I´m proud to announce that my main work is now available on Kindle. Kindle has nice features for reading, navigation, bookmarking, highlighting, etc. It looks great. Advertisements
I have been missing a neat summary of Karl Popper´s scientific method. I have also been thinking, that a neat set of theorems representing his method would be useful. Both as a guide for development and scrutiny of ideas, but also to be able to reveal weaknesses in any idea claimed to represent the truth. This is my summary of Popper´s method into a neat set of theorems.
“A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences”
I was a bit puzzled, once I had discovered that:
IPCC was misled by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) on “Qualitative expression of confidence”!
Both IPCC and it´s reviewer, InterAcademy Council, messed up on “Quantified measures of uncertainty”!
How on earth could a scientific organization mess up on these things?
Make place in history for honorable judge Andrew Scott Hanen.
The man who had the cojones to rule that United States Attorney general Loretta Lynch will have to take steps to ensure that the Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.
Can a scientific statement be justified by the fact that IPCC is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.
IPCC´s “Guidance note on expression of uncertainty” is affecting all the works by IPCC.
InterAcademy Council gave bad advices – and IPCC made bad choices.
To be able to judge if uncertainty has been properly expressed and reported it is important to be familiar with relevant standards for expression of uncertainty.
The title sounds peculiar, doesn´t it?
However, if the range is wide – it is safe to be certain that the outcome will be within that range!
The way IPCC highlights radiative forcing, but fail to mention that the net energy absorption is about the same size as the cloud feedback is remarkable.
Have you ever wondered how strong the hypothesized cloud feedback is, compared to the net surface warming?
Hang on – in about 2 minutes you will know.
As the cloud feedback is equal to the current global energy accumulations, it follows that the sum of all other terms in the radiation budget must be zero. Hence, IPPC seem to be wrong, either about their central estimate for cloud feedback or about the rest of their radiation budget.
IPCC covers a wide range of possible warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m, but don´t provide a best estimate.
IPCC can´t possibly miss!
This post contains relevant figures, references to the IPCC report, step by step calculations and link to a spread sheet with easy to follow calculations of:
– The deduced amount of warming
– The observed amount of warming
There is an error in the calculations in this post as “increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature.” Has not been taken into account. The conclusion is not valid.
Here is a new post without that error – it turns out that:
IPCC got all bets covered!
The title sounds pretty impressive – doesn´t it?
Well – let us translate it into plain english and see what the title really says:
Model errors can be removed by adjusting the model so that the output match what is observed.
By inductive reasoning, and imagination, many possible explanations can be provided for a series of events. However, most of these explanations will be wrong.
Knowledge on the other hand is characterized by the ability to repeatedly predict a particular range of outcome for a particular set of conditions.
This post summarize the most important unscientific principles governing IPCC. The post contains links to other the other posts which provides my full argument behind each claim.
IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability!
Enjoy this 1 minute clip with Feynman!
What Richard Feynman summarize here is the hypotetico – deductive model. This method can be regarded as the modern scientific method.
By the United Nations climate theory, energy is supposed to:
– be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere
but fails to warm it!
– pass the upper 300 meter of the oceans
without warming it!
– warm the deep oceans below 700 meters
where we lack historical data, and the measurement uncertainty is too high to conclude!
These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred.
The world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it…”
A culture is a way of perceiving, thinking and acting – which has been learned, developed or discovered by an organization – while learning to deal with its internal and external challenges – and which is being taught to it´s members as the right way of perceiving, thinking and acting
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
– Karl Popper
Anyone thinking that IPCC can be regarded as being unbiased should have a look at the Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989.
Simply put, the result of an estimate should be reported by:
– giving a full description of how the measurand Y is defined
– stating the result of the measurement as Y = y ± U and give the units of y and U
– giving the approximate level of confidence associated with the interval y ± U and state how it was determined;
“The degree of certainty in key findings is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence. (from very low to very high)
Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement.”
– IPCC WGI;AR5
Have you ever read the work by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and felt disturbed by terms like “Medium agreement” or “Robust evidence”? Such terms origin in a document called: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties “These guidance notes are intended to assist Lead Authors of…
It is quite amazing that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change experienced an urge for a guideline on the expression of uncertainty but failed to discover and acknowledge a broadly recognized and freely available international guideline on the subject.
In the post: “What does it take for an quantitative theoretical model to be reliable?” I put up a list over requirements a quantitative theoretical model will have to fulfill to be regarded as reliable. I base the list on what I regard to be principles in modern philosophy of science. Hopefully in accordance with the principles of…
The International Panel on Climate Change made some effort to define terminology. This is how the Panel defined terms to describe the degree of agreement: Box TS.1 | Treatment of Uncertainty “The following summary terms are used to describe.. the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high.” Everything should be just fine then – or…
The average value of an ensemble of climate models is often used as an argument in the debate. What does it mean? The following is a quote from the contribution from Working group I to the fifth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.: Box 12.1 | Methods to Quantify Model Agreement in Maps…
Does your favourite scientific method happen to be one of these? (Ref Wikipedia – for what it is worth) Inductivism is the traditional model of scientific method attributed to Francis Bacon, who in 1620 vowed to subvert allegedly traditional thinking. In Baconian model, one observes nature, proposes a modest law to generalize an observed pattern, confirms it by many observations, ventures…