Visar inlägg med etikett climategate. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett climategate. Visa alla inlägg

onsdag 2 mars 2011

Hyperreal Plagiarism of German Science


In his essay "Simulacra and Simulations," the French philosopher Baudrillard exposes
the hyper-reality of modern society as a 3rd order simulation, a simulation without origin which masks the non-existence a true origin.

Baudrillard shows that the Watergate process was aimed at giving the American people the impression of a righteous society (by ousting Nixon), but in reality masked the non-existence of a true judiciary system.

As another example of hyper-reality the German defence minister Karl Theodor zu Guttemberg
yesterday was forced out of office by 23,000 German academics in uproar because Guttemberg's Ph D thesis showed to be a copy-and-paste work.

This masks the truth of German scientists who suppress climate alarmism skeptics, in good company with the Royal Institute of Technology KTH censoring my own skeptical mathematical formulas in a delete-and-deny action described as KTH-gate.


lördag 26 februari 2011

Photoelectric Effect, Einstein, Arrhenius, Nobel Prizes and Global Warming

The idea of Newton that light is a stream of light particles was thoroughly refuted by Young and Fresnel followed by Maxwell in the 19th century, but then surprisingly reappeared in the beginning of the 20th century in the work by Planck on blackbody radiation followed by Einstein's formula for the photoelectric effect presented in his 1905 article On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light:
  • P + W = E with E = h f ,
where P is the kinetic energy of an electron ejected from a surface by incident light of frequency f, W the energy required to release the electron from the surface, and E = h f is the incident energy with h Planck's constant. The essence of the formula is that the kinetic energy P of an ejected electron scales with the frequency f of the incoming light, but is independent of the intensity of the incoming light. Increasing the intensity at a given frequency will cause more electrons of the same kinetic energy to be ejected.

Einstein's formula helped the Nobel Prize Committee out of a seemingly unsolvable dilemma, namely to come up with a motivation to award Einstein the Nobel Prize: In the aftermath of the 1st World War Einstein had rocketed to fame through his New Theory of Relativity for a New World, and the Nobel Committee felt a strong pressure to show its own good intentions for the New World.

However, to award Einstein the Prize for his theory of relativity was impossible because virtually nobody understood it and those few who did, understood that it was not a really a physical theory but rather some form of epistemology.

Finally the Committee, chaired by S. Arrhenius, came up with the following motivation for the 1921 Nobel Prize to Einstein (so cleverly invented by C W Oseen):
  • For his services to theoretical physics, in particular for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect P + W = h f .
The Committee further stated explicitely that Einstein did not get the prize for his relativity theory. By "his discovery of the law" the Committee also expressed that Einstein did not get the prize for his derivation of the law of the photoelectric effect based on light particles, or light quanta later called photons. The Committee did not believe in light quanta and neither did Einstein, as he made clear shortly before his death in 1954:
  • All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta?”. Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
Einstein thus got the Prize not for something he had done, but rather despite everything he had done, except his "discovery" of the law P + W = h f.

But a law of physics without some form of derivation, is not a law of physics, just some magics,
and so what survived was Einstein's heuristic derivation based on light quanta, which he did not believe seriously in, neither the Nobel Committee, but which the rest of the physics world decided to embrace and worship as the sign of the New World of quantum mechanics based on light quanta.

In this New World light can be both particle and wave depending on the mood of the physicist.
But particle and wave characteristics are contradictory and contradictory physics is confusing physics termed "wave-particle duality", and confusing physics is potentially dangerous physics, in our time appearing as global warming resulting from "backradiation of photons" from
atmospheric "greenhouse gases", endorsed by physics academies around the New World.

Physicists of the New World argue that the law of photoelectricity P + W = h f can only be derived assuming that light is "quantized" into light particles, and since the law is valid, there must be particles of light. QED.

But the logic is weak: How difficult is it to derive a simple linear law of the form P + W = E
expressing an energy balance of energy in = energy out? Is it impossible to derive the law using a wave model of light?

