The definition of science could be:
Science: Being able to predict reliably things in the world based on a pre-determined repeatable formula or method.
It is important to understand that science is not about “truth” in some mystical sense. We all believe it is a goal to know the truth and science is a method that we hope ultimately we can understand our world.
However, let’s be clear. Even in Physics we know the two most powerful and best known theories of our world called Einstein’s General theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are at odds and produce conflicting results in some cases. Also, we have a strong belief that the coordinate system we think of as the 4 dimensions of time and space that Einstein talked about is wrong. Many things today are simply unexplainable and very odd. I have written pretty extensively about this elsewhere.
So, physicists today are under no false belief we know the “truth” now or that our theories are correct. We know they are wrong. The purpose of science is that over time we keep getting better at making predictions that if you do this, that happens. In other words, you can do things in the real world that reliably produce results that eventually we find useful to build bridges, fancy diodes in electrical circuits, robots that can build cars, help people with depression or schizophrenia. Science is about prediction. That is the most fundamental thing.
If you had a “science” for which it didn’t produce results you could say “this will happen when you do this” then that would not be a science. We have lots of people who make predictions. If the predictions don’t work then there is scant work usually for such people other than possibly to write books and fool people or entertain them.
Does Climate Science have things they have predicted?
In my opinion this is a huge problem. Climate science has no things I know of that they can say, we predicted X exactly and it happened.
Don’t get me wrong. They have predicted a lot of things. They predicted storms would increase, that glaciers would go away or decrease at certain rates, that temperatures would rise by 1.2C by 2000 and lots of things. They do have mathematical models.
Let’s look at any one of the predictions. Loss of sea ice in Antarctica. There is a trend downward. This looks like a win. They certainly warn enough that the sea ice in the arctic will go away but what exactly is the prediction? Some scientists said 2000, 2010, 2020 it would be gone, others have said 2100. It always seems as if it’s going to be any day.
I have to point out that a prediction 80 years in the future is not a useful prediction because there is no way to validate it.
So far, Arctic sea ice seems to be cyclic. There may be a trend down if you look at some time periods but part of the problem with many of the predictions is we don’t have good comparable for past history. We don’t know what the sea ice extent was at different periods. During the 1930s and 1940s ships were passing the northern passage so even though there has been a trend down it is not certain if this trend is simply like the 1940s and it will return.
This is about the closest to any prediction they have made that is anywhere close to looking like a win. However, as I said it is not definitive because sea ice in the arctic has been very variable.
What’s even more rarely mentioned is that sea ice was proved by Archimedes 2000 years ago to not change the sea level of the ocean. If all the sea ice melt in the world everywhere including the arctic it wouldn’t change sea level one micron. It’s rarely mentioned there is no known consequence negative for the sea ice melting. The only thing we know is if melts lots of materials hidden beneath would be freed up and the passage way would shorten times to travel from some places to others.
The Hot Spot Prediction
Another important prediction is what is called the hot spot. This is a very important prediction because it is like the Einstein prediction I mention later. It is specific, it is probably likely to be caused only by CO2 and it is proof of the effect of CO2.
The most basic thing about Climate Science 101 is that CO2 absorbs the IR radiation reflected off the surface of the Earth from the sun. It absorbs this radiation near 0C. In other words only a portion of the spectrum of IR radiation is accepted by CO2. The CO2 receiving radiation at this temperature bulk is located in the atmosphere at higher elevations (where it is cooler) and near the tropics or equator. This “hot spot” should be seen by satellites and it should be noticeable and this would be the proof that CO2 its warming the atmosphere. It is also not affected as much by variations in local conditions, other factors like sea temperatures or El Nino events. This should be very definitive and I’ve said many times that if Climate Scientists focused on this first and could prove this was happening then a lot of us would become more confident in the theory.
The long and short of it is that this “hot spot” hasn’t been there. In fact, the surface temperature has warmed more than the bulk of the atmosphere which is thermodynamically non-sensical. The point of global warming from co2 is that the co2 warms which then warms the surface through convection. That cannot produce more heat than the bulk of the atmosphere or even in the key places where the co2 is located to be heated which generally is not at the surface.
