A new working paper here by Dr. Anthonie Bastiaan Ruighaver concludes that climate science has been corrupted by computer models and that it is time to get back to how science is supposed to function.
The working paper is titled: “The Power of Falsification, Developing a Greenhouse Gas Theory“. What follows are some excerpts that I’ve emphasized.
Unfortunately the advent of computer modelling has corrupted climate science into believing models are now the main source of knowledge, even though it’s not uncommon for models to have systemic deficiencies [Santer, et. al. 2017]. Theories always had a bad press [Rabinovich, et. Al. 2012], but many scientists seem to be confused about the difference between a model and a theory [Hug, H., 2000]. Both are descriptions of a phenomenon, but in a theory that description is formulated to enable derivation of simple testable hypotheses. If you call something a theory, but there are no hypotheses, you are doing science no favour. Neither should you call a simple statement, that can only be tested by developing a theory, a hypothesis: “CO2 causes Global Warming” is not a useful scientific hypothesis. The lack of falsification in climate science since the advent of computer modelling basically has turned Climate Science into what Sir Karl Popper called a pseudoscience [ Popper, K. 2014]. But even a pseudoscience can “happen to stumble on the truth” as Sir Karl Popper stated. Is this paper [Nikolov, et. al. 2017] denying that greenhouse gases have any influence on global temperature closer to the truth? The problem is we won’t know what is likely to be close to the truth when authors refuse to formulate it as a theory, with hypotheses other people can try to falsify.
It started by investigating the belief that CO2 caused global warming, just to find that all “evidence” for this belief found in scientific literature is based on simulation! Having worked in a simulation group early in his academic career [Brok, et. al. 1983], the author was involved in validating many models that turned out to have little in common with reality. What is the value of a belief based on models with systemic deficiencies attempting to estimate CO2 sensitivity, based on the assumption CO2 causes Global Warming? They don’t even take into account CO2’s role in greening our earth and the influence that greening has on our climate. The author’s falsification of beliefs culminated in an attempt to falsify the new belief that “CO2 does not cause Global Warming”, by attempting to formulate a simple theory based on suggestions that greenhouse gas radiative re-emissions are influenced by diffusion [Barrett, J., 1995].”
The conclusion reads:
In this paper we have examined the culture of Climate Science in relation to its Basis of Truth and Rationale. We have argued that the reluctance to falsify knowledge by developing theories instead of computer models has had a negative impact. To illustrate that trying to falsify a theory will enrich science, we have developed a simple theory on how CO2 influences heat transfer and the radiative balance both in the lower layer and the top layer of our atmosphere. The experiments needed to falsify the hypotheses suggested by this simple theory will provide new empirical evidence that without the formulation of this theory would likely not have been collected. Hence, the author argues that it is time to change the culture of Climate Science back to Sir Karl Popper’s vision of how science should function. Let’s start developing theories again and encourage the falsification of their hypotheses. Let’s try to provide a basis of truth and rationale by trying to falsify this new theory predicting more CO2 will cool our earth!”
Read entire working paper here.
In real science, once a hypothesis is formulated, scientists are required to devise methods to demonstrate that their hypothesis is false. In other words, the hypothesis must be falsifiable – a working null hypothesis. If the hypothesis survives exhaustive falsification attempts (a painstakingly slow process), then – and only then – that hypothesis might possibly be deemed worthy enough to be elevated to a theory.
In climate science, a hypothesis is formed (i.e., human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, warming the ocean, raising sea levels, intensifying hurricanes…), and then instead of seeking ways to falsify that hypothesis, adherents seek evidence that might support that hypothesis while they simultaneously suppress or marginalize evidence that might support the falsifying null hypothesis (i.e., the modern climate changes fall well within the range of what can or has been caused naturally). This confirmation-bias/evidence-suppression process is primarily accomplished with computer modeling, which, as Dr. Ruighaver notes, has undermined real science.
———————————————
“When we finally come to the ‘not due to known natural causes alone’ [the IPCC attribution statement] the same expert judgment drops to 90% confidence and below the level necessary to confirm the hypothesis, which, in any case, is also not based on real-world data that can be subject to statistical treatment and normal scientific derivation of confidence levels.”
“We have to conclude that there is no reliable scientific evidence to support the conclusions that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are even partly responsible for the recent warming. To do so, a null hypothesis ‘that there is nothing unusual or unnatural in the recent temperature rise of the last fifty years’ would have to be falsified at a greater than 95% level of confidence by real-world data. It has not been. Indeed, there is no evidence from the IPCC’s work that a null hypothesis was actually constructed in the first place. And this would explain the lack of effort at gathering data that would test such a model.”
