Atmosphere as Air Conditioner Keeping Earth Temperature Constant

My journey into climate science started in 2010 with this analysis of black body radiation leading to an analysis of the atmosphere of the Earth as a form of air conditioner keeping the Earth surface mean temperature stable under varying mean heating from the Sun. My work was published as two chapters of the (ground-breaking) book Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory:

• Computational Blackbody Radiation
• Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere.

The basic idea is that incoming energy to the Earth surface at 288 K of about 160 W/m2 from the Sun is transported to the mid troposphere at an altitude of 5 Km at 255 K by a combination of H20 thermodynamics with phase change (evaporation/condensation) with a minor contribution of radiation, for radiation to outer space at 0 K. The variation of incoming energy to the surface can depend on varying cloud cover. This is the scenario in tropical zones receiving most of the energy with sunny mornings followed by thunderstorms in the afternoon.

An increase of incoming energy to the surface is counterbalanced by more intense H2O thermodynamics keeping temperatures constant. Radiation then takes a passive role as constant under constant temperature. 

This is like an air conditioner keeping a stable room temperature of 15 C with constant outside temperature 0 C under variable interior heating of the room e g depending of number of people in the room. 

It also connects to boiling of water on a stove keeping a stable boiling temperature of 100 C under varying energy input from the stove, with more vigorous boiling with phase change responding to increasing input.  

The Sky Dragon analysis above from 2010 was written after a very quick introduction to the so called Greenhouse Effect, but I think it captures aspects valid also today. 

Tropical climate: Raising hot humid air in the morning releasing heat to the atmosphere by condensation effectively transporting  heat energy from surface to atmosphere as a cooling air conditioner.

Boiling water kept at 100 C under heating from stove by evaporation.

The simplest model consists of heat conduction through a wall of thickness 1 with heat conductivity $\kappa $ and temperature $T(x)$ varying linearly from $T_0=1$ at $x=0$ and $T_1=0$ at $x=1$ with heat flux $Q=\kappa \frac{dT}{dx}=\kappa$. Increasing $Q$ is balanced by increase of $\kappa$ without changing $T(x)$ an increase of more vigorous thermodynamics or boiling. 

The Sky Dragon Slayers Moving On

The book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (2011) was produced by a group of "Slayers", where I participated with two chapters, headed by John Sullivan who opened Principia Scientific to take the mission further. 

More than ten years has passed since the book was published seeing a steadily increasing momentum of the Slayers and their message with John Sullivan, Joe Olson and Joe Postma now running Sky Dragon Slaying as one of the shows on the new channel TNT Radio Live.  Take time off and listen to the shows and you will get enlightened. I appeared in the Jason show last week. See report on Principia Scientific.

To Be or Not To Be a Sky Dragon Slayer

I have decided to take a step back from the Sky Dragon Slayer group. I will keep contact as consultant but should not be viewed to belong to the core.

The reason is that I want to stay fully independent as scientist and not be restricted by group thinking or group loyalty.

What Judy Curry Cannot Understand

Judy Curry opened to debate of my new proof of Planck's radiation law in Computational Blackbody Radiation with a post entitled Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon by stating:

• I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rebuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.

Let us try to understand what is so overwhelming or pointless:

I consider a model of blackbody radiation in the spirit of Planck as a set of (mass-spring) oscillators with radiative damping subject to exterior forcing satisfying a force balance law of the form

• oscillator spring force + radiation pressure = exterior forcing.

I prove an energy balance law of the form

• radiance = incoming energy, for frequencies below a cut-off frequency,
• oscillator heating + radiance = incoming energy, for frequencies above cut-off,

from which Planck's radiation law follows, with more details e.g. here. The radiance spectrum has the form

• gamma T f^2,

where gamma is the model constant of the radiation pressure term, f is the frequency and T is a common temperature for all frequencies. For frequencies above cut off the radiance is smaller than the incoming energy, which means that the oscillator is heating up, which reflects heat transport from warm to cold but not from cold to warm.

The model shows generic blackbody radiation in the sense that the radiance is independent of the heat capacity of the oscillator and the value of the constant gamma, in other words independent of the material of the radiating body.

What Judy, or more generally anybody critical of my work, is so overwhelming/pointless in this description?

Judy answers:

• Claes, I understand perfectly your arguments, I am just not buying it, and I don’t have the time to personally undertake a rebuttal for this for reasons I have previously stated.

Great Judy! From being overwhelmed you now perfectly well understand my arguments. This is progress. But is it credible?

No, it is not. Your argument is that you do not buy my arguments, but this is not science Judy: Science is about presenting scientific arguments, theory, observation, computation, not simply claiming that you don't buy something without telling why you refuse.

You are hosting and supporting an assault on my scientific work, and doing so you must be prepared to come up with scientific arguments, if your intention is to participate in a serious scientific debate.

You cannot simply refer to some unknown undergraduates or to Monckton as some godlike referee above us all. Don't you understand that, Judy?

Why Judy Curry Says Nothing

On Jan 31 2011 Judy Curry on her blog Climate Etc. opened to debate with a post entitled Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon with the words:

• I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.
• One of the authors, Claes Johnson expects a serious critique from the climate community.
• I agreed to host a discussion on Johnson’s chapters at Climate Etc.