Explaining why the hot spot continues to be problematic as a lot of predictions of Climate Science have been. When temperatures plateau’d in the 2000’s they had no explanation. When the ocean started to heat they did not anticipate that. They had no explanation. In other words this “theory” has been a failure over and over.
That doesn’t stop Climate Scientists
There is no lack of predictions made. The problem is that predictions are made about things so far in the future that nobody can see them now or we forget their predictions and they never bring up they failed.
The problem is that to my knowledge none of these things actually has been predicted correctly.
Climate Scientists themselves admit this largely. I have heard the head of LLNL climate modeling group tell our class that the models are not predictive and that it can be shown that none of the models work any better than the others.
We have spent billions on these climate models and they are used in countless stories in the media to predict doom and gloom but in fact the reality is they have actually fallen far short of what scientists of any field would qualify as useful.
What about the article today about the Paris Agreements?
Everyday there are articles like this which essentially say something like this:
- We will be at CO2 level of XXXX in 2100. This will produce 4C temperature change according to our models.
- 4C will produce dire consequences according to our studies.
- The world is not doing enough to prevent the consequences predicted.
The article today said pretty much the same thing in a variation.
- If we produce the expected amount of co2 according to the Paris agreement in 2030 we will keep temperatures at 1.5C or less.
- If we continue producing at the growth we are today we will miss the agreement by some amount that will overshoot temperature.
- We will need to reduce output of CO2 to below zero megatons in order to reverse the effects.
This is very precise statement as you would expect from a “science.” If you build this bridge and you don’t use an 8″ beam here or there the bridge will collapse. If you take certain particles and shoot them through a device with a certain magnetic field it will align the spin of the particles and we can measure that.
The problem with the article above is that the models have missed the temperature by 50% in the last 20-30 years. Therefore the models are not able to predict within a reasonable accuracy. We really have no idea if we raise CO2 by X what the temperature response will be. It could be T, 2xT, 0.1xT, even -T. So, making the conclusion that we will overshoot or that the consequences of temperature T would be are unknown. Therefore, we don’t know if we should have to reduce CO2 output below zero.
This is literally typical of every paper it seems produced by the climate community. it is completely without any useful information. It is entirely made up crap based on circular reasoning and without a foundation of any proof of predictability. In other words, we are spending money on crap. This is not a science yet.
Climate Scientists don’t operate like other scientists
As you can see above one of the most common arguments of Climate Scientists uses an absurd idea that would be obvious problem in any other science. They use circular reasoning a lot.
They start by making assumptions and then constructing a model. The model is still to be proved and as I’ve said even climate scientists admit the efficacy of the models is not good.
Yet that doesn’t stop them from assuming the models are true and then concluding lots of other things. They do this constantly. They say that the climate models predict this will happen and therefore that validates another part of their theory except that the models aren’t proven yet and don’t work. So, a lot of the science depends on other things that aren’t proven to work.
For instance, there are thousands of studies that assume since the models calculate temperatures will rise by 4C then you can look at what happens to plants or ice melting or wind or humidity… and you can say this will happen. Frequently the news reports that this will happen as if it is certain when it is dependent on something which has failed.
In law this is sometimes called fruit of the poisoned tree. If I assume astrology is right and that people born in September are smart and logical and officious then I can conclude that more smart people were born in September.
In science it is important to quantify and specify your assumptions and uncertainty. This is almost never done in climate science. The worst case is always assumed without every quantifying the probability of that.
One way this is done is by assuming much higher levels of CO2 in the future than is even possible. They do this so they can have graphs which show very large and scary temperature changes. Even though their models don’t work having graphs with huge temperature change looks very official even if it is a total fantasy and there is zero probability of it happening.
What are the arguments that it is a science?
Everytime I ask about this the main answer is: We know that CO2 will be excited by the reflected IR radiation from the sun and that will induce heat in the atmosphere. It’s science.
Yes, that is science, but it’s not climate science. That is basic physics. We knew that since we studied quantum mechanics in the early part of last century. This is a trivial piece of information.
The problem is that the energy from this excitation is much much less than needed to cause any significant temperature change by itself. Climate “scientists” came up with a theory of how this small well known effect would be magnified by a factor of 4 or more to produce a lot of heat that was responsible ultimately for the majority of the ice ages for instance.
