Har AGW overtatt for UFO som folkets pseudovitenskap?

bronsealder slange mann

Er det en UFO fra bronsealderen vi ser over slangen/bølgen og som mannen er så redd for?(Helleristning fra Bohuslän i Sverige)

Guardian skriver 21.september 2018 “What is behind the decline in UFO sightings?” Siden 2014 har det vært en klar nedgang i antall observasjoner av UFOer. Litt løslig går dette i artikkelen under kategorien pseudo-vitenskap og kan vi dermed si at folkets generelle interesse for pseudovitenskap som kiropraktikk, astrologi osv er på veg nedover undres forfatteren Philip Jaekl. UFOer som er knyttet til påståtte bortføringer og kommende rominvasjoner har spilt en rolle som skremsel i folkefantasien. I dag vil jeg hevde at det er en enda mer usynlig, luktfri og snikende fiende nemlig CO2 som har overtatt i folkefantasien som trusselen som skal ta oss alle over i en grusommere tilværelse. Det er nemlig nesten umulig å bruke et mobilkamera for å oppdage CO2. Det er mye enklere å se den store “klimagassen” vanndamp, men den er vi så vant til at den kan umulig være så farlig. Den regulerer jo allerede været og dermed klima på jorda sammen med sola.

Men hva er en pseudovitenskap?

Mange definisjoner her

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudoscience:

noun 

any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

Fra Wikipedia:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]

What Is Pseudoscience? 

 (scientific american)

Hvordan gjøre vitenskaplig eller pseudovitenskaplig arbeid

En forsker på tomatdyrking vil vite om tomatplanter vokser bedre eller dårligere i kompost i forhold til vanlig dyrkningsjord som kan kjøpes i butikk. Forskeren setter opp et eksperiment der han setter 50 tomatplanter i vanlig jord og 50 planter i kompostjord. Etter 3 mnd skal veksten måles.

Siden forskeren ønsker å finne ny kunnskap om dyrking av tomatplaneter så setter forskeren opp to hypoteser. Den første er at det ikke er noen forskjell og den andre at den vokser fortere i kompost enn i vanlig jord. Hva enn resultatet av eksperimentet blir så kan det sies at ny kunnskap er vunnet. Hvis de vokser omtrent i samme vekstrate eller i raskere eller langsommere så vil forskeren ha lært noe. Forskeren er nøye med å bruke distinkt forskjellige hypoteser og vet at bare en hypotese av gangen kan testes. Man kan umulig teste begge. Det alminnelig forventede resultat som er samme vekst kalles null-hypotese og forsøket på ny viten kalles den alternative hypotesen. Det er null-hypotesen som må utelukkes men forskeren er enig med seg selv om 95% signifikans som vil si at minst 48 av plantene på kompost må vokse raskere enn de 50 i vanlig jord gjennomsnittlig gjør for at null-hypotesen kan sies å være falsifisert. Altså må nesten alle tomatplantene vokse raskere i kompost for at null-hypotesen kan falsifiseres. Hvis f.eks. bare 30 er raskere enn gjennomsnitt for vekst i vanlig jord så er ikke null-hypotesen falsifisert. Det er slik naturvitenskap skal drives. Det må være høy signifikans for null-hypotesen for at den skal forkastes. Er det 99% signifikans som er kravet så må faktisk alle plantene vise større vekstrate i kompost enn i vanlig jord for å falsifisere det mest forventede resultat.

Pseudovitenskap etter Karl Poppers definisjon kan åpenbare seg når det gjennomføres eksperiment eller gjøres observasjoner der hypoteser ikke kan falsifiseres. Hvis vår forsker på tomatplanter hadde satt opp en alternativ hypotese som sa at veksten i kompost er forskjellig fra vekst i vanlig jord. Uten at det blir presisert mer eller mindre vekst så vil eksperimentet være ugyldig siden null-hypotesen dermed ville være umulig å falsifisere og eksperimentet ville typisk være av preudo-vitenskaplig type.

