 

Well, I am not a member, but I am,  as the only Nordic mathematician, on the ICIHighlyCited list of the worlds most cited scientists (including less than 10 Swedes in science/mathematics of a total 64 while the Academy counts to 175). 

My motivation is as follows: 

I. The Academy claims in its statement The Scientific Basis FOR Climate Change that 

• The effect of greenhouse gases is well established.

When I ask the Academy in writing for the scientific basis of this statement about this socalled greenhouse effect, I get the following written answer from Lennart Bengtsson, main responsible for the Academy statement:

• An excellent summary of earlier work,  Fourier(1824), Tyndall(1865), Arrhenius (1896) can be found in the book "The legacy of Svante Arrhenius understanding the greenhouse effect" Ed. Rodhe och Charlson, 1998 ISBN 91-7190-0284.  

I have commented on the lack of convincing science in this work in Fourier and his Greenhouse Effect, Tyndall and his Greenhouse Effect and Arrhenius and his Greenhouse Effect.

II. The Academy invites to a Seminar on Climate Simulation, but does not allow any question to be posed to the main speaker Lennart Bengtsson at the seminar. The Academy thereby violates the basic principle of science of open free discussion.

Combining I and II, I find an Academy which

• has taken on the role of scientific guarantee of Swedish climate politics, 
• carries this responsibility on a scientific basis which is questionable, but cannot be questioned.  
  

I don't want to be member of such an Academy. Is there really nobody among the 175 who has similar hesitations?

Compare with the analysis in 

• Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?: Do Most Western Climate Scientists Believe Global Warming is Man-Made? The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating by Dr. David Evans.
  

Compare with earlier alarmist BBC changing foot: Doubts over scientist's climate change debate claims. When will Swedish Television also change policy and start to scrutinize the Academy? People understand cheating and Swedish Televison is the television of the people.

Read more about the resignation of Hal Lewis here.

Compare with Vaclav Klaus in The Climate Change Doctrine is Part of Environmentalism, Not of Science: 

• What also belongs here is our resolute opposition to the attempts to shut down such a crucial public debate concerning us and our way of life on the pretext that the overwhelming scientific consensus is there and that we have to act now. This is not true. Being free to raise questions and oppose fashionable politically and “lobbystically” promoted ideas forms an important and irreplaceable part of our democratic society. Not being allowed to do so would be a proof that we have already moved to the “brave new world” of a postdemocratic order. (I am tempted to say that we are already very close to it).
  

Compare with The Climate Scum.

Fourier and his Greenhouse Effect

Joseph Fourier (1768-1830 ) in his grave, still very much present in IPCC.

CO2 climate alarmism is based on an atmospheric "greenhouse effect" attributed to the mathematician Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) as described in General Remarks of the Temperature of the Terrestial Globe and the Planetary Spaces from 1824:

• The heat of the earth is derived from three sources:
• The earth is heated by solar rays.
• It partakes of the common temperature of the planetary spaces; being exposed to innumerable stars which surround the solar system.
• The earth preserves in its interior a part of that primitive heat which it had at the time of the first formation of the planets.
• The interposition of the air very modifies the effects of the upon the surface of the globe. The solar rays traversing the atmospheric strata which are condensed by their own weight, heat them very unequally: those which are rarest are likewise coldest because they extinguish and absorb a smaller part of the rays. The heat of the sun coming in in the form of light, possesses the property of penetrating transparent solids or liquids, and loses this property entirely, when by communicating with terrestial bodies, it is turned into heat radiating without light.
• This distinction between luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation of temperature by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the oceans of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light which returns in a contrary direction to open space.
• The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of observations compared with each other, cannot be exactly defined.
• We see that the surface of the terrestial globe is placed between a solid mass, the central part of which may surpass that of matter heated to whiteness, and an immense girdle, whose temperature is below that requisite for the congelation of mercury.
• It is difficult to know how far the atmosphere influences the mean temperature of the globe, and in this examination we are no longer guided by regular mathematical theory. It is to the celebrated traveller M. de Saussure that we are indebted for capital experiment, which appears to throw light on this question.
• The experiment consists of exposing to the rays of the sun a vessel covered with one or more plates of glass, very transparent and placed with some distance one upon the other. The interior of the vessel is furnished with a thick covering of black cork, proper for receiving and preserving heat. The heated air is contained in all parts both in the interior of the vessel and in between the plates. Thermometers placed in the vessel itself and in the intervals above, mark the degrees of heat in each space. This instrument was placed in the sun about noon and the thermometer in the vessel was seen to rise 70, 80, 100, 110 (Reaumur) and upwards. The thermometers placed in between the glass plates indicated much lower degrees of heat, and the heat decreased form the bottom of the vessel to the highest interval.
• The theory of the instrument is easily understood. It is sufficient to remark, 1st, that the acquired heat is concentrated because it is not dissipated by renewing the air; 2d, that the best of the sun, has properties different from those of heat without light. The rays of that body are transmitted in considerable quantity through the glass plates into all the intervals, even to the bottom of the vessel. They heat the air and the partitions which contain it. Their heat thus communicated ceases to be luminous, and preserves only the properties of non-luminous heat. In this state it cannot pass through the plates covering the vessel.

This is the supposed original scientific basis of IPCC CO2 climate alarmism. We see that

Fourier presents a simplistic theory of a glasshouse with, 1st, blocking of convection and, 2d, radiative heating. Fourier combines this with confused ideas of heating from the interior of the earth and all the stars. No mathematical formulas are presented, only vague ideas in words. The step from Saussure's little experiment to the Earth with atmosphere is immense.

Fourier documents some understanding of blackbody radiation, but altogether he describes a rudimentary and largely incorrect science. Nevertheless, Fourier could have had a leading position in IPCC if he had been present today, since IPCC climate science is built on Fourier's "greenhouse theory", essentially in its original rudimentary confused form presented above.

Compare with Geologist about the missing science of any "greenhouse effect" and the myth of backradiation.

KVA: Vilken Växthuseffekt?

KVAs svarar genom Lennart Bengtsson på mina 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?  

Följande svar ges på min fråga 1: 

• (LB) En utmärkt sammanfattning av tidigare arbeten, Fourier(1824), Tyndall(1865), Arrhenius (1896) mm återfinns i boken ”The lagacy of Svante Arrhenius understanding the greenhouse effect” Ed. Rodhe och Charlson, 1998 ISBN 91-7190-0284. Samtliga artiklar i boken rekommenderas för övrigt till läsning liksom de däri refererade artiklarna. En mer detaljerad beskrivning återfinns i Kap 2 i IPCCs vetenskapliga rapport från 2007 och referenserna däri. Fritt nedladdningsbar från IPCCs hemsida.  
• (HD) En god bok å lese er også David Archer, Global warming: Understanding the Forecast, David Archer (Wiley-Blackwell, 2006). Tilknyttet denne boken er det også on-line program som en kan kjøre for å estimere drivhuseffekten av ulike drivhusgasser (se http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs).  
  

och på fråga 2:

• (LB) KVA har sammanfattad sin syn (september 2009) som Academy-statement-on-climate-change.  Jag kan inte anse den alarmistisk på ngt sätt. 
  

Vad kan man säga om detta? LB kommer dragande med gamla arbeten av Fourier, Tyndall och Arrhenius som är matematiskt vetenskapligt simplistiska med triviala modeller för enbart strålning utan hänsyn till konvektion mm, och som inte säger något alls om vilken effekt CO2 kan ha på jordens temp.  Det är ju inte vetenskap, bara gammal skåpmat. 

LB ger två motstridiga meddelanden: 

• Jordens värms upp av människans utsläpp av CO2! Se upp! Farligt! 
  
• Detta är inte alarmistiskt på ngt sätt.