The problem is looking back to the ice ages and postulating these magnifications is fine but it is not useful to call science. There is no way to predict any future event and it is not the only way to explain the ice ages. In fact, because their models have failed so badly to predict temperatures over the last 70 years since man started putting in lots of co2 into the atmosphere it puts the theory that co2 was responsible for 80% of the ice ages in doubt.
Science is like this. Einstein came up with a theory of how the universe worked. Scientists could laugh and say: “Nice work, Einy baby. but where’s the proof?” You have invented some really complicated theory of how the world could work with bendable space and all that but there might be many explanations. We’ll keep looking.
What happened is Einstein predicted things. He said if we looked at Mercury we would see that it precessed 13 degrees in its orbit every year. He predicted that when we looked at galaxies in the sky we would see light bending around the galaxies creating a lensing effect we could measure. He told us precisely how much the lensing would be.
Sure enough when scientists measured Mercury’s orbit we saw precisely 13 degree precession. When we measured and looked for the lensing it was exactly right. Over and over as we look in the sky we see evidence of Einstein’s theory working.
Just recently in the last 12 months new powerful evidence that Einstein’s theory is correct were seen when we measured gravity waves with satellites. This was predicted over 100 years ago and predictions it made are being astonishingly confirmed. That’s real science.
Climate Science is not like this
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse but considering how we are wasting billions and billions of dollars on this purported science and how people talk about it, lecture others and even threaten crimes we should have some evidence this is a real science and predicts things.
It doesn’t. They have predicted animals would be affected and go extinct. They have not. Other creatures have gone extinct but they didn’t predict them. There could be a million reasons why they went extinct.
They predicted glaciers were melting at this rate X and then after we looked with the GRACE satellite the actual number was overestimated by 900%.
They estimated that storms would increase. We then almost immediately had the longest period in US history with no landfall of hurricanes. 12 years.
There is no evidence anything they said has been predicted.
Sea level rise? They predicted some islands would be sinking. The Tuvula island in the pacific has GAINED land. The opposite of what they specifically predicted.
I’m not cherry picking. I know of NO, Zero, NADA predictions they have made that are correct. That’s a ridiculously bad record.
I am sorry. It is absolutely the case when Donald Trump says it is a scam he is right.
Climate science is NOT a science. Not yet. They are saying things they have NO right to say. They are deceiving people.
Another huge miss
If you want something we know virtually nothing about it is the ocean. Until 2000 (20 years after Global warming theory had been proposed.) we had no reliable measurement of anything about the ocean.
In 2000, we deployed 3,000 buoys called ARGO that sink to 3,000 feet deep measuring temperature, salinity and other things. They rise and when they reach the surface they then call a satellite and disgorge all the information they collected. Then repeat. They drift in the ocean doing this for the last 17 years.
The ARGO buoys can only get to about half the oceans so we are still lacking a lot. Also they don’t measure lots of things. We are still grossly ignorant about the ocean.
Climate Science predicted things about the ocean. They said the following things:
- The oceans would not be affected in the short term by co2 changes past the first few inches.
- There was NO long term multi-decadal oceanic phenomenon that had any effect on the climate.
- There was no prediction that temperatures below the first few feet would change.
After ARGO results were calculated and accumulated for 10 years we started to see some things we never expected.
- We saw a warming in the ocean below 1000 feet that was huge. An incredible amount of energy actually was being accumulated in the deeper ocean.
- We discovered that El Nino was affected by PDO and AMO which were multi-decadal variations that produced over a 60 year period, 30 years of more El Ninos and for 30 years more La Ninas. This phenomenon has now been seen over 250 years or even 500 years.
- They had no explanation at all for how temperatures could change below a few feet.
The appearance of this warming and the lack of warming at the surface was bizarre. Heat cannot get to lower depths without the surface getting warmer. It violates the laws of thermodynamics.
In other words. They didn’t see this phenomenon. They actually predicted it WOULDN’T happen. They were completely wrong about multi-decadal influence of the ocean.
Have you ever heard about this? Almost certainly not. Climate science doesn’t talk about its failures like other sciences.
About the same time (1999) temperatures in the atmosphere also stopped going up. Some climate scientists said that the heat from the atmosphere went into the deep ocean.