After 6 months of debate and more than 2000 comments, I made a sum up and asked Judy to do the same.

But Judy is not eager to do that. Judy stays silent and instead lets the debate or assualt on my work continue for ever with the help of an aggressive mob without scientific credentials.

The following questions present themselves:

• Why does not Judy want to say anything?
• Why does not Judy dare to criticize my work, if it should be criticized?
• Why does Judy allow the mob to continue the assault without ever ending the debate?
• If Judy knows more than the mob, why does she not express that?

So Judy, isn't it time for you to say something, and not just let other speak for you? Do you have anything to say about my work or not?

Judy answers reminding about her own contribution to the criticism of my work:

• I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters.
• As Monckton put it: “I do not propose to contribute further to this . . .: it is not a sensible deployment of my time.”

Again Judy lets other speak for herself, as if she knows less than undergraduate students.

Why Judy don't you let the undergraduate students take over your blog? If you have nothing to say?

Result of Debate on Fiction of Backradiation

After 6 months and 2000 comments on Judy Curry's blog about my refutation of the basic postulate of CO2 climate alarmism of backradiation, I can make the following sum up:

1. My new derivation of Planck's radiation law has stood the test. Nobody has shown that it is incorrect.
2. In my version of Planck's law there is no radiative transfer of heat from one blackbody to a warmer blackbody, only from a warmer to a colder. In other words, there is no backradiation.
3. The reason is that such a process would be unstable and real physics cannot operate with unstable processes. Backradiation thus is fiction without reality.
4. Backradiation is not described in the physics literature.
5. Backradiation has been invented out of the blue to serve CO2 alarmism by supplying gross two-way radiative transfer of heat energy back and forth between the Earth surface and the atmosphere, and the instability of this exchange is the root of the alarmism.
6. CO2 alarmism based on a fiction of backradiation is fiction.

I ask Judy to make her own sum up of the debate and compare with mine.

PS Measuring backradiation or DLR by an IR camera is also fiction. DLR is computed by Stefan-Boltzmann Q = sigma T^4 from measured temperature T and thus is self-fulfilling: Since Stefan-Boltzmann in the alarmist version is postulated to include backradiation/DLR, the instrument records DLR because it uses Stefan-Boltzmann and not because it directly measures real backradiation. DS

The Sky Dragon Strikes Back

Andrew Skolnick has mounted a ferocious attack on the Slayers of the Sky Dragon on Judy Curry's blog as a large set of comments (out of 2000) on the blog post Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon.

The attack is supported by a Youtube clip entitled Needling the Deniers aimed at disproving my new derivation of Planck's law of blackbody radiation showing that the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism of backradiation is fiction.

The clip shows that a needle can be heated in a microwave oven, which is known to everybody with some experience of a such a device. Skolnick thus demonstrates that low frequency waves (microwaves) can heat an absorber to higher temperature than the blackbody temperature corresponding to the frequency.

Does this mean that a blackbody can heat another blackbody of higher temperature, that a cold atmosphere can radiatively heat a warmer Earth surface? Of course not!

But what about the microwave oven then? Isn't this a counter-example? No, it is not because the amplitude of the microwave radiation is much larger than that of blackbody radiation of the corresponding temperature. The heating in a microwave oven is thus not blackbody heating; it is amplifed blackbody heating, and therefore the microwave heating of a needle is not a counter-example to my proof that blackbody backradiation from cold to warm is fiction.

But it is good that Skolnick brings this issue to the table, which allows one more head of the Sky Dragon to be eliminated. Thank you Andrew!

What is the 2nd Law of Radiation 1?

The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics form the foundation of classical continuum mechanics.

The 1st Law states that energy (and mass and momentum if you like) is conserved, and as such is not mysterious.

The 2nd Law states that something named entropy can only increase and never decrease (in an isolated system), and as such is mysterious since the physical meaning of entropy has remained unclear ever since its conception 150 years ago. Everybody speaks about entropy but nobody knows what it is, yet the 2nd Law is fundamental in determining the forward arrow of time we all percieve as we march from cradle to grave.

As concerns electrodynamics including radiative heat transfer, the situation is even worse: There should be a 2nd Law of Radiation but what is it? Where is it described in the literature? A search on Wikipedia gives no hit. Isn't this strange? Electrodynamics is as fundamental as

solid/fluid/thermodynamics, and so there should be a 2nd Law of Radiation, but nobody has formulated such a thing. Strange? Or is there one?

If you are interested to learn about this missing fundamental law of physics, browse Computational Blackbody Radiation prepared in a chapter in Slaying the Sky Dragon and in Computational Thermodynamics.

Note that a 2nd Law of Radiation without a proof is like a building without support, beautiful maybe on paper but completely useless in practice. The urgent necessity of a proof was expressed by Planck as follows:

• ...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...
• 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 formu- las of no significance, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on sound physical conception.
• Mechanically, the task seems impossible, and we will just have to get used to it (quanta).

Planck's derivation of his law of blackbody radiation can be viewed as a derivation of 2nd Law of Radiation. Planck used statistics of energy quanta in his proof and thereby payed a very high price. I present in the sources cited above an alternative derivation without statistics based on deterministic finite precision computation which comes without paying anything. Which option would you prefer?