“The actual path chosen has been via theoretical models based upon prior assumptions and which are not testable by traditional scientific methods. Moreover, as we have seen, the real-world data points to a greater role for natural causes than is attributed in the IPCC models.”
Peter Taylor (2009), Chill, pg. 207
“Climate Science” went off the rails many years ago when it became an ideological issue and was politicalized. Many were involved but in a timewise sense Maurice Strong, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Barack Obama are/were involved. Strong was influential in the United Nations approach to this, and influenced a gullible Al Gore. See this Ed Blick Rant 2008
As Vice President, Gore was able to install people in positions to see that this prevailed.
The funding agencies (NSF, Eneergy, Defense, and others) should have insisted on supporting thoes researchers working on the falsification part of the issue. Instead, the real scientists – skeptics by nature – were sidelined.
Actually, it started much earlier than that and was purely political.
Margaret Thatcher came to power just when North Sea Oil began to come onshore in quantity. The coal miners and their unions had been holding the country to ransome. She used the argument that coal was nasty to help her get support to run down the industry. She was by training a chemist and knew very well how CO2 was not a threat. I am sure she never realised what a movement she had unintentionally set in motion.
“Global Warming: How It All Began”
https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Wise persons (philosophers) know, what they know, know what they don’t know, can think, that all could be possible, but don’t belief anything. So they can see the facts, recognize the truth, because they are not blinded by beliefs.
Normal people don’t like to accept, that there are many things, which they don’t know and want an explanation, no matter, whether it’s true.
I worked out a plan to set the climate science right. A part of this plan is to reveal the nature and cause of AMO and its impacts.
A brutal winter winter like 1946/47 in Europe and the Great Blizzard 1946/47 in North America and an exceptional severe drought summer in Europe and the Great Fires 1947 in Maine, followed by the Drought of the fifties will change the mind. Due to AMO the Beaufort Gyre will spill out a great amount of fresh water within some years, which will cause such impacts.
More about it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwsrqxApFkzPLVBJNmVsaTRtZXZBZGI0c3VyUkNJZTdMdTdV/view?usp=sharing
I’ve posted this from Judith Curry’s blog before.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/16/determinism-and-predictability/
Not only are they wrong, and always will be (see article for why), but they are a phenomenal waste of resources, and a distraction from the real science.
So, yes, they are indeed yet another element in the perversion of science. Others are in the areas of nutrition, evolution, medicine, and probably most (though not all) of the social sciences. NOTE – that is not an exhaustive list, btw.
MODTRAN is software used to replicate the transmission of heat from the Earth’s surface to space:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
CERES is part of the the earth satellite monitoring system. One of its data sets produces the OLR. This coloured map represents global OLR:
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M
An interesting observation is that the OLR over some parts of the tropical ocean is less than 200W/m^2, similar to the heat release from the polar oceans.
It is an interesting exercise to find settings in MODTRAN that limit OLR heat flux to 200W/m^2 over a tropical ocean at 303K. Taking the water vapour scale up to 40 will achieve that. It forces 100% RH to 18km high in the atmosphere. Once the OLR is at 200W/m^2, changing the value of CO2 has little consequence. That alone indicates that CO2 forcing is less than typically estimated.
Using MODTRAN over the polar ice at 200K, it shows a dip at the CO2 band indicating reduced heat transmission. Actual measurements show a rise in the CO2 band indication that CO2 is actually increasing cooling over polar ice:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/221909392_fig15_Fig-16-Emission-spectra-of-the-Earth-taken-by-the-Nimbus-4-satellite-Spectrum-a-is
Trying to model the global climate system claiming future temperature prediction to a fraction of a degree is well beyond the current capability of computers and the people who program them.
Maybe it affects all kinds of science. The problem begins in the universities. People who have a deep understanding of the physical laws, who can develop new thoughts, will not get automatically good marks. Who develops a formula from physical laws in a test, will loose a lot of time. Who fills his head with the formulas and set in the values will get the good marks, even if he hasn’t a bright mind. Who can repeat best and fastest, what is in the books and what the professors said, will become the best student. So the universities produce repeaters, who think they are scientists and experts. But they are not.
Complaining about this and complaining about that will not change anything. But we can change it, if we grab the bull by the horns and not pull the tail.
Latest books and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
My website is
The Trans-mountain Pipeline will add 3/10,000 of 1% CO2 to the atmosphere.
Besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Dr Andrew Weaver vs Dr Tim Ball in Supreme Court now in Vancouver, BC
Garbage in, garbage out. It has always been thus.