The problem with this is they had not predicted it. They had no explanation for how it was possible to happen. They also had no idea if it would stop, continue forever or reverse.
A total failure. Moreover, the failure of predicting a halt in temepratures was a horrible problem. For the last 17 years climate scientists have been desperately trying to explain the lack of temperature increase, to find the temperature increase, to hide the temperature halt. To this day they have no real explanation or coherent theory about all this.
This is not some trivial mistake.
Temperatures were shown to have halted in 2000 for nearly 20 years now except for the El Nino in 2015. Also, they specifically didn’t predict this and specifically described what they thought ocean waters would do and they were utterly wrong.
The head of LLNL climate modeling told me El Niño would disappear. The effect of co2 would be so huge that these phenomenon would be drowned out. WRONG again!
Climate Scientists also don’t engage in debate like other scientists or do work
Is it possible to have a Climate Science?
Yes. This is not a problem that we can’t do the science. It is a problem that they choose NOT to do science or that they don’t acknowledge they haven’t got a science yet.
They have said it is “settled.” As you can see such a statement is grossly absurd. To have something settled which doesn’t happen in science anyway would mean they would not be making so many predictions that collapse virtually the day after they make the predictions.
If you were building a “building” based on the accuracy of climate science the building would collapse the instant you started building it and never be built. It’s that bad.
My belief of how climate science should be done to be called a real science is to focus on doing things that can produce repeatable results somehow.
The problems with building climate science
The problem that climate says is that they can’t create experiments they can carry out in the real world unlike in other sciences.
They can’t change the world to see the effect and predict it. Nonetheless, Einstein was in a similar situation. He predicted very specific things that we should see that nobody saw or looked at that point. His theory had to do with the huge span of the universe which we couldn’t perform experiments on.
There are things like Mercury’s perihelion precessing that can be indicative.
Climate science laid out some of these.
1. We should see a distribution of heat in the atmosphere in a certain pattern changing.
Specifically they predicted that there should be a warm spot in the tropics at higher elevations. The reason for this is obvious. The bulk of co2 is in the atmosphere over a wide range of altitudes. Co2 absorbs the IR radiation from the Earth near 0C temperature. Thus co2 near the surface would not be absorbing much of the radiation and heating up. It is co2 higher up at colder temps that absorbs.
This warm spot has not been found. Since then scientists have different ideas why we don’t see the warm spot.
They should spend a lot more energy on things like this. They need to have irrefutable understanding of this most basic aspect of global warming and be able to explain this on chalkboards with aplomb.
If we need to launch more balloons or special satellites or whatever they should focus on things like this. Real scientific information that can be used to buttress the theory.
2. To do real science all we have to do is to study these ocean data and start to produce actual theories of how the ocean should be changing and prove that is happening.
It is now clear the ocean does have multidecadal phenomenon and there is real confusing numbers we are getting that we didn’t expect. We should have a huge sustained focus on a new set of buoys and detailed satellite and other instruments to figure out what’s going on with the entire ocean.
3. We could create large laboratories and run experiments to verify more complex phenomenon like clouds or how gases react to energy from different sources or put in different living things and see how they affect the climate.
4. We can also study co2 and see if it seems to be affecting ocean the way we expect or how life is affected by CO2. (CO2 is a major plant food.)
The point is that if we took a rigorous set of experiments with controlled conditions or made predictions using new instruments eventually we will discover some relationships that could be predictive.
There is a lot to study that we don’t know. They walked right past all we didn’t know and jumped to conclusions about what would happen. Let’s start over and assume nothing.
We still know almost nothing about the ocean. Study it more.
5. We still know almost nothing about the sun.
6. We still know almost nothing about the Earth’s mantle and how orbits affect things like undersea crevices.
7. We still know so little about clouds.
8. We still know almost anything about glaciers.
9. We still don’t understand the ice ages.
10. We still don’t understand the mideivel warming period and the Little ice age and the other warm and cold periods every 1000 years.
We could have a science here
The global climate warming “scientists” refuse to do actual science. They are spending their time justifying their previous theories.
I’ve never seen that in any scientific discipline before. The reason is obvious. These are not scientists they are political activists. We need to purge most of them in order to get to real science.