In any case:

• A theoretical interpretation has to be found at any price!

Read the Sky Dragon Says Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba writes on Warning Signs:

• ...this brings me to a new book, “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, by eight co-authors, contributors whose expertise ranges across climatology, meteorology, physics, and mathematics, along with an expert in the legal aspects of the hoax. All have been derided as “deniers” and “skeptics.”
• This book is not light reading. Indeed, if you don’t come equipped with an understanding of physics, for example, some chapters will remain beyond your grasp. And mine! Happily, most is easily comprehended. In sum, it is a damning condemnation of the great hoax of the modern era, perhaps the greatest hoax since the bogus economic theory of communism.
• I recommend you read “Slaying the Sky Dragon” as the definitive answer to more than twenty years of global warming lies.

The book contains a mathematical analysis which has been censored and "removed" by the Royal Institute of Technology KTH as "unacceptable", as described in KTH-gate. Despite this unprecedented action since the heydays of "entartete kunst", the book is still available for reading outside KTH.

"Skeptics" like Spencer and Monckton have dismissed the book, seemingly without following the suggestion of Caruba of actually reading the book, only deliberately misunderstanding some of its formulas, just like the censors at KTH. Or maybe they understood the book is scientifically basically correct, and then decided to burn the book because its message was not politically correct. Explanations are needed and will come, eventually.

Interview with Claes Johnson by Ken Coffman

Ken Coffman, Stairways Press, publisher of the controversial book Slaying the Sky Dragon, has made an interview with me, as a follow-up on the 2k comments in a discussion of my two articles in the book on Judy Curry's Climate Etc. The interview is published by John O'Sullivan and on the book home page.

The inteview summarizes some of my experiences with climate science and academia. The censorship of my scientific mathematics work by KTH is particularly remarkable and is bound to have some aftermath. The Faculty of KTH is not even considering this case, despite my repeated requests to do so, and thus treats me as non-existing, although I am a professor at KTH and one of the few Swedes on ICIHighlyCited. This is Sweden in 2011, not 1984.

Black Magic of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law for Two BlackBodies

Planck's Law

gives the spectral radiance (flux of radiant energy) from an ideal blackbody as function of temperature T and frequency nu. Integrating over frequency gives the total radiance R as Stefan-Boltzmann's Law

(1) R = sigma T^4

with sigma a certain constant referred to as Stefan-Boltzmann's constant.

In the engineering literature the following Stefan-Boltzmann law is presented for the radiant energy exchanged between two blackbodies 1 and 2 of temperature T1 and T2:

(2) R1 = sigma T2^4 - sigma T1^4, R2= - R1 = sigma T1^4 - sigma T2^4,

where R1 is the net radiance received by body 1 and R2 that received by R2.

How is the formula (2) derived? From a Planck Law for two interacting blackbodies? No, it appears to be an ad hoc law derived by the following simple ad hoc argument:

• Stefan-Boltzmann's Law (1) for one blackbody gives the radiant energy from a blackbody at a certain temperature T into a receiving background at 0 K.
• Now, if we have two blackbodies, both will radiate into the same background at 0 K as if the other body was not present.
• To get the effect of the two bodies, just sum the contributions and you get (2).
• Voila!

But this is an ad hoc argument without specified physical realization of the summation, thus a black magic argument. This is the argument behind the "backradiation" from a cold atmosphere to a warm Earth surface underlying CO2 climate alarmism. Black magic.

In my new derivation of Planck's Law in Slaying the Sky Dragon, the temperature of the background enters and the radiant energy exchanged between two blackbodies is derived from basic physical principles and not from ad hoc summation without physics.

PS I don't say that (2), as a formula for the net radiative heat exchange, is wrong. What I seek is a derivation of the formula which can help understanding of the physics involved, without resorting to statistics which at least to me is not understandable.

Analysis of Greenhouse Effect Debate

The comments to the thread on Judy Curry's blog on my two articles in Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory show the following features:

• Climate alarmism is based on "backradiation", but physicists do not want to tell if "backradiation" is real or not, although it must be their job.
• Accordingly, skeptics like Spencer and Monckton have nothing to say, because they have to rely on what physicists say, and physicists say nothing. Climate alarmists use this vacuum to say anything that suits some preconceived agenda.
• There are some people with open minds who get some of my message.
• Many show little readiness to absorb anything and just repeat various mantras floating around in the lacuna of absent physicists.
• Nobody claims that my mathematics is wrong.

The essence of my message is as follows

• In radiative heat transfer, heat is transferred between bodies by electromagnetic waves and electromagnetic waves are described by Maxwell's wave equations. I derive Planck's radiation law from a version of Maxwell's equations subject to a dissipative effect from finite precision analog computation.
• I show that "backradiation" would correspond to a negative dissipative effect, which is unstable and thus unphysical. Thus Maxwell's wave equations do not allow "backradiation". To me this is evidence that Nature neither does.
• To describe atmospheric radiation by quantum mechanics is as meaningless as describing climate thermodynamics by quantum mechanics.
• You cannot compute the lift and drag of an airplane by quantum mechanics, but you can do it by the Navier-Stokes equations, the analog of Maxwell's equations for fluid flow.
• Maxwell and Navier-Stokes are continuum mechanics models describing macroscopics, but macroscopics cannot be described by microscopic quantum mechanics, because macroscopics emerges from interaction of multiple microscopics.
• Climate results from thermodynamics with radiative forcing, and radiation alone cannot tell anything of real significance, such as the effect of changing the atmospheric radiative properties a little: It is not clear if more clouds or water vapour will cause global cooling or warming, or the effect of a small change of CO2. Climate CO2 alarmism is based on a postulate of a climate sensitivity of + 1 C which is a formality without known real significance.

