Judy Curry and "BackRadiation"

In the comment Febr 1 12:28 to the thread on Slaying the Sky Dragon on Judy Curry's blog, Judy asks me:

• Do you dispute that if you put an infrared radiometer on the surface of the earth and point it upwards, that it will measure an IR radiance or irradiance (depending on how the instrument is configured)? Go to http://www.arm.gov for decades worth of such measurements. And that this infrared radiation comes from IR emission by gases such as CO2 and H2O and also clouds? If you say yes, well this is what people are calling back radiation (a term that I don’t use myself). If you say no, then I will call you a crank – all your manipulations of Maxwell’s equation will not make this downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere go away.

I address this question in Section 7.4 of my Sky Dragon article Computational Blackbody Radiation, and Judy's question indicates that she has not read my article. I explain there that an IR camera (infrared radiometer) directed to the sky measures the frequency of incoming light and computes by Wien's displacement law the temperature T of the emitter, and then by Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4 associates a "downwelling IR-flux from the atmosphere" of size Q.

The IR camera thus measures frequency/temperature which by SB is translated to "downwelling IR-flux" or "backradiation". So everything hinges on this translation. Is it

correct?

Is it correct to use SB in the form Q = sigma T^4? No, because this law gives the radiated

energy from a blackbody into an environment of 0 K. But the Earth surface is not at 0 K,

but even warmer than the atmospheric emitter. The translation Q = sigma T^4 is thus incorrect in the sense that it indicates a fictitious "downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere" obtained by an erronous translation.

Judy calls me a "crank" because I say "no to downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere".

Let me then remind Judy that just saying "crank" does not mean that I am a crank in reality, and just saying "downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere" does not mean that in reality there is anything like that. Right Judy?

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

Invitation to IVTN Moscow

I have been invited to IVTN Computer Applications in Scientific Research in Moscow describing its mission as follows:

• In recent years the economical situation in Russian science has changed greatly. The destructive period of early 90-s is over and a great number of branches of science has revived.
• The main aim of the IVTN.ru project is to take an active part in supporting Russian science and apply new forms of the support.
• The main objectives of the IVTN.ru include providing opportunities for exchange of research experience, arranging discussions on actual problems, eliminating geographic and bureaucratic boarders, supporting the search for foreign scientific contractors.

Maybe an opportunity to sell BodyandSoul, FEniCS and Unicorn, in April in Moscow.

Why Nothing Rather Than Something?

Leibniz as a classic enlightened asked:

• Why is there Something rather than Nothing?

Baudrillard as a postmodernist turned the question around into

• Why is there Nothing rather than Something?

Let me illustrate with an example from my own experience with the department of Numerical Analysis NADA at KTH:

• NADA in Portuguese means Nothing. So NADA = Nothing.

The story is told in Simulation Technology, BodyandSoul and NADA, and in short tells that rather than using anything connected to the educational program BodyandSoul, the leadership of NADA in the name of Björn Engquist chooses extinction: The new Bachelor program in Simulation Technology ST which is to start in the Fall at NADA according the decision of KTH, which would have saved NADA from disintegration into Nothingness, will not be allowed to start. KTH says Yes!, but NADA says No! The Soul say Yes! but (a part of) the Body says No!

Why? Because ST is connected to BodyandSoul = Something.

So we see that NADA prefers Nothing before Something. This is of course fully logical because we live in a postmodern time where values of enlightenement are no longer important.

Some quotes by Baudrillard:

• The great person is ahead of their time, the smart make something out of it, and the blockhead, sets themselves against it.
• If everything is perfect, language is useless. This is true for animals. If animals don't speak, it's because everything's perfect for them. If one day they start to speak, it will be because the world has lost a certain sort of perfection.
• Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.
• Fiction is not imagination. It is what anticipates imagination by giving it the form of reality. This is quite opposite to our own natural tendency which is to anticipate reality by imagining it, or to flee from it by idealizing it. That is why we shall never inhabit true fiction; we are condemned to the imaginary and nostalgia for the future.

PS January 31: I had a one-minute talk with the appointed leader of NADA Anna-Karin Thornberg, in the absence of NADA's spiritual leader Björn Engquist (former advisor of AK), during which Anna-Karin frankly informed me that nothing by my hand and mind could ever be used at NADA, as long as Björn Engquist was in charge. A clear message that Nothing is preferred before Something, if that Something is connected to my name. Academics at its best.