Bravo! Vilket vetenskapligt logiskt matematiskt tänkande! Begrunda LBs presentation:

Huvudtesen är att eftersom vädret är kaotiskt och inte kan förutsägas, så kan klimatet förutsägas som väder-medelvärde: Ju mer oförutsägbart vädret är, desto mer förutsägbart blir klimatet. Ju sämre vädermodellen är, desto bättre blir klimatmodellen. Sen säger LB naturligtvis samtidigt det konträra, nämligen att klimatmodellering är omöjlig, eftersom det 

det hela är kaotiskt...Är detta verkligen det bästa KVA kan prestera?

Men med KVAs  kurragömmalek med indirekta skriftliga svar, kan ju svaranden LB svara precis hur ologiskt och motsägande som helst. I ett direkt möte är detta inte möjligt, men detta tillåter inte KVA. Det var väl inte så Linne och Celsius hade tänkt att Akademin skulle funka...

Jämför med No Consensus Among Climate Scientists After All.

Jämför med Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth'd Temperature av Gavin Schmidt et al:

• The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
  

Vi ser här samma mantra Fourier-Tyndall-Arrhenius som vetenskaplig grund för påstådd växthuseffekt, som LB använder. Vi ser att LB använder samma argument som klimatalarmisten Gavin Schmidt, men LB är naturligtvis inte "alarmistisk på ngt sätt".

Eller vad säger LB?

 

The Royals Brooding Difficult Questions

The Scientific Panel of The Royal Academy Seminar on Climate Simulation are still brooding over how to respond to the written questions asked to be posed before the seminar, none of which was answered during the seminar. Meanwhile The Royal Academy gives its own report of the most successful and very well attended seminar under the title Complex Nature Tricks Even the Best Climate Models:

• Global warming is inevitable.
• But how much warmer present climate models cannot tell.
• Professors Lennart Bengtsson and Helge Drange, both experts on different aspects of climate modeling, are sure that the climate is getting warmer, even if the models are deficient.
• The computations are risk analyses and not prognoses, says Bengtsson.
• In Sweden there will be no serious problem, although politicians have wanted it that way. The question is too complex for them, says Bengtsson.

Lennart Bengtsson is clever and main responsible for the statement by the Royal Academy in support of IPCC. Bengtsson says two things:

• It will get warmer, for sure. Funding of IPCC climate alarmism must continue.
• We don't know at all if it will get warmer, because the science is lacking.

But what will be his answers to the questions? The World is waiting...

Swedish Academy of Sciences Violates Principle of Science

The Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry have been awarded since 1901 by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, according to the terms of the Alfred Nobel will.

The Royal Academy serves as the scientific guarantee of Swedish climate politics as expressed in its statement in support of IPCC.

In both these roles scientific credibility is crucial. How does then the Royal Academy show that it is worthy of Nobel's will and the trust of Swedish government and people?

Yesterday I witnessed how the Royal Academy violated the most basic principle of science: open free discussion. A shocking experience worthy of a 1984 totalitarian state. What was then so shocking? Well, what do you say about this:

The Royal Academy arranged a scientific seminar on Prediction of Future Climate (together with The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences IVA) with the following flagrant violations of open scientific discussion:

• only IPCC loyal speakers allowed to pump out standard IPCC dogmas
• not a word of criticism of IPPC
• speakers presented only trivialities as if the audience consisted of fools
• only IPCC loyal speakers allowed in "panel discussion"
• no questions from audience allowed during presentations and panel discussion
• questions to the panel invited to be submitted in advance
• none of the invited submitted questions discussed by the panel.

The audience of about 100 scientists was treated like herd of sheep. Nobody in the audience objected to the treatment, although there were many IPCC critics. A sad experience.

How is this possible? Why does the Royal Academy violate the most holy principle of science

of open free discussion? Why does the Royal Academy support a corrupt IPCC? Why does the Royal Academy humiliate Swedish scientists?

The Nobel Peace Prize to Gore and Pachauri was a joke. Why risk to make also the Prizes in Physics and Chemistry to a joke? What would Alfred Nobel have said? Nothing probably, because he would not have been allowed to speak.

More about the scandal on IVA-skandalen.