For tiden åpenbarer klimavitenskapen slik det er hevdet at 97% av forskerne er enige om at mennesket med sine utslipp av treatomige gasser spesielt og andre endringer på jordoverflaten generelt. Det er to hypoteser som brukes her om hverandre. Klimavitenskapen i dag kan sies å være basert på å vise hva som skjer når CO2 og noen andre tre- eller fleratomige gasser (klimagasser) slippes ut og blir mer eller mindre langvarige i atmosfæren. Den ene hypotesen er at det finner sted en generell oppvarming som følge av utslippene den andre er at det foregår klimaendringer som mindre havis og sterkere stormer også videre som ikke har vært å se før. Sammenliknet med tomatforskeren tilsvarer den første om økt temperatur på jorda som følge av eksperimentet med utslipp av klimagass er en alternativ hypotese mens null- hypotesen er at klimaet “endrer seg”.  Ønskemålet er jo å få “ny kunnskap” så da må eksperimentet eller observasjonssettet tilpasses dette. Som vi har sett er kravet til naturvitenskap at en  null-hypotese må kunne falsifiseres og null-hypotesen om “klimaendringer” kan ikke falsifiseres ettersom ethvert resultat vil kunne brukes for å vise høy signifikans for null-hypotesen og dermed sies at den ikke er falsifisert. Mer nedbør og mindre nedbør, mer is og mindre is, flere stormer og færre stormer blir brukt i denne signifikansen. Den alternative hypotesen om at temperaturen øker som følge av CO2 utslipp har dermed heller ingen mulighet til falsifisering. Man kan bare teste en hypotese av gangen.

Blir det virkelig mindre og mindre sjøis i Arktis eller den sterke Goreeffekten?

bronsealder slange mann
september areal 1979-2012

McKibben mente da han mottok Sofieprisen at 80% av sommerisen var “tapt”. 40% er nok et mer korrekt estimat og siden har ikke sommerisareal vært mindre enn i 2012 i Arktis

Vi blir til stadighet fortalt at havisen i Arktis forsvinner mer og mer. Den kjente klimaaktivisten Bill McKibben skrev da han mottok Sofieprisen at i 2013 var 80% av sommerisen tapt.( http://www.sofieprisen.no/Articles/757.html)

Det riktige tallet på den tiden var vel nærmere 40%. som vist på figuren Men jeg tror ikke han må levere tilbake millionene han fikk i prisen fra Gaarder. Tapet pr år var i gjennomsnitt omtrent 100000 kv km gjennom 35 år som gir 3,5 mill kv km av ca 9 mill kv km i 1979 som kan ha vært nær et toppår for arktisk havisareal. Denne omtrentligheten ser ut til å være regelen snarere enn unntaket for klimaaktivister og deres faglige rådgivere. Som vi ser nedenfor ble 2012 et bunnår for sommerisen og den har økt med ca 1 mill kv km eller ca 10 % i forhold til 1979 og 30% i forhold til 2012. Al Gore hevdet at det ville være 0 mill kv km i 2013 i sin Nobeltale i 2007 så vi kan kan vel kalle dette den sterkeste Goreffekten siden det ofte blir kaldt der den tidligere amerikanske visepresidenten skal holde tale om globale klimaendringer eller global oppvarming som det ofte ble kalt før.

Forskere skremmes av sjokkfunn i Arktis: – Vi har aldri sett noe som dette før.

https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/forskere-skremmes-av-sjokkfunn-i-arktis—vi-har-aldri-sett-noe-som-dette-for/70129973

Sitat fra denne artikkelen:

«Det er allerede godt kjent at sjøisen i Arktis smelter. Og det i et tempo som stadig overrasker forskere verden over. Det blir mindre og mindre sjøis i Arktis, og det er en trend som bare fortsetter og fortsetter, sier klimaforsker Bjørn Hallvard Samset ved Cicero til Dagbladet.»

Historisk har det vært mange isfrie arktiske somre selv om det er en stund siden og ennå er ikke dette påvist i moderne tid selv om det ble spådd av Al Gore i hans Nobeltale i 2006 skulle inntreffe i 2013. Det var året sommerisen faktisk ser ut til å ha begynt en årlig økning.

http://www.ngu.no/nyheter/mindre-i-polhavet-6-7000-år-siden-0

Tallene viser ikke et slikt bilde entydig. Sommerisen har ikke nådd lavere enn i 2012 og i juli i år var det 1 mill kvkm mer havis enn i juli 2012. Rundt 2006 snudde tendensen til vårsmelting til stadig mindre. Isvolumet i Arktis sommeren 2018 er også i overkant av gjennomsnittet de siste tiår.

