Zombie Science

[IanC]

Summary
Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.

Elsevier

Charlton was not talking about AGW but his observations fit many aspects of the warmists' version of climate science. Taboos, appeals to authority and distortion of data to support confirmation bias simply abound in the annals of CO2 caused global warming.

Two quotes from R.P. Feynman-

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you 'play' with them!

The main problem (as I see it) with AGW is that it does not describe reality by its main thesis, that small thermal increases caused by manmade CO2 set off a cascade of positive feedbacks which lead to large increases of temperature and eventual catastrophy. Computer models are their only 'proof', and the computer models totally fail at projecting where and how the warming is taking place. The imput for the models are loose approximations for the factors that they do consider, and ignorance (ignoring) of the factors that are too complex or poorly understood. Even their choice of considering water vapour and clouds as a positive feedback (only) is ridiculous at its face because water has been mediating force that has kept the earth at moderate temperatures since it formed!

More study needs to be done on the other climate influences, such as the solar impact, cloud systems, etc. And it should be done as separate factors, not as peripheral to CO2.

Hell, even the crazy hungarian Miskolczi has a better theory than the IPCC gang-

Equilibrium

In order to correctly understand why this is, it is necessary to recognize that what is important here is the equilibrium between the incoming energy from the sun (heating) and the outgoing longwave (infra red) energy (cooling). The 40 percent of the planet that is not cloud-covered at any given time allows for solar radiation to be absorbed at the surface. The most effective form of cooling is the evaporation of water, which takes heat energy from the surface and puts it into the air. Clouds form, which do three things: 1) create more cloud cover reflecting solar radiation away from the planet which also 2) release heat into the very high upper atmosphere where it is also radiated out into space as the clouds condense into precipitation, and 3) drops much cooler water back down to the surface cooling things even further. This is an oversimplification for the sake of brevity and clarity, the interactions here are very complex as is the equation which describes it. However, this does not change the simple fact that our planetary climate system is at equilibrium, and the Miskolczi Constant allows science to completely describe that equilibrium. For the first time, we can do so accurately with raw data, and match observed data with the results. No “hide the decline” is needed when simply describing reality.

Climate scientist and fellow Hungarian, Dr. Miklos Zagoni, in his paper “CO2 Cannot Cause any more ‘Global Warming’” dated December 2009 describes this discovery and its meaning. Dr. Zagoni beautifully sums it up all up:

“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”
Dr. Zagoni explains:

“Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.”

DailyTech - Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

At least he can derive temperatures from first principles rather than needing to constantly recalibrate the input data to give a reasonable answer like they have to do with computer climate models.

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane catastrophe

 

[Greenbeard]

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

[...]

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

Boy, is he going to be excited when he finally gets around to looking at Venus.

 

[IanC]

Methane catastrophe

There were no methane catastrophies in any of the other 'optimum' periods of this present interglacial period.

from above-

“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”

this is a very important concept! the large el nino event in 1998 pumped a lot of water vapour into the air, and yet there was no runaway warming. and according to the theory that there is a greenhouse gas maximum constant for the current incoming heat, that means that as CO2 increases there would be a concurrent decrease in water vapour to equilibrate. that matches the radiosonde data from the last 50 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, there has been no time in the last 15 million years when the atmosphere has had as much CO2 in it as at present. The greatest amount of CO2 in the prior interglacials was 300 ppm, the CH4 was at less than 800 ppb. Today, CO2 is at 388 ppm, and the CH4, at 1800+ ppb. And then there are the industrial GHGs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2.

The current outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is a heads up about what the future may hold.

Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007 ? ICES J. Mar. Sci.

Pielou, E. C. 2008. Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 296–301.
Climate forcing of the environment and biota has been happening since time immemorial, human forcing only for the past 200 years or so. This paper considers, first, climatic changes over the past 30 000 years, as indicated by plankton and their effects on plankton. Only fossilizable plankton can be observed: principally foraminifera, radiolaria, and pteropods in the zooplankton, and their food, principally coccolithophores, diatoms, and dinoflagellate cysts, in the phytoplankton. The soft-bodied zooplankton species—especially copepods—that lived with them can only be inferred. Large, abrupt climate changes took place, aided by positive feedback. Second, this paper attempts to predict how human forcing in the form of anthropogenic climate change is likely to affect marine ecosystems in the future. Past predictions have underestimated the speed at which warming is actually happening: positive feedback has been unexpectedly strong. Thus, the melting of snow and ice, by reducing the earth's albedo, has increased the amount of solar energy absorbed. Also, warming of the surface (water and land) has caused outgassing of methane from buried clathrates (hydrates), and methane is a strong greenhouse gas. Currently, predictions emphasize one or the other of two contrasted alternatives: abrupt cooling caused by a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (the “ocean conveyor&#8221 or abrupt warming caused by copious outgassing of methane. Both arguments (the former from oceanographers and the latter from geophysicists) are equally persuasive, and I have chosen to explore the methane alternative, because I am familiar with an area (the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta) where outgassing has recently (2007) been detected and is happening now: in the Arctic Ocean and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, where disappearance of the ice will affect currents, temperature, thermocline, salinity, upwelling, and nutrients, with consequent effects on the zooplankton.

 

[westwall]

Methane catastrophe

Equals no proof and it has never happened in the past.

EPIC FAIL...but then it's olfraud so of course its a fail....

 

[westwall]

Ian, there has been no time in the last 15 million years when the atmosphere has had as much CO2 in it as at present. The greatest amount of CO2 in the prior interglacials was 300 ppm, the CH4 was at less than 800 ppb. Today, CO2 is at 388 ppm, and the CH4, at 1800+ ppb. And then there are the industrial GHGs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2.

The current outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is a heads up about what the future may hold.

Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007 ? ICES J. Mar. Sci.

Pielou, E. C. 2008. Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 296–301.
Climate forcing of the environment and biota has been happening since time immemorial, human forcing only for the past 200 years or so. This paper considers, first, climatic changes over the past 30 000 years, as indicated by plankton and their effects on plankton. Only fossilizable plankton can be observed: principally foraminifera, radiolaria, and pteropods in the zooplankton, and their food, principally coccolithophores, diatoms, and dinoflagellate cysts, in the phytoplankton. The soft-bodied zooplankton species—especially copepods—that lived with them can only be inferred. Large, abrupt climate changes took place, aided by positive feedback. Second, this paper attempts to predict how human forcing in the form of anthropogenic climate change is likely to affect marine ecosystems in the future. Past predictions have underestimated the speed at which warming is actually happening: positive feedback has been unexpectedly strong. Thus, the melting of snow and ice, by reducing the earth's albedo, has increased the amount of solar energy absorbed. Also, warming of the surface (water and land) has caused outgassing of methane from buried clathrates (hydrates), and methane is a strong greenhouse gas. Currently, predictions emphasize one or the other of two contrasted alternatives: abrupt cooling caused by a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (the “ocean conveyor”) or abrupt warming caused by copious outgassing of methane. Both arguments (the former from oceanographers and the latter from geophysicists) are equally persuasive, and I have chosen to explore the methane alternative, because I am familiar with an area (the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta) where outgassing has recently (2007) been detected and is happening now: in the Arctic Ocean and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, where disappearance of the ice will affect currents, temperature, thermocline, salinity, upwelling, and nutrients, with consequent effects on the zooplankton.

Now that was a good laugh. They have no empirical data to support their predictions, just failed computer models. That's just great. These people actually get money to crank this crap out...and folks like olfraud actually believe it. Wow.