I see very little discussion on these main points. Why? Because physicists say nothing which prevents non-physicists to even listen, because my credibility is unclear and all communication builds on some form of credibility (or prestige). Maybe I am a goofy crackpot as some people seem to believe, but maybe I am not.

But how are people going to tell, in particular if my message is expressed in mathematical terms?

So silence (intertvined with outbreaks of ridicule) from the ruling class, is quite effective. But to say nothing is not sign of strength and control and so the situation can quickly change...Mubarak is saying very little...

To my critics I would like to say:

• I have shown you my equations, now show me your equations and we can have a discussion and compare.

I expect some of you to come with the following response: Consider two blackbodies 1 and 2 of temperatures T1 and T2 in radiative contact, described by the following Stefan-Boltzmann equations as the basic equations of radiative transfer :

• Q1 = sigma T2^4 - sigma T1^4
• Q2 = sigma T1^4 -sigma T2^4

where Q1 is the heat energy absorbed by 1 and Q2 that by 2. So 1 loses sigma T1^4 and gains sigma T2^4 by "backradiation" and 2 loses sigma T2^4 and gains sigma T1^4 by "backradiation". And so you say: "backradiation" exists because in my formulas there appear terms which I have given the name "backradiation".

But then I say that just because you have named something "backradiation", it does not follow that this something has a physical reality. If you believe that, you are either a child or great author but not a scientist. And then I ask you to motivate your equations, to derive them mathematically from some more elementary assumptions.

Then you probably say that this was what Planck did and then I say that he just considered one

body radiating to empty space, and that the above formulas are ad hoc formulas which cannot

be presented as evidence that "backradiation" is physical. And then you say?

Greenhouse Effect Debate

Judy Curry has opened a debate on the book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, focussing on my two chapters

• Computational Blackbody Radiation
• Climate Thermodynamics

I look forward to a hopefully constructive lively discussion. Science does not thrive under dead

silence. In particular, I hope that Spencer, Lord Monckton, Lindzen and other leading skeptics will give the debate some attention.

My perspective is mathematical including both mathematical modeling and computation. I believe that physics must be expressed in mathematical terms, typically as differential equations, to have a precise meaning, and that understanding physics basically boils down to understanding mathematical models of different physical real phenomena, in the spirit of Dijkstra.

I give different presentations of the underlying idea of computation of finite precision in posts on thermodynamics, blackbody radiation, greenhouse effect and climate on this blog and in My Book of Knols and under "books" on my home page.

I repeat that I do not say "that there is no greenhouse effect" since the "greenhouse effect" is not well described in the literature. So anyone preparing to accuse me of "denying the greenhouse effect" should also prepare to tell me what sort of "greenhouse effect" I am supposed to deny. "Greenhouse effect denier" has the same value as "climate change denier".

What I am saying is that there is no backradiation, because that would correspond to an unstable physical phenomenon, as unstable and unphysical as "backdiffusion" or "backconduction".

What I am saying is that radiation alone without thermodynamics cannot tell anything meaningful about climate. A no-feedback sensitivity of + 1 C is just a formality or definition without any connection to reality, as non-informative as the statement that there are 100 centimeters on a meter, with its nature of definition signified by the message that it is "unassailable". Anything "unassailable" is a definition and a definition carries no information about reality. This is important to understand for both CO2 alarmists and skeptics, since CO2 alarmism starts with the basic postulate of a no-feedback climate sensitivity of + 1 C, which is then jacked up to + 3 C by positive feedback. Without the + 1 to start from, CO2 alarmism has to start feedbacks from 0, which is a completely open game with not even the sign being known.

Review of the debate after 83 comments Jan 31:

• None of the big skeptics has had anything to say. Only Judy Curry who agrees that something is wrong with the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget, but does not want to tell what.
• Of course Monckton and Spencer do not want to answer any of my questions, or Lindzen...
• If you are a skeptic then you pose questions, and of course do not answer any, just like a professional journalist or Freudian therapist. But scientists need to answer questions.
• Mostly confusing remarks as if my message has not be absorbed at all. Absorbitivity = 0.
• The "greenhouse effect" is strong and healthy science, although the equations are missing.
• Judy Curry clarifies and says that the KT budget with backradiation is basically correct.

Summary of my position Febr 1:

1. Radiative heat transfer is carried by electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell's equations. The starting point of a scientific discussion of radiation should better start with Maxwell's equations than with some simplistic ad hoc model like the ones typically referred to in climate science with ad hoc invented "back radiation" of heat energy. If there is anything like "backradiation" it must be possible to find it in Maxwell's wave equations. In my analysis I use a version of Maxwell's wave equations and show that there is no backradiation, because that would correspond to an unstable phenomenon and unstable physics does not persist over time.
2. Climate results from thermodynamics with radiative forcing, and radiation alone cannot tell anything of real significance, such as the effect of changing the atmospheric radiative properties a little: It is not clear if more clouds orwater vapour will cause global cooling or warming, or the effect of a small change of CO2. Climate CO2 alarmism is based on a postulate of a climate sensitivity of + 1 C which is a formality without known real significance.
3. I welcome specific comments on these two points.