smelting 79-17

Differansen mellom isareal i juni og desember viser utflating av smelting som mer sannsynlig enn lineær økning

isareal juni 2000-2018

Differansen mellom isareal i juni og desember viser utflating av smelting som mer sannsynlig enn lineær økning

isareal des 00-18

Differansen mellom isareal i juni og desember viser utflating av smelting som mer sannsynlig enn lineær økning

 

Forsiktig kan vi si at arktisk isareal avtok mest i perioden 1979 til 2006, men at perioden 2006 til 2018 er preget av mindre smelting og for sommerisen økning fra 2012 til 2018 til et nivå som er sammenliknbart med 2006. dr. Samsets melding grenser til «fake news» etter min oppfatning. Jeg forstår at CICERO ikke vil dele plattform med noen som stiller spørsmål ved grunnleggende målinger av de klimafaktorer de selv framhever.CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180916

Alle data fra det danske meteorologisk institutt
Månedlig middel for arktisk isareal 1979-

Arktisk isvolum

 

Reproducibility, not “differing belief systems” in science

A tweet from an Australian who is entering the scientific community as a paleoclimatologist goes like this:

«The anomalous weather station or reef that survived bleaching is not the point. It’s a strawman argument caused by a fundamental difference of beliefs and values around the climate. We don’t need myth busting – we need to recognise and address differing belief systems»(my boldface)

The scientist in question is Claire Krause calling herself @Clair_science on Twitter and the event is a convention on a joint australian-american meteorology and oceanography AMOS 2018 in Sydney, Australia in February, 2018.

Gavin Schmidt who is heading the key  climate institution the Goddard Space science institute where she also is employed «liked» her tweet without a comment. We cannot be sure that dr.Schmidt totally agreed with her but he had no comments on it.

My point of view is that science is based on testing ideas against measurements. Anomalous measurements cannot be decided for by some “belief system”. Reprocibility or attempts of “myth busting” is a lot more scientific and not addressing differing belief systems!

Reproducibility in science

Measurements can take a lot of different forms but they all essentially lead to some number or numbers that evaluate the idea by making it more or less probable. Ideally with a contrary idea that is made less possible or negligibly possible by a certain standard most scientists agree to in the particular field of research. After that, some other more or less competent scientist must try to replicate the procedure as complete as possible and see if the found probablilties for evalutation of the idea is reproducible. Ideally the idea itself does not need to be evalutated, only the test of the idea. If the results are found to be falsified or not some other researcher should test the idea with another experiment or procedure of some sort and evaluate the probablity of being it falsified or not with a new and different «null-hypothesis» but keeping the original idea intact. Again this work should be reproduced by another group of scientists as similar as possible and give the same results without evaluating the idea itself. This should go on and on and after some time, preferably years or perhaps a whole scientists’ career before being entered into textbooks and considered liable for further work.

The PhD in reproducing past climates Claire Krause seems not to be concerned with reproducing scientific results only by the beliefs behind climate or climate science. To my mind she tries to make critisism look like «myth busting» appearantly thinking of the Discovery show where myths from film and media is being tested. The kind of testing they did in that show mimics reproducing ideas or theories which should normally be the main thing in the process of peer reviewing science. «Myth busting» should be instrumental in science and this person with a PhD fresh in the scientific community seems to have no regard for this.

But she is not alone. Reproducibility in science is an issue both in natural as well as social sciences. Scientists seems to avoid it for convenience or for not insulting their colleags. Such is the case with an Australian fellow scientist of Claire Krause dr.Peter Ridd. It is possible that Krause was thinking of dr.Ridd when she made the remark on weather stations and living coral reefs but he is in bitter conflict with his institution, James Cook university. Not sacked, but accused for being uncollaegial. In the beginning of the process last year he was not even allowed to tell his wife about the case.

In an article on Fox News dr. Ridd does not deny that the coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef could be in crisis, he only states that the research is failing so one cannot judge properly on the matter. This has obviously insulted or incriminated his fellow scientist and made his university take a stand that he is opposing. He does this after 30 years of research on the matter and many publication on it. The official position of his institution on the state of the Great Barrier Reef(GBR) is that it is in grave danger primarily because of human industrial activity. They are probably taking the belief system mentioned in Krause’s tweet seriously but to dr Ridds opinion not the reproducibility of the results on the state of the GBR. His belief system which he has come to by his research is that like wildfires are a necessary condition for life in the Australian outbacks so is the more or less wrecking of the coral reefs a natural part of a natural cycle.

