CO2: Warming or Cooling or Nothing?

Fred Singer has new post on the fundamental postulate of climate alarmism as a global temperature increase of 3 C upon doubled atmospheric CO2 as predicted by climate models.

Fred starts from the poor  correspondence between climate models predicting warming and observations of no warming, and asks the question if in fact more CO2 may have a cooling rather than warming effect.

Fred then brings in the customary elements of an Atmospheric Lapse Rate ALR and an "Effective" Altitude EA for emitting Outgoing Long Wave Radiation (OLR) from CO2, and notes a warming effect if EA lies in the troposphere and a cooling effect if EA lies in the stratosphere, assuming ALR stays the same.

Altogether, Fred's discussion shows a that it is not written in stone that CO2 has a warming effect:

• Such is the power of group-think that even experts, with some exception, find the idea that CO2 might cool the climate difficult to accept.

Here the exception may include myself, even if I may not count as an expert, with message that the effect on global temperature of a bit more CO2 as an atmospheric trace gas, is not measurable. 

It thus may well be impossible to experimentally determine warming or cooling and the whole question of CO2 warming will only be of concern interior to climate models, which tell nothing about real climate.

This connects to a discussion I had with Fred in 2011 on the question:

• Can the "Greenhouse Effect" be Detected?

Why LukeWarmers Fight Deniers

The debate on global warming by CO2 emission is commonly divided into the following categories:

1. warmists
2. lukewarmers
3. "deniers".

As "denier" I have met a very hostile and aggressive attitude from many lukewarmers, and I have wondered how that can be. After the last onslaught by Fred Singer reported in the preceding post, I have come to think about this anew and the following explanation presented itself:

A denier is skeptic to CO2 global warming for a reason which is not shared by a lukewarmer. Notably this comes down to "back radiation" which a "denier" claims is unphysical nonsense, while a lukewarmer like Fred views "back radiation" as a real basic physical mechanism behind the "greenhouse effect", which keeps the Earth from freezing to ice.

On the other hand, most other skeptical views held by a lukewarmer are typically shared by a denier. In short, a denier has a richer skeptical arsenal than a lukewarmer, and this evidently makes the lukewarmer upset. It is as if this richer arsenal questions the very credibility of the lukewarmer as skeptic, and that is apparently unbearable. The result is that "deniers" have to be eliminated, not by warmists, but by lukewarmers. Such is life...

Fred Singer about Nay-Sayers (Like Me)

Fred Singer claims in a recent post at WUWT that Climate Nay-Sayers are giving Climate Scientists a Bad Name. I think that Fred puts me into this detestful category of deniers and the issue is again that (in)famous "back radiation" or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR. Fred writes:

• One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all — because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; 
• i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. 
• It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. 
• One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. 
• But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Fred is here deliberately misrepresenting me: I am not saying that there is no "greenhouse effect" from clouds and water vapor and a little from CO2. What I do say is that "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of magnitude 300 W/m2 is fake non-physics and I understand that a pyrgeometer reporting this quantity does that with a fake invented scale which could be anything.

To argue that a certain scientific statement gives climate scientists a "bad name" is a trick to shift the discussion from the scientific question of what a pyrgeometer in fact measures, to a question of value and "entartete kunst" or "bad science". This is neither clever nor very nice, or effective. Scientific arguments cannot be replaced by value arguments.  

Speaking about science, it is remarkable that Fred pays so little attention to the 2nd law stating that energy cannot by itself be transferred from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface, simply disregarding the 2nd law as a "simplistic argument". Remarkable indeed Fred. Or what do you say?

PS I have asked Fred to respond to my above reaction to his post. I would not be surprised if Fred to this request simply returns silence. This is how nay-sayers (like me) should better be handled and thereby be removed from science. Of course "enartete science" must be annihilated to preserve "good science"  giving "good scientists" the "good name"  they rightly deserve.

Fred and I debated "back radiation" when we met in 2011, and evidently that question is still nagging in Fred's mind...

The "Hockey Stick" of the OLR Spectrum

As CO2 global warming alarmism is now losing credibility after 15 years of stationary temperatures and emerging fear of a coming ice age, it becomes possible for the first time scrutinize the core scientific evidence of the warming effect of CO2, which has been accepted by leading skeptics including Lindzen, Spencer, Singer and WUWT, namely the ditch between wave number 600 and 800 in the outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectrum produced by the IRIS and AIRS infrared spectrometers carried by satellites:

It is difficult to question evidence of this form, which bears the sign of hard physics as precise numbers produced by elaborate expensive instrumentation, because it requires knowledge of both instrument and processing of directly measured data, which both can be hidden in difficult technicalities.

Therefore the ditch in the spectrum, interpreted as a warming effect or "radiative forcing" from atmospheric CO2, has served CO2 alarmism as an "undeniable scientific fact" which cannot be questioned, with a warming effect of about 1 C upon doubling of atmospheric CO2. To refer to the spectrum has come to signify a deeper insight carried by both alarmists and skeptics, hidden to ordinary people not used to read spectra.

To question this "undeniable scientific fact" makes you into a "denier" destined to dwell on one of the lowest levels of Dante's Purgatorium.

