Bishop Hill Potsdam and the scientific method
Apr 13, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: sensitivity The Potsdam Institute has something of a reputation for being a research unit of loose morals. The letter written by one of their star scientists in the Economist suggests that their grasp of the scientific method is even looser.
Prof Anders Levermann's missive responds to the Economist's article on climate sensitivity and is pretty jaw-dropping:
SIR – The reduced warming of the past decade is brief and can be understood in terms of natural fluctuations from the El Niño phenomenon, the effects of volcanoes, the solar cycle and the uptake of heat from the oceans, which continues, in contrast to your statement. There are and will always be fluctuations in global temperature, but the underlying trend is robust, man-made and consistent with a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.
The IPCC’s range on sensitivity is supported by, but not merely based on, models. It is deeply rooted in physics. Quantum physics and thermodynamics, the same physical laws that underlie the functioning of our computers and power plants, yield a baseline climate sensitivity of about 3°C. This is based on the facts that carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane absorb infra-red; a warmer atmosphere holds more water; and ice and snow melt under warming. Any deviation from this baseline needs a reason. As long as we do not find modern physics to be fundamentally wrong, we will have to plan for a climate sensitivity of 3°C.
So, the empirical evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low. A hypothesis based on "quantum physics and thermodynamics" suggests it's higher. And Professor Levermann thinks we should accept the hypothesis until the deviation from reality is explained.
Scientific method fail.
Reader Comments (66)
Isn't invoking Quantum Physics indicative of "woo"?
The Economist article on climate sensitivity that Anders Levermann was commenting on (considering the Economist's previously slavishly warmist stance) was remarkably balanced.
It has so far attracted some1795 comments on the Economist blog.
Few of the more highly rated comments were in any way in agreement with Levermann's letter. I would guess that the warmist faction in the Economist were taken aback by this and that the Levermann's letter was published to at least partially re-assert the previous warmist stance.
We should I think take it as quite encouraging that The Economist is no longer a 100% warmist bastion and that Levermann's fairly pathetic response is the best they could come up with.
Levermann's science is fakakta. Worse than that it is plain wrong.
Knr:
'Quantum physics and thermodynamics used in this way , has as much value as chicken entrails to predict what is going to happen.'
Entrails removed from a chicken generally predict that a chicken is about to get cooked.
Levelgaze:
As a liquid ocean covers Europa and Enceladus spots geysers, do try integrating the energy of tidal deformation , and see what you get for objects subject to giant planet's gravity -
@alecM: While I have no more than a theory that a small but important part has been overlooked in climatological calcs on energy flux, you have numbers. Why don't you publish and save us all the head scratching?
Russell: "Entrails removed from a chicken generally predict that a chicken is about to get cooked."
An heroic assumption. An ASDA chicken with its entrails removed is as likely to be about to get frozen. A CAGW goose on the other hand.......
Let's not get too exercised.
Anders Levermann, english as a second-language climata-psyientist , has clearly confused probity with probability.
It's those english, first-language climatopaths, whom I feel sorry for!
@ssat: I have been developing some new physics. The interpretation of OLR CO2 is wrong. It's to do with the transition from LTE to vacuum conditions. What it means is that the last redoubt of the Climate Alchemists is being attacked but I am presently modelling it mathematically to ensure it is convincing.
"To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous" Chinese Proverb
Mike:
Thank you for reminding us of the heroic role of chicken inspectors in climate denial.
Yes Mike, your elders and betters have, at great expense, constructed a series of models to determine the fate of chickens with removed entrails.
The models show quite clearly that cooking is the only possible immediate outcome. Any real world experience to the contrary is purely anecdotal.
Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics show the exact opposite to the professor's claims. CO2 cannot, does not drive temperature.
I am getting bored. The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended in order to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole, if not all, of science into disrepute. Even the UK Royal Society & Institution appear to have become Lysenkoist. viz. http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/snippets-questions-2-climate-models.html
I remember also Buckminster Fuller writing in 1981 [CRITICAL PATH, Hutchinson]:
“For only a short time, in most countries, has the individual human had the right of trial by jury. To make humanity’s chances for a fair trial better, all those testifying must swear ‘to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.’….. If we don’t program the computer truthfully with all the truth and nothing but the truth, we won’t get the answers that allow us to ‘make it’ “. In that respect the jury is still out.
I seem to recall from some long-distant undergraduate chemistry that molecules absorb and emit electromagnetic energy in accordance with the Schrodinger equation, a quantum mechanical description of the process.
I am reminded of my Freshman year at Stanford, when I satisfied the requirement for being a Renaissance Man by taking Science for Dummies. I got a B in Physics rather than an A because my Professor judged that the correct answer to the following problem....
What causes air pollution?
a. Knitting
b. Smoking
c. Sex
d. All forms of combustion
e. More than one of the above
.....was d. I knew that d. was the stock answer but answered e. given that it was obvious that b. was included in d. I protested my grade but the Professor seemed to have no understanding of simple Freshman logic. Later in life I learned that both a. and c. were also included in d., but this was far too late to get the grade changed retroactively.....
It's amazing what harm a culture of "Ja, Herr Professor Doktor!" (click heels) can do for open discussion about science.