Not at all! There are many possibilities, some of which I explore in the draft of the upcoming book Computational Blackbody Radiation based on my article with the same title in Slaying the Sky Dragon, where I start out deriving Planck's law from a wave model, in contradiction to the accepted "truth" that this is impossible. The basic idea is to model both radiation, high-frequency damping and photoelectricity as different dissipative effects where the precise form of the dissipation does not have to be specified. This conforms with the experience of computational turbulence presented in Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow where the precise form of the turbulent dissipation have little influence on mean-value outputs.

The argument that you have to believe in a certain (unbelievable) theory, because without that
(unbelievable) theory, some observation appears to be difficult to explain theoretically, is very popular in physics. In climate science the argument is used to "prove that AGW is real", by claiming that without AGW it is impossible to theoretically explain all observed variations in climate, while with AGW everything becomes so evident and undisputable.

(Compare with Clarke's 1st Rule: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.)

Here the circle closes: AGW is based on a CO2 "greenhouse effect" attributed to S. Arrhenius, who in his presentation speech for the 1921 Nobel Prize gave the Awardee the death-kiss:
  • There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein. Most discussion centres on his theory of relativity. This pertains essentially to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles.
AGW represented by Al Gore and IPCC was blessed by the Nobel (Peace) Prize in 2007, while
the science of Al Gore and IPCC evaporated with Climategate in 2009. Einstein never recovered
from the Alfred Nobel kiss, neither will Al Gore and IPCC.

Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, originally proposed as a Nobel Institute.

The logic of physics and the politics of physics are strange.

måndag 16 augusti 2010

Slaying the Sky Dragon of the Greenhouse Effect

I am happy to announce that I have joined the project Slaying the Sky Dragon: The Death of the Greenhouse Effect with the double objective of showing that 
  • CO2 alarmism is based on irrational climate science.
  • Thermodynamics with radiation offers a basis to rational climate science.
The project is backed by a team of skeptics including scientists and scientific writers and contains a two volume book, with the first volume to appear this year, and the second volume next year. 
 
My contributions build on my recent work on thermodynamics and radiation exposed
 

torsdag 29 juli 2010

Phil Jones Speaking

Phil Jones is breaking his silence in a New Scientist interview:
  • I know things aren't going to be the same as they were pre-November. It's just about learning to live with it.
  • Unless the alternative views are in the peer-reviewed literature, the Intergovernmental
  • Panel on Climate Change cannot refer to them.
  • Muir Russell showed that there was no perversion of the peer-review process. The papers that we were referring to in that email were bad science.
  • There should be an acceptance that the climate has warmed since measurements began. OK, there's then debate about what caused that warming. But I do find it difficult engaging with people who deny the evidence and say the world has not warmed.
  • I haven't deleted any emails that were the subject of FOI requests, but I have deleted emails...
Evidently CRU is back in business: A little bit of warming, maybe, but what may have caused the warming is of no interest. And bad science is bad science. The message from CRU/IPCC is the same, but things aren't going to be the same as they were pre-November...

What is Phil Jones anticipating?

söndag 11 juli 2010

Honesty vs Scientific Truth



The Muir Russell CRU Climate Gate Review concludes, without assessment of the quality of the scientific work, that CRU scientists were honest. Muir Russell thus allows 2. as a possibility in the following list of combinations of honesty and science 
  1. honest and correct
  2. honest and incorrect
  3. dishonest and correct
  4. dishonest and incorrect.
Muir Russell states that e.g. Phil Jones and Michael Mann were found to be honest (scientists), while the correctness of their scientific work was not an issue and thus was allowed to possibly be incorrect without interference with honesty.

But is it meaningful to separate honesty (as scientist) from quality of scientific work? What is best: To get a bypass operation by a skillful surgeon with (possibly) some tax problems, or by a tax-paying surgeon with (possibly) a bad track record? 

Is it advisable for governments to listen to honest scientists informing about incorrect science?

Muir Russells idea to separate (or mix up) honesty as scientist (whatever it means) with quality/truth of science, is dangerous both for heart patients, governments and the people. 
 
My experience from 40 years as scientist, is that honesty is not a virtue of scientists; many scientists steal or "borrow" results from other scientists without giving proper credit, but this dishonesty does not degrade the value to humanity of scientific (possibly inconvenient) truths. 

