Summary of Debate on the Greenhouse Effect

Here is a summary of the recent debate about the existence or non-existence of a physical phenomenon named "greenhouse effect", including the following groups:

1. Alarmists: There are "ghosts" and they are dangerous.
2. Inside Skeptics: There are "ghosts" but they are not so dangerous.
3. Outside Skeptics/Deniers: No real "ghosts" have been identified.

Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Monckton and Watts belong to group 2, and myself to 3.

There are many possible incarnations as "ghosts" besides "greenhouse effect", like "terrorists", "viruses", "marsians", "islamists", "jews", "drugs", "comets", "aliens"...

Note that from scientific point of view, 3 is the position which is best or easiest to defend, since it puts the burden of proof on 1 and 2 who claim that ghosts exist. Position 2 is most difficult to defend since it both requires identification of ghosts and quantitative assessment of their degree of dangerousness. Position 1 has the advantage of connecting danger and ghost and compensating lack of proof of existence by inflating danger.

One may argue that good science has good defense, and that bad defense gives bad science.

KTH Mellan Hötappar: Simuleringsteknik

Ansökan är nu öppen för det nya kandidatprogrammet i Simuleringsteknik (ST) vid KTH.

Utbildningsplanen för åk 1 innehåller befintliga standardkurser om 37.5 poäng, samt två nya annonserade kurser

• Tillämpad Linjär Algebra 7.5 p
• Beräkningsmatematik i Flera Variabler 15 p

vilka beskrivs på följande sätt:

• Du läser två kurser i beräknings- och simuleringsteknik som går över hela läsåret.
• I dessa nya kurser kommer teori och praktiskt datorarbete att varvas så att huvuddelen av den matematiska teorin integreras med tilllämpningarna.
• Det nya kandidatprogrammet är unikt i Sverige.

Dock finnes ingen information och inga kursplaner för de nya kurserna (se PS nedan) och inget arbete att utveckla dessa kurser finns dokumenterat. Information för presumptiva studenter saknas alltså tillika med entusiasm att rekrytera.

ST var ursprungligen planerad att starta HT 2011 med BodyandSoul Mathematical Simulation Technology (MST) som nytt utvecklat kärnmaterial bestående av en ny syntes av matematisk analys, beräkning och tillämpning anpassad till IT-samhället.

ST stoppades dock i mars 2011 av politiska skäl genom att KTH helt enkelt bannlyste MST via en mediakampanj beskriven som KTH-gate.

Ett år senare står nu KTH inför uppgiften att starta ST utan MST och utan utvecklat alternativ. Detta illustrerar den kris som matematikutbildning i allmänhet idag befinner sig i:

• IT-samhället behöver en ny modern beräkningsbaserad matematikutbildning, som den ursprungligen planerade nya kandidatutbildningen i ST baserad på MST.
• KTH kan bara leverera en traditionell matematikutbildning utan beräkning och IT, eftersom den nya utbildningen MST bannlysts och alternativ saknas.

Vad kan då KTH nu göra:

1. Skjuta upp starten av ST ytterligare för att invänta utveckling av ny IT-matematik?
2. Starta den nya utbildningen utan ny IT-matematik?
3. Upphäva sin bannlysning av MST och starta ST med IT-matematik enligt ursprunglig plan?

1 förfaller uteslutet då ansökningen öppnats. Trycket från KTHs ledning att starta måste vara stort. Att upprepade gånger lova utan att leverera verkar taffligt.

2 vore inte rätt mot studenterna då KTH skulle locka med nytt material men bara leverera gammalt.

3 är otänkbart eftersom då kartan för matematikutbildning skulle behöva ritas om, och krafterna att bevara är mycket starka.

Inget av alternativen är alltså egentligen möjligt, vilket skapar en genuin kris. Men kris kan öppna för utveckling...fortsättning på dramat följer...mot upplösning av krisen och reformerad utbildning...

PS 1 Som genom ett trollslag har nu några timmar senare kursplaner till de nya kurserna presenterats (dock utan kurslitteratur):

• Tillämpad Linjär Algebra
• Beräkningsmatematik i Flera Variabler

Är nu detta som annonserats nya kurser med nytt material? Nej, dessa kursplaner liknar till förvillelse existerande grundkurser i matematisk och numerisk analys, som har sett likadana ut under många många år. Jfr speciellt med standardkurserna Linjär Algebra och Flervariabelanalys.

Detta visar att KTH väljer alt 2: Att locka med ny utbildning men servera en gammal. Ja, 1 och 3 var ju helt omöjliga, så det fick bli 2.