Power of Language: "Refrigerator Effect" vs "Greenhouse Effect"

The Refrigerator Effect:

Lord Monckton, Judy Curry and Roy Spencer are critical to the critique in the new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory of the "greenhouse effect" underlying CO2 climate alarmism. My arguments that the standard conception of the "greenhouse effect" represents a scientific dead end, are summarized in my contributions to the book:

• Computational Blackbody Radiation
• Climate Thermodynamics.

By double negation (critique of critique) Monckton, Curry and Spencer effectively come out as supporters of the claimed consensus of (alarming) global warming by a "greenhouse effect".

M, C and S claim that they do not have the time required to enter into the mathematics of the criticism in the articles, but nevertheless remain critical to the critique referring to a strong belief that the greenhouse gas theory with its "greenhouse effect" cannot be killed because it is strong, healthy and very much alive. A seemingly invincible Sky Dragon...

It is natural to ask how it is possible to be so sure about the existence of a "greenhouse effect",

which in fact is not well described in the scientific literature? The meaning of the term ranges

from the total effect of the atmosphere as an "atmosphere effect" to the absorption spectrum of the "greenhouse gas" CO2 with unknown warming effect.

Is it simply due to the folklore description of the "greenhouse effect" acting like a "blanket" or "sheet of glass" helping us to stay warm in a chilly Universe at 3 K? Even if the atmosphere does not act like a blanket or sheet of glass at all?

Is the power of language so strong that the "greenhouse effect" from a "blanket in the sky" is

so seducing for the soul that the body becomes convinced? Maybe.

Suppose then that we change vocabulary and describe the effect of the atmosphere as the

"refrigerator effect", which is in fact more logical than the "greenhouse effect", because what

the atmosphere does is to transport heat (from insolation) away from the Earth surface to the top of the atmosphere for radiation to outer space. In the same way as the cooling system

of a refrigerator transports heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside.

OK, so everybody can now understand the "refrigerator effect" and with this understanding comes the immediate threat of a too strong effect of global cooling. Like with alchohol the risk is a too strong effect, not a too small effect (unless you are completely addicted).

So, with a "greenhouse effect" the imminent risk is too much of the effect into global warming. While with the "refrigerator effect" the threat is instead global cooling.

We see that semantics can twist our brains into firm beliefs which may lack scientific rationale. Of course we are all too familiar with this phenomenon in politics.

So how would the debate change if "greenhouse effect" was changed to "refrigerator effect?

Such a change could get quick acceptance this winter.

Judy now signals that she is ready to initiate a discussion on her blog starting from the two

articles listed above. I look forward to this discussion. Science without discussion is dead immobile science, while science with discussion is live science which can move forward.

PS1 If you want to get to understand thermodynamics for the first time in your life, download the draft of my upcoming book Computational Thermodynamics and explore physics with confusing statistics replaced by

• analog finite precision computation (reality)
• modeled by digital finite precision computation (virtual reality).

The idea of finite precision computation also underlies the new analysis of blackbody radiation

as Computational Blackbody Radiation.

PS2 Comparing the thermodynamics of global climate with that of a refrigerator should be done understanding the following important difference: The atmosphere transports heat from the Earth surface to a top of the atmosphere at lower temperature, while the cooling system of a refrigerator transports heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside at higher temperature. More precisely:

To transport heat in a system from a cold part to a warmer part (without chemistry) requires compression consuming external energy (driving the compressor in a refrigerator), while transport of heat from a warm part to a colder can be performed without external input of energy. The compression in a standard compressor refrigerator cycle is needed because expansion is used to create the temperature drop required to absorb heat from the interior of refrigerator to the circulating medium. In the atmosphere ascending air expands and cools and descending air warms as potential energy is exchanged to heat energy, without net input of energy, if turbulent dissipation is neglected.

PS3 As concerns Planck, his radiation law and his heroic (resultless) struggle to derive it mathematically from electrodynamics, and his final surrender in an "act of despair" to statistics, see Planck: The Reluctant Revolutionary.

Questions to Lord Monckton and Roy Spencer

I pose the following questions to Lord Monckton and Roy Spencer motivated by their criticism of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory:

1. Do you consider the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget to be essentially correct?
2. Do you consider backradiation from cold to warm to be a real physical phenomenon?
3. Have you read and understood my derivation of Planck's radiation law without statistics?
4. Do you consider the derivation to be essentially correct?
5. Have you read and understood Planck's derivation of his law based on statistics?
6. Which derivation do you consider to best represent physics?
7. Do you think it is necessary to understand the derivation of a physical law to properly understand the meaning of the law?
8. Is it correct to speak of a greenhouse effect from a whole range of a causes, but then connect the effect to one (small) cause?
9. Is it correct to speak about a greenhouse effect from CO2 which may very well be zero?
10. It is correct to speak about a no-feedback climate sensitivity of +1 C from doubled CO2 obtained by a direct application of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law without any consideration of thermodynamics, as a basic value with physical significance? Isn't it a formality like a definition twisted into a physical fact?
11. Do you think an IR-meter can give information of radiative flux by effectively measuring temperature? If so, how is the translation from temperature to radiation performed by the instrument?