DN Klimatalarmismens Apostel och Härold

DNs Huvudledare 8 januari 2011 betitlad Alarmismens Apostlar visar att DNs programmatiska

ensidiga klimatalarmistiska rapportering är djupt förankrad hos DNs ledning, som gör följande anmärkningsvärda analys:

• De läkare och forskare som tidigare gick tobaksindustrins ärenden är i dag svårt komprometterade. Detsamma kan sägas om de så kallade klimatförnekarna eller anhängarna av kallfusion, möjligheten att framställa kärnenergi vid låga temperaturer.

Som en av landets "klimatförnekare" fick jag enligt samma analys en av mig författade bok om matematik och beräkning kastad på bokbålet i December 2010 genom DNartikeln Växthuseffekten en Myt-Enligt Kursbok på KTH, eftersom boken öppnar till matematisk analys av de grundekvationer från termodynamik och strålningsfysik som utnyttjas inom klimatsimulering.

Stockholmsinitiativet har protesterat mot Huvudledaren i brev från bl a Gösta Walin och Lars Bern och begärt ursäkt av Peter Wolodarski. Även jag protesterar. Så småningom kommer Wolodarski att få svara och be om ursäkt, även om ursäkt hos politiskt korrekta rättfärdiga publicister kan sitta långt inne eftersom de inte kan begripa hur enögda de är.

Uppenbarligen agerade KTH och DN i tandem vad gäller att förbjuda min bok. Frågan är vem som styrde vem? Är DN styrd av omgivningen i direkt motsats till sitt uppdrag, eller ännu värre, bestämmer DN vad som får läras ut vid landets universitet? Wolodarski vet.

PS I ett ögonblick av självrannsakan skriver Wolodarksi i sin ledare:

• ...yttrandefrihet också innebär ansvar. Det gäller i synnerhet för professionella journalister, som just är satta att bevaka allmänhetens intressen.

Man frågar sig vem som har satt Wolodarski att ensidigt predika klimatalarmism? Är det ägaren av DN dvs Bonnier? Eller "allmänheten"? Och vem har satt Karin Bojs att utföra uppdraget? KTH? Läs KTH-gate: The Story.

Naturligtvis har jag sagt upp min prenumeration på DN, som så många andra som fått nog.

Censorship and Deletion of BodyandSoul

To

The School of Engineering Sciences (SCI) KTH

The School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC) KTH

Concerning Censorship and Deletion of BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (MST)

I have made my unpublished ebook MST available for use in the 2nd quarter course Numerical Methods II, for the purpose of testing the material for possible use in the new Bachelor

program in Simulation Technology.

This letter is to state that as the test period now ends with the course, end of January for most of the students and mid March for some, any downloaded pdf-file of MST should be deleted so that no further use of the material is possible without my consent (including excerpts made). MST should thus be viewed as non-existing when the courses are finished.

The deletion is motivated by a planned commercialization of MST, and is also in full accordance with the censorship of MST by SCI during the course.

I thus ask SCI and CSC to inform teachers and students about these conditions, in particular on the course home page, and I want to get a confirmation that my message has been received and understood.

Upon new request MST can be made available in a new agreement with me concerning conditions.

Sincerely

Claes Johnson

Universities Don't Teach Critical Thinking

Donald Clark reports on a CLA Longitudinal Study showing that universities do not fulfill their prime mission of teaching students critical thinking as the most important aspect of university education. Donald Clark explains why in Don't Lecture Me.

This is amply illustrated by the fact that my ebook BodyandSoul: Mathematical Simulation Technology (to be published and available for inspection upon request) asking students explicitly to think themselves, be critical and always ask Why? Whatfor? and not accept anything by mere authority, has been subject to censorship by my own university KTH.

Why? Whatfor? Because BodyandSoul encourages critical thinking!

Not only does KTH not teach critical thinking, but even more deplorably, aggressively oppresses any ambition to do so. What would Wilhelm von Humboldt say about this? Compare with Humboldt State University:

• Students at Humboldt augment their classroom experiences by participating in varied experiences, which in turn strengthens their entrepreneurial and critical thinking skills.