Men det kommer inte att vara så roligt att stå i katedern när studenterna upptäcker detta, om det nu finns studenter som lockas av ny utbildning med gammalt innehåll. Chansen finns ju nu att det nygamla kandidatprogrammet inte får några sökande, och i så fall skulle ju KTH ha lyckats hitta en lösning på sitt dilemma.

Om det blir några studenter så kommer de att kräva en modern utbildning och om den inte erbjuds kommer studenterna att söka den själva på nätet och där kommer MST att finnas fullt utvecklad och dessutom gratis tillgänglig för alla.

Nätutbildning står inför en explosionsartad utveckling som kommer att utsätta KTHs gammalmodiga utbildning för hård konkurrens. Hur vill ansvariga på KTH möta kraven på förnyelse? Om bannlysning inte funkar så länge nätet inte är avstängt?

Kanske t o m rektor Peter Gudmundson, som godkände bannlysningen av MST, har några tankar om detta? KTH är ju skattefinansierad för att leverera en modern ingenjörsutbildning till nytta för Sverige, och har ju krav att leva upp till som Sveriges ledande och mest priviligierade högskola.

KTH måste antigen själv utveckla nytt material för ST i stil med MST, eller skaffa detta utifrån lämpligen genom att helt enkelt använda MST, eftersom det är det enda utvecklade reformprogram som finns. Det finns politiskt motstånd mot MST men behovet av nytt material kan visa sig vara starkare.

Olika makthavare på KTH har olika bevekelsegrunder, men i den hårdnande konkurrensen om studenter kommer utbildningens kvalitet och relevans väga tungt.

PS 2 Stabiliteten av kurserna i linjär algebra och analys, som idag väsentligen är desamma som när jag läste på Chalmers för 50 år sedan, kan tolkas på olika sätt:

1. Kurserna är evigt desamma, vilket bevisas av att de inte ändrats på 50 år.
2. Det är lätt att utforma nya kurser, men onödigt då de gamla har funkat bra i 50 år och kan funka bra i 50 år till.
3. Det är svårt att utforma nya kurser som bättre motsvarar IT-samhällets behov, så svårt att inga genomgripande försök gjorts utöver MST.

Den rätta tolkningen lämnas åt läsaren.

PS 3 Jag har bett utbildningsansvarig Katarina Gustavsson om förklarande kommentar och kommer att rapportera svar. Inget svar 29/3 trots upprepad fråga. Slutsatsen kan bara vara att det inte finns något nytt att rapportera om.

PS 4 Jag har kontaktat Mats Lewan på Ny Teknik som rapporterat om KTH-gate och som följer utvecklingen för att skriva så småningom, om teknisk utbildning i IT-åldern vid KTH.

Why Skeptics Need a "Greenhouse Effect"

The Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism is the existence of no-feedback climate sensitivity of global warming of 1 C as the result of a "Greenhouse Effect" from doubling of atmospheric CO2, which by postulated positive feedback is increased to an alarming 3 C.

Leading skeptics including Dick Lindzen, Fred Singer and Roy Spencer applauded by Lord Monckton and Anthony Watts, start from the same Basic Postulate of 1 C and their skepticism is expressed by negative feedback instead of the positive feedback of alarmism, reducing climate sensitivity to harmless 0.5 C. The trademark of their skepticism is thus negative feedback.

In recent posts I have documented an attack by this leading group of skeptics on other skeptics including myself, which question the Basic Postulate. I have asked for reasons for this form of auto-immune reaction and have by a commenter been led to the following answer:

Lindzen at al have invested heavily in negative feedback as special scientific competence, which however is not really needed without the Basic Postulate. The relentless attack can thus be understood as a reptile brain reaction under a perceived threat to core values, a threat which is not real because the real threat is CO2 alarmism and not skepticism to its Basic Postulate.

Häggström Hävdar Utan Kunskap

Olle Häggström har tagit på sig uppgiften att, som han beskriver den för mig: "ge lekmän ett slags saklig och balanserad "konumentupplysning" som kan ge ledning beträffande Din eventuella trovärdighet då Du attackerar klimatvetenskapen".

Men Häggström visar ringa tecken på att ha läst något av vad jag skrivit och ännu mindre att han förstått någonting av vad han eventuellt har skummat. När jag ber Häggström att precisera sin kritik av min vetenskap som underlag för hans epitet som "virrhjärna" och "foliehatt", så blir Häggström tyst.

Häggström hävdar en massa som han saknar kunskap om. Så gör väl inte en vetenskapsman? Eller hur Olle?