In any case I have done so in a sequence of posts on OLR and I have come to the conclusion that the ditch in the spectrum attributed to CO2 is a misrepresentation of reality, or fabrication of fake evidence, similar to that of the "hockey stick", which started the fall of global warming alarmism.

I hope that skeptics are now read to question the OLR spectrum as the key evidence of CO2 warming with the same ardor as in the case of the hockey stick. Physicists have a special responsibility because the OLR spectrum is physics and not climate science.

But to be honest, very few seem to be interested in discussing the OLR spectrum, as if it is given once and for all by some superhuman intellect and thus beyond human understanding and scrutiny. But it is fabricated by people like you and me, and since it is the very basis of CO2 alarmism maybe some day someone will picks the thread. Since the first "hockey stick" attracted so much attention, may this new "hockey stick", if it is a "hockey stick", will deserve some as well.

Anyway, here are the key questions:

• How was the OLR spectrum produced? 
• What was directly measured by the sensors, and what was computed in post processing?
• Does the spectrum describe reality with radiation "blocked" by CO2?

These are precise scientific questions which can be answered by using basic physics and mathematics, if only there is an interest in doing so. Alarmists are not interested but skeptics should be.

Maybe Fred Singer will then find reason to reconsider his message:

• I am opposed to those who criticize the global warming scare, basing it on what I consider to be incorrect physics. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas and should produce some increase in atmospheric temperatures but it is so small we cannot detect it.

Singer is convinced that "CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas", probably because he takes for granted that the OLR spectrum is correct science.  Singer is a physicist and should be able upon close inspection to tell if it is or not.  

If it is impossible to detect that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas", then it would be incorrect physics to declare that in any case "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". If ghosts cannot be detected, then it is not correct physics to nevertheless declare that "there certainly are ghosts" but they are "so small we cannot detect them". Right Fred?

PS1 WUWT reports:

• Following last night’s State of the Union Address in which the president pledged to implement a job-killing climate change agenda, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) today introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from contributing taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 
• “The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States,” Luetkemeyer said. “Unfortunately, the president appears to be ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out of control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape, and promote economic growth.”

Apparently, Luetkemeyer has read the OLR spectrum and understood that the science is dubious...

PS2 Fred does not seem to be willing to answer my question about the reality of the OLR spectrum, but I think the question asks for an answer.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Fred Singer Believes in Backradiation

Fred Singer states in the American Thinker under the title Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

• Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Transfer of heat energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface is the same as backradiation, and since I am a firm denier of backradiation, there is a high risk that Fred is aiming his attack on some-one like me, probably directly addressing my simple person.

OK, so I am giving skeptics a bad name? What have I done to deserve this evaluation?

Well, I have given a new proof of Planck's radiation law, which is closer to physics than Planck's original derivation, because it does not rely on statistics, understanding that statistics is not physics but just statistics.

My proof shows that backradiation is physically impossible because it is unstable and cannot be realized by spontaneous physics, as an expression of the 2nd law.

I don't think Fred has read my proof, maybe not even Planck's original one. I ask him to do so, and then compare the merits of the proofs, and after that possibly change his statement that I am giving him a bad name. How about that Fred?

And Fred, isn't it important also for skeptics to obey the 2nd Law? Isn't the 2nd Law more than a simplistic argument which one can discard without much thought?

I expand the argument in

• Two Proofs of Planck's Law vs Backradiation
• From Spectrum to Heat Transfer.

Man-Made Global Warming

Fred Singer comments on the IEA Blog:

• The Climategate disclosures over the past few days, consisting of some thousands of emails between a small group of British and US climate scientists, suggest that global warming may be man-made after all – created by a small group of zealous scientists! 
• It would seem they have used flawed data, phoney statistics, and various “tricks”. They appear to have covered up contrary evidence and refused to open their work to the scrutiny of independent scholars. 
• It has also been suggested that by keeping out “intruders”, by reviewing their own papers, by capturing scientific journals and intimidating editors, they have tried to suppress dissent. 
• I consider the whole matter a great tragedy not only for science but also for the institutions involved and for many of the scientists involved who have in fact spent many years and whole careers on their work. Inevitably, the public’s view of science will be affected and this will hurt all of science. 

Watch the debate between Singer and Bob Watson, on BBC not Swedish Television. Or watch the interview with Dan Weiss of Center for American Progress.

Swedish media like DN and SvD only show pictures of maltreated pigs, but Norway is more alert: Glovarmt om oppvarmning...Searching on climate gate on DN and SvD gives no hit. Reinfeldt should not get distracted...Google only gives 18.800 hits, while there are more than 2 million pigs in Sweden...Compare with what Lennart Bengtsson has to say about Swedish media.

Read the shocking story by Roger Pielke Sr on E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Bias and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends.

And CEJournal on Monbiot: environmentalists in denial over CRU emails by Tom Yulsman making the important point:

• The email raises a legitimate question about the integrity of the peer review process, and also about scientific transparency. It would be one thing if we were dealing with the science of cosmic strings, which probably has no relevance to anyone other than geeks like me who get off on understanding the origin, evolution and structure of the universe. It’s a completely different thing when we are dealing with science that supports the case for transforming the economy of the entire world. People won’t be willing to go along if they have the impression that something’s fishy with the science, or that scientists aren’t being completely transparent.

Follow how man-made warming was created by New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). Amazing data!