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.
via NoTricksZone
October 29, 2017 at 09:43AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 