Olle svarar i en kommentar till sin artikel:

• Någon "kritik" i egentlig mening bjuder jag inte på i min bloggpost...
• Och någon Johnsonsk "vetenskap" berör jag överhuvudtaget inte...
• Vad jag vill ha sagt är alltså att jag inte längre finner det mödan värt att idka närläsning av vad Claes Johnson skriver på sin blogg och annorstädes, och att jag därför ser mig nödsakad att avböja hans begäran om detaljerad kritik.

Nähä, Olle vill inte ge saklig kritik, bara ge "saklig konsumentupplysning". Det går ju inte ihop.

Antingen fattar Olle att vad jag säger är riktigt, vilket han inte vill erkänna, eller så fattar Olle inte alls något av vad jag säger vilket han inte heller vill erkänna. Resultatet är i vilket fall pannkaka.

Why Are Skeptics Attacking Skeptics?

My recent sequence of posts describe an attack by the leading skeptics Roy Spencer and Fred Singer on other skeptics under the name "deniers", an attack formulated under the following harsh headlines directed to the world:

• Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics Bad Name
• Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-step.

The attack is supported by Richard Lindzen under the code word "bizarre" and of course by WUWT describing my work in particular "as pointless and fatally flawed".

I belong to the group of "deniers" under attack and I have tried to initiate a debate with my fellow skeptics in order to understand the reasons for their apparent auto-immune reaction, with skeptics killing skeptics instead of the common enemy of CO2 alarmists, but I have only been met by silence and ridicule.

I again ask Spencer, Singer and Lindzen to come out to a fair debate on the web instead of sniper shooting from protected positions, a fair debate about the central question:

• What is the "greenhouse effect"?
• Can it be detected?

I await input!

Second Thoughts by Spencer

Maybe the recent debate after all has had some effect on Roy Spencer, who in Global Warming As Cargo Cult Science suddenly admits:

• We even see evidence from satellites that greenhouse gases reduce the Earth’s ability to cool to space.
• But to extend those observations to the conclusion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause substantial global warming is another matter entirely.

That's right Roy: Spectrum is one thing, heat transfer another. Congratulations! The Alabama two-step apparently was a misstep.

Compare with the following from WUWT:

• I have been badgered repeatedly to carry “Slayer” articles on WUWT, and with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed. In his latest essay, Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and slayettes, but has sliced and diced and made julienne fries in two easy steps. – Anthony.

I wonder what drives skeptics to be so unfriendly to other skeptics sharing the same ambition to counter CO2 alarmism?

If now Roy has opened up his mind, will then Anthony follow and reconsider his assault on slayers?

Why Do Skeptics Accept the Basic Dogma of Alarmism?

Leading skeptics including Lindzen, Singer, Spencer and Lord M, all adhere to the Basic Dogma of "radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2 from doubled CO2 which by Stefan-Boltzmann in the form dQ = 4 dT gives a global warming of 1 C.

Skeptics thus jump on the same band wagon as alarmists giving CO2 the alarming capacity of driving global climate. A doubled dose of a trace gas is thus attributed the amazing power of "forcing" global temperature to change by 1 C, and if 1 C why not 3 C?

Why are skeptics giving alarmists the advantage to set the agenda from the beginning with CO2 as the chosen evil to beat?

If we accept from the beginning a dogma that certain people are evil, what does it help then to argue that they are not so evil after all?

When I ask Lindzen, Singer and Spencer, why they are promoting alarmism in this way, by uncritically accepting the basic dogma of alarmism, I get silence or ridicule as response.

If leading skeptics used science to question the basic dogma of alarmism, then the debate would soon be over. Now it can continue for ever. Is this really the objective?

Greenhouse Effect from "Radiative Forcing"

The Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism is a no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1 C as global warming from doubling atmospheric CO2 according to Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law in the form

dQ = 4 dT with dQ = 4 W/m2 the estimated "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2.

The Basic Postulate is the pillar of IPCC alarmism and has also been accepted as a valid starting point by leading skeptics such as Lindzen, Singer, Spencer and Lord M. From this common no-feedback sensitivity of 1C the debate between alarmists and skeptics then concerns whether feedbacks are positive increasing 1 C to alarming 3 C by IPCC, or negative decreasing 1 C to 0.5 C

by Lindzen et al.

The result is a never-ending debate about feedbacks, positive or negative.

But there is another approach, which I advocate and makes me into a denier in the eyes of my fellow skeptics, namely to question the Basic Postulate with its "radiative forcing".