Answers will be posted when received.

It appears that neither Lord Monckton nor Spencer is eager to answer any of my questions, nor ask me any question. Lord M says that he has not the time to answer my questions, and Spencer says nothing. The discussion then collapses to silence.

But Lord M insists that there is a "greenhouse effect" somehow caused by the atmosphere, but seems to say that since the physics of this "greenhouse effect" has not be identified and described, it is impossible to say that it does not exist. How can you deny the existence of angels if you don't know what an angel is supposed to be? Maybe there is some sort of angel,

with or without wings?

But as I have remarked before, it is unfortunate if skeptics are more skeptic to other skeptics than to their common target of CO2 climate alarmists.

Judy Curry responds by:

• Claes, I have read and considered your arguments. To rebut/refute them would take more time than I am prepared to spend on this. I have to use my time where I think it is best spent. Judy

Skeptics Missing the Main Argument, Unfortunately

Both Anthony Watts (WUWT) and Lubos Motl (Reference Frame) comment on Kevin Trenberth's upcoming talk at the American Meteorological Society meeting on Jan 26 on Communicating Climate Change with the thoughtful title ClimategateThoughts.

Watts and Motl are a bit skeptical to Trenberth, but they seem to accept the energy budget of Trenberth underlying CO2 climate alarmism, discussed at length on this blog.

The following questions present themselves:

• Why are Watts and Motl not skeptical to the backbone of CO2 alarmism: Trenberth's energy budget?
• Why are Watts and Motl ignoring the devastating analysis of Trenberth's budget presented in Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death to the Greenhouse Gas Theory or Death to Trenberth's Energy budget? Is the math there overwhelming?

In short, why are skeptics not skeptic? Maybe because they view themselves as physicists, and

physicists believe in the "greenhouse effect" and Trenberth's energy budget.

Watts and Motl are joined by Lindzen and Spencer as "skeptic physicists" confessing to the "greenhouse effect" with a miraculous ability of turning a thin atmosphere into a "heat-trapping blanket". There must have been something seriously wrong with physics education during the 20th century.

Here is the basic belief to which Lindzen confesses:

• It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming about 1 degree Centigrade.

Lindzen does not understand that here "general acknowledgement" is achieved by making this

statement into a definition of no-feedback climate sensitivity. Lindzen does not want to know that a (generally acknowledged) definition does not say anything about any reality, but is just a play with words, as empty as saying that there are 100 centimeters on 1 meter.

This is unfortunate because CO2 climate alarmism is based on this no-feedback sensitivity of 1 C, which then is argued to possibly become an alarming 3 C by positive feedback.

But you cannot get anything from a definition and without the 1 C to start with, the real game has to start with 0 C and this feedback game is completely open, as explained in Climate Feedbacks with Nothing to Feed On. It is not even clear if more CO2 will cause cooling, or warming or nothing.

It is unfortunate that a skeptic physicist like Lindzen does not appear to be willing to see this, (and therefore feels obliged to invent negative feedback which may be questioned). Why? Lindzen can't be so stupid that he can't see the trick used to create climate alarmism out of nothing, from a definition. But why is he willing to interprete a definition as a physical fact?

Lindzen is in good company with Judith Curry:

• Well, burning fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities have undoubtedly changed the climate and even weather patterns, the butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil, and all that.

And all that: Anything is possible in physics science fiction.

What is the cost of the fiction, in the US? About $4 billion next year into climate change

research (NSF 1.6, DOE 0.6, Nasa 0.4, NOOA 0.4, DOI 0.2). Enough to pay 40.000 full-time

researchers. A good size army.

Of course peanuts compared to the $14 trillion of federal budget deficit. Anyway, what about say $1 billion to skeptic climate science? About 10.000 full-time skeptics. And it would be well spent money, since it could save the $4 billion. Maybe something for new Congress looking for cuts?

PS Lindzen repeats his mantra in A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action:

• However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).

Lindzen does not understand that this mantra is precisely what underlies "Precipitous Climate Action" and so his argument is rather for than against doing something drastic quickly.

Isaac Asimov and his Science Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect

In 1977 the famous physicist (biochemist) and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov explains in very calm voice and convincing words in the CBS Radio program Quirks and Quarks, the "greenhouse effect", that the atmosphere acts like a sheet of glass, which "traps radiation" from the Earth surface and keeps it warm.

Asimov convinces the listeners that an increase of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, may cause a rise of the sea level of 200 feet and even trigger a scary "run away greenhouse effect like that on Venus". This is an early example of CO2 climate alarmism at its best.

We now know that the atmosphere does not act like a sheet of glass (preventing convection thus keeping the inside of a usual greenhouse warm), and that the "greenhouse effect" is science fiction without reality, as explained in the new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death to the Greenhouse Gas Theory.

But it is instructive to listen to Asimov's arguments, because these arguments represent a widely spread folklore of science (fiction) confusing the minds of people, politicians and in particular physicists, responsible for not debunking the science fiction and disinformation of the "greenhouse effect", of Asimov. This blind spot may show to be one of the most remarkable aspects of modern physics.