The comfortable climate?

In another tweet Krause which might give us an idea of her daily thoughts on climate science states that we should return to a «comfortable» climate.

«If we take carbon out of the atmosphere, does the climate bounce back? Andrew Lenton says no! The climate system is complex, and doesn’t move in a straight line. We may not be able to get back to the the climate we we’re comfortable with.(my boldface)»

(https://mobile.twitter.com/Claire_Science/status/960397144191508480)

I wonder what scientific value the concept of «comfortable» climate has. I suppose it is compared to the hypothetical future catastrophic climate condition they postulate for the next 100 years. I think that the same «belief system» is necessary to understand what a comfortable climate is.

Her answer to me about what comfortable climate was

«By comfortable climate I simply meant familiar climate; climate we know how to operate in.»
https://mobile.twitter.com/Claire_Science/status/961042847108538369

This is where belief systems and not science lead you to.

Climate science communication: Newton and Bacon versus Lewandowsky and Nuccitelli

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,we must also be alert to the… danger that public  policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 1961

Science AD 2013 

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.

Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950.

Some of these changes have been linked to human influences,

including a decrease in cold temperature extremes,

an increase in warm temperature extremes,

an increase in extreme high sea levels and

an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.”

From IPCCs Synthesis Report

Religion AD 100

17And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.

21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

Revelation 16, 17-21

From the IPCC 2013

  • Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”

  • “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

  • Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

  • In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

  • In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

  • In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950” 

  • In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community

Global Environmental Change

Volume 33, July 2015, Pages 1–13

Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskesc, James S. Risbeyd, Ben R. Newelle, Michael Smithsonf

An analogue might be for climate scientists to consider the fact that they use the same scientific method as any other scientist—and that scientists are by and large the most trusted segment of society.”

Any appearance of expert disagreement in public debate is therefore likely to undermine people’s perception of the underlying science, even if an issue is considered consensual

within the scientific community.”

Given that science operates in a societal context, there are strong a priori grounds to assume that

relentless denial may find some degree of reflection in the scientific community. We refer to this potential phenomenon as‘‘seepage’’—defined as the infiltration and influence of what are essentially non-scientific claims into scientific work and discourse. Our second aim is to present specific instances of such seepage on scientific thinking. We focus on one suggestive case and argue that it has been to the public’s detriment because of the reinforcement and amplification of the prevailing tendency of scientists towards reticence and erring on the side of least drama.”

Sir Isaac Newton relating to “seepage on scientific thinking” and “scientific method” and “expert disagreement”

4th rule of reasoning from Principia Mathematica

In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.»

«This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction may not be nullified [tollatur] by hypotheses»

For if arguments from hypotheses would be admitted against inductions, inductive arguments, on which the whole of experimental philosophy is based, could always be overturned by contrary hypotheses. If a certain proposition collected by induction should be not sufficiently accurate, it ought be corrected, not by hypotheses but by phenomena of nature that are to be more widely and accurately observed.”

Fake news tries to blame human-caused global warming on El Niño

Dana Nuccitelli, Guardian, Monday 5 December 2016

Real science journalists have also taken the biased conservative pieces to task(ref Lewandowski et al 2015 above) (I define real science journalists as those whose primary goal is to accurately inform readers about science, as opposed to fake science journalists whose primary goal is to distort science in order to advance an agenda). For example, see the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Carbon Brief, and climate science bloggers”

Sadly, we live in a post-truth world dominated by fake news in which people increasingly seek information that confirms their ideological beliefs, rather than information that’s factually accurate from reliable sources. Because people have become incredibly polarized on the subject of climate change, those with a conservative worldview who prefer maintaining the status quo to the steps we need to take to prevent a climate catastrophe often seek out climate science-denying stories.”

Francis Bacon disagrees with Dana Nuccitelli. Everybody is subject to predetermination.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things

else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight

of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises,

or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and

pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain

inviolate.” Bacon, Francis (1620), The New Organon and Related Writings.