What is then wrong with the Basic Postulate? Two basic things:

1. It is based on a extremely simplistic model as the simple algebraic model dQ = 4 dT of a very complex climate system.
2. It assumes that the climate system is driven by radiation rather than thermodynamics of winds, vertical convection, gravitation, rotation and evaporation/condensation.

The Basic Postulate thus puts radiation in the drivers seat and uses a extremely simplistic model to let "radiative forcing" drive temperature as a starting point. The focus is then cleverly shifted to the question of how to stop a supertanker already in motion, which is not easy to answer.

The Basic Postulate has been invented by IPCC to drive CO2 alarmism, but if this is not your goal then there is no scientific reason to adopt the Basic Postulate.

If you you don't accept the Basic Postulate then you have to start from scratch without any preconceived idea of what drives the climate system. And then it is not even clear that a bit more CO2 will cause warming. The only thing which is clear is that there is no scientific evidence indicating that it can have any observable effect.

I have asked the leading skeptics including Lindzen et al, why they all cling to the Basic Postulate, which lacks scientific rationale, and thus give IPCC a free ticket to sell CO2 alarmism.

The only answers I get is silence or ridicule. Reasonable?

Note the clever use of the term "radiative forcing":

• Can you question that the Earth + atmosphere is subject to "radiative forcing" from the Sun? No, this would be unreasonable.
• Can you question that the transfer of heat energy from the Earth surface to the top of the atmosphere is driven by "radiative forcing"? Yes, this is reasonable to do.

Note that Lindzen's greenhouse effect from 1997 is driven by a terrible "radiative forcing" with an Earth surface temperature of + 80 C. Is this really reasonable Prof Lindzen? Isn't this a bizarre idea?

Who knows, Prof Lindzen does not descend to answer a simple question from a simple professor of simple applied mathematics in simple little country close to the Polar circle, where radiative heating is not the driver of society nor science except, possibly, during the short Midsummer.

Richard Lindzen's Greenhouse Effect 2

In the previous post we met a bizarre "greenhouse effect" presented by Richard Lindzen in 1997.

Maybe this presentation is now outdated, and so let us take a look at how Lindzen describes the "greenhouse effect" today in

• Reconsidering the Climate Change Act Global Warming: How to approach the science. (Climate Models and the Evidence?)
• Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms Westminster, London 22nd February 2012.

Slide 43 presents Lindzen's central argument:

• Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere must elevate the average emission level, and because of the first point, the new emission level is colder than the original emission level.
• This reduces the outgoing infrared radiative flux, which no longer balances the net incoming solar radiation.
• Note that this mechanism leads to the simple result that doubling CO2 gives rise to warming of about 1C.

Lindzen here refers to the Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism of a climate sensitivity of 1C resulting from an application of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation Law in the form dQ = 4 dT with

dQ = 4 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" from doubling of CO2.

We see that Lindzen no longer puts forward his idea from 1997 of a surface temperature of + 80 C with radiation alone, but instead uncritically adopts the Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism used by IPCC.

I have argued at length that the Basic Postulate should not be accepted as a starting point, because it is based on a way too simplistic model of the climate system as the simple algebraic

equation dQ = 4 dT setting dQ = 4 by a wild guess and obtaining a dT = 1 without scientific significance.

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer and Lord Monckton all seem to confess to the Basic Postulate and thus give IPCC a free ticket to sell CO2 alarmism.

When I try to discuss the nature of the "greenhouse effect" and the scientific relevance of the Basic Postulate, I meet silence or ridicule from leading skeptics. Reasonable?

I have asked Prof Lindzen for a comment or clarification without any response.

Lindzen's Bizarre Greenhouse Effect

Richard Lindzen describes the greenhouse effect as follows (1997):

• The most important consequence of the convective heat transport is that the surface is much cooler (15 C) than it would be in pure radiative equilibrium (80 C).
• The surface is still receiving about 240 W/m2 from the Sun and even larger amount of backradiation from the atmosphere, but it is losing most of the energy by convection, not by radiation.
• The actual operation of the greenhouse effect is much more complicated and subtle than is usually recognized. However, excellent treatments have existed in the literature for many years.

OK, so Lindzen claims that the surface temperature would be + 80 C if not convection took it down to a livable + 15 C. Radiation is by Lindzen presented as a frightening monster which is somehow tamed by benevolent convection.

Lindzen views the discussion of the greenhouse effect requested by Pierre Latour and myself as being bizarre.

To me it is Lindzen's greenhouse effect which is bizarre.