Compare with greenhouse doomsday propaganda from 1959 and a little more aged Asimov with even bigger whiskers from 1989, telling us that

• the most interesting scientific event in 1988 was that everyone started to speak about the "greenhouse effect" just because it was a hot summer, when I had been speaking about it for 20 years.

We understand that physicists have invented the "greenhouse effect". It is now their responsibility to show that the invention is as much science fiction as cold fusion. But physicists say nothing expecting that this will not disturb the flow of money to Big Physics, forgetting that this money will be redirected to stop a "greenhouse effect" they have invented, away from strings of dark matter and dark energy.

But maybe physicists are happy with this telling themselves that also the "greenhouse effect" is physics and so it will be well spent money.

Climate Alarmism and Real Estate Bubbles

CO2 climate alarmism is based on the global energy budget by Kiehl and Trenbert shown above with a notable "backradiation" of 324 W/m2 adding to the 168 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth surface of the incoming radiation from the Sun, adding up to a radiation of 390 W/m2 and thermodynamics of 102 W/m2 from the Earth surface.

The picture thus displays a two-way circulation of energy between the Earth and the atmosphere of about 400 W/m2. Climate alarmism is based on the assumption that doubled CO2 will give a 1% change of this circulation causing "radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2, which by

Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law is translated to a warming of 1 C, by feedback augmented to

and alarming 3 C.

In the new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory it is shown that

the circulating flow of energy between Earth and atmosphere, is fiction without physical reality.

Let me here illustrate the nature of the fiction in a familiar example from real estate. Suppose you want to buy an old house that costs 390 (thousand dollars say) and requires 102 to put in shape, but that you have only 168 in your bank account at your disposal. Can you do it?

No problem, you say: I will just go to the bank and borrow 324 and I will be all set: I can buy the house and fix it and I will have a prestigious house to show to the world.

All this is fine, but there is something you should not forget: You don't own the house; more than half is owned by the bank, and thus you run a risk and the risk increases with the fraction owned by the bank. A small percentage change of the value of the house may erase your net savings. To send this message can be viewed as a a form of real estate alarmism, which may be motivated by the realities of the real estate business.

Do you see the analogy with the above energy budget? Yes, there is a close analogy, but there is an important difference: There is no bank in Nature where the Earth can borrow energy. The two-way circulating flow of energy between Earth and atmosphere is pure fiction. Nature cannot build speculation bubbles of energy based on "backradiation". Why? Because speculation bubbles are unstable and in Nature unstable processes cannot exist over time (except possibly by Divine Intervention).

Correct Interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law

What is the physical meaning of my formula? I am not sure I know myself. And you?

Stefan-Boltzman's Radiation Law (SB) is commonly written

• Q = sigma T_h^4 - sigma T_c^4 ~ sigma 4 T_h^3(T_h - T_c),

where Q is radiative flow of heat energy from a hot body of temperture T_h to a cold body of lower temperature T_c, and sigma is a certain constant. We here express SB also in differentiated form.

There are two ways to interprete SB as written:

• (1) One-way flow of net heat energy Q ~ sigma 4 T_h^3(T_h - T_c) (differentiated form)
• (2) Two-way circulatory flow of heat energy with a certain net flow (non-differentiated).

Does it make a difference? The formula is the formula and so how can its interpretation be important?

Yes, it is important because CO2 climate alarmism results from a "greenhouse effect" based on (2) with "backradiation" from a cold atmosphere at T_c heating a warm Earth surface at T_h in a circulatory exchange of heat energy between atmosphere and Earth of magnitude ~ 360 W/m2 (with a net flow of 120 W/m2 with T_h - T_c ~ 30 C).

The alarm results from subjecting the 360 W/m2 to a small change, say a 1% change

~ 4 W/m2, which translates into a ~ 1 C change of T_h.

The result is a climate sensitivity of 1 C from a 1% change of the circulating flow. This

"no-feedback" climate sensitivity of 1 C is then augumented to 3 C by feedbacks: Alarm!

Now, 1% is a small perturbation of the circulating flow which thus results in considerable warming of 1 (or 3) C. Alarm from interpreting SB according to (2)!

However, if we instead interprete SB according to (1), then the 4 W/m2 corresponds to a 3% change of the net flow of 120 W/m2, and a 3% perturbation is a no longer a small perturbation.

A 1% perturbation of 120 W/m2 would give a climate sensitivity of 0.3 C = No Alarm!

We see that the interpretation of SB makes the difference between Alarm and No Alarm.

How can we judge which interpretation is the correct one from a physical point of view?

By looking at the derivation of the SB formula. Where do we find it? Well, SB is an integrated version (summing over frequencies) of Planck's radiation law (P) and Planck's derivation of P is based on statistics of quanta, which is difficult to dechiffer and interprete physically because statistics is not physics. Statistics concerns ensembles of physical events and physics does not play with ensembles of events, only with events. In the same way as there is no person identical to Meanvalue-Smith, who you can ask about reactions and opinions. Meanvalue-Smith is a non-physical person with no physical relation to anything and with nothing to say.

A derivation of P and thus SB without statistics, based on deterministic physical wave mechanics, is given in the chapter Computational Blackbody Radiation in our new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. This (new) derivation shows that the interpretation (1) is physically correct. There is no circulatory flow of heat energy, because such a flow is unstable.

Get the book and decide yourself between Alarm and No Alarm. You will find that it is necessary to understand the mathematical derivation of a mathematical formula, to properly understand the meaning of the formula. Read and then tell your friends and collegues about your findings.

Compare with the discussion on Science of Doom Understanding Atmospheric Radiation

and the Greenhouse Effect claiming the heat energy radiated from the Earth surface is measured experimentally to be ~ 360 W/m2 (or 390), while acknowledging that the flow of heat energy is calculated from SB: Q = sigma T^4 with a background temperature of 0 K by measuring the surface temperature T.

The instrument reading of 360 W/m2, is thus incorrectly interpreted as a reading of a real physical flow of heat energy of 360 W/m2, by letting the instrument calculate the flow of energy from measuring the temperature, using a physically incorrect interpretation of SB.

This shows that readings of experimental instruments must be interpreted with care, and that the mathematical theory/theorem behind an instrument design must be understood to allow a correct interpretation of instrument readings. Proper understanding of the proof of the theorem is then necessary to secure a correct interpretation of the meaning of the statement of the theorem.

IR detectors or sensors used in IR cameras are sensitive to the frequency of the incoming radiation, from which the emission temperature is calculated (using Wien's displacement law) and from the emission temperature the emitted radiation is calculated (by SB).

Thus frequency is measured and radiated energy is calculated by certain formulas.

How to Kill a Sky Dragon by Mathematics

Our new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory is topping Amazon eBook lists. The paperback version will appear after Christmas along with radio and TV presentations.

The message of the book is that the so-called atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Effect GGE, presented by IPCC as the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism, lacks sound mathematical and physical rationale.

My role in the team of authors is to shoot with the weapon of mathematics at the heart of climate science consisting of the two chambers

• blackbody radiation: transfer of heat energy by electromagnetic waves
• thermodynamics: interplay of heat energy and kinetic/potential energy under gravitation.

GGE is claimed to result from a small change of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 (from 0.028% to 0.056%) capable of changing the heat transfer between the Earth Surface ES and the Top Of the Atmosphere TOA and causing warming of ES of 2 - 4.5 C.

GGE thus concerns substantial change of ES temperature under a very small perturbation of the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere connecting ES with TOA. GGE as

a mathematical/physical mechanism is thus unstable, in the sense that a small cause gives a big effect: a small change of an atmospheric trace gas can change global climate.

To change something small into something substantial, it is necessary to multiply the small with something big. To this end GGE has invented the concept of "backradiation" with ES emitting 390 W/m2 out of which 340 W/m2 is received from TOA as re-emitted radiation from ES, with 340 W/m2 = 100% of gross (total) incoming radiation from the Sun.

"Backradiation" thus gives GGE a major energy flow of 340 W/m2 to operate on, namely a circulating flow of energy (equal to gross incoming energy) transferring energy from ES to TOA and back again. GGE now says that a trace gas changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere by say 1% operating on the circulation of 340 W/m2 can give rise to a change of 3.4 W/m2 which by Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law can be connected to about 1 C of global warming. This gives the basic axiom of IPCC CO2 alarmism of a climate sensitivity of 1 C upon doubling of atmospheric CO2, which then is inflated to 2 - 4.5 C by imagined feedbacks of factors 2 - 5.

The basic killer shot of my contribution to the book, is a mathematical analysis of blackbody radiation showing that "backradiation" is unphysical, because it corresponds to an unstable process which cannot be realized. The result is that the radiative transfer of heat energy between ES and TOA consists of a net transfer of about 120 W/m2, about 1/3 of the fictitious

circulating flow of 340 W/m2. This reduces the basic climate sensitivity to less than 0.3 C,

which cannot be used to create alarm, because feedback factors of size 10 lack any scientific rationale.

It thus appears to be possible to kill the Sky Dragon by one shot (my blackbody article). If that does not turn out to be enough, depending on the audience, another shot can be launched at an unprotected flank of the Dragon by recalling the fact that climate results from a combination of thermodynamics under gravitation and radiation, and that GGE is essentially based on radiation alone (my thermodynamics article). The second shot says that not only the magnitude of climate sensitivity is unclear but also its sign: It is conceivable that more CO2 can cause some (small) cooling.

I believe that the above shots can be effective in coming TV and radio presentations, because convincing mathematics is hard to deny, for both alarmists and skeptics.

But even if the Sky Dragon is afraid of mathematics, because alarmistic Dragons have limited intellectual capacity, what the Dragon fears the most is, yes cold weather, and the record lows now hitting Europe is turning the Dragon into a freezing lame duck which will not likely survive the winter. And what we have seen is only the beginning according to one of the slayers, Piers Corbyn.

An analogy in economics presents itself: Imagine a national economy with a large scale circulation of money from high taxes and large government subsidies of the order of trillions

of dollars, and imagine a broker charging the tiny percentage say 0.0o1%, with a net profit

of billions of dollars. Nice, right? But what about the stability of an economy with unlimited circulation of money, of fictitious money without any real value? Any clue?