The conclusion of the Muir Russell Inquiry that Climategate does not give evidence of dishonesty of Phil Jones and Michael Mann, is based on a dishonest inquiry with all critics excluded, and in addition it seems to be incorrect. Nixon had to leave office because of Watergate, but Phil Jones is now back in office thanks to Muir Russell, despite Climategate. 
It is an unstable situation...

fredag 9 juli 2010

Testing if Muir Russell Means What He Says

Sir Muir Russell gives the following recommendation in his presentation of The Independent 
Climate Change Email Review:  
  • First, how is science to be conducted in a new world of openness, accountability and indeed what I might term citizen involvement in public interest science? There need to be new ways of making results and data available, and we mention some aspects of current thought. There need to be ways of handling criticism and challenge, of responding to a range of different sorts of criticism and getting into a more productive relationship with critics than we have sometimes seen in this case.
I now test  if  Sir Muir Russell means what he is saying, by asking him to respond to the criticism I have expressed in my blog post Muir Russell: IPCC Conclusions Not Based on Science.

I will report on the response...It comes promptly:

Sir/Madam

Many thanks for your email to the Independent Climate Change Emails Review.  

Please note that the work of the Review team has now been completed and our final report     has been published. As such we will no longer be accepting submissions or responding       to questions raised

With best wishes

The Independent Climate Change Email Review team

A logical analysis shows that The Review Team is willing to respond only to questions raised about the Review before the Review was published. How many such questions can there be, by people not included in The Team?


onsdag 7 juli 2010

More Muir Russell Logic

We continue our logical analysis of the Muir Russell CRU inquiry:
  • This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
  • On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
Combining these statements we conclude that what Sir Muir Russell is saying is:
  • rigour and honesty as scientist is not related to content and quality of scientific work.
In other words, the result of the (honest and rigorous) investigation by Muir Russell is:
  • the scientific work of an honest and rigorous scientist may lack quality.
This statement is depending on interpretation either trivially true or untrue, and in either case lacks quality. The conclusion is that the review lacks quality, irrespective if it was carried out with honesty and rigour or not.

Quality is probably what people hope to get for their tax money, taking honesty for granted.

It will be interesting to see if Muir Russell will meet criticism according to the standards
expressed in the inquiry report:
  • There need to be ways of handling criticism and challenge, of responding to a range of different sorts of criticism and getting into a more productive relationship with critics than we have sometimes seen in this case.
I will thus test if I can get into a "productive relationship" with MR in my role as critical blogger, and honest and and rigorous scientist...

Muir Russell: IPCC Conclusions Not Based on Science

Sir Muir Russell summarizes his CRU inquiry as follows:
  • This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
  • We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
Let's subject these statements to a logical mathematical analysis:
  • (1) The scientific work was not an issue.
  • (2) The conclusions of the IPCC assessments were not undermined.
Combining (1) and (2) we conclude that what Muir Russell effectively says is:
  • IPCC conclusions are not based on scientific work.
Seems correct.

fredag 9 april 2010

Läser Häggström Bara Expressen?

Olle Häggström  öser i dagens Expressen ur sig en massa invektiv över gruppen av "klimatskeptiker" som påstås representeras av "personer som till exempel Elisabet Höglund, Jonny Fagerström, Lars Bern, Maggie Thauersköld Crusell och Nils Lundgren – (som) för debatten på en så beklämmande låg nivå."

Häggtröm är lyckligen omedveten om att AGW-hypotesen och IPCCs klimatvetenskap kollapsat fullständigt i och med Climategate. Häggström vet inte att det finns tusentals synnerligen kompetenta  vetenskapsmän runt om i världen som påstår att AGW alarmismen saknar vetenskaplig grund, personer som Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Sr/Jr, Roy Spencer, Claude Allegre, m fl m fl. 

Läser Häggström bara Expressen? Varför inte prova Financial Post: The New Climate Game?


tisdag 6 april 2010

WSJ: Science is Dying

WSJ expresses in Climategate: Science is Dying in WSJ  from Dec 3 2009:
  • Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it. 
  • What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. 
  • As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. 
  • Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. 
  • With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.
But the credibility of  science was eroding long before Climategate and postmodernism,
in particular among young people entering education and chosing careers: Mathematics, physics, engineering and hard sciences was in decline and economy, politics and why not, postmodernism on the rise.

So, when did then the decline of  science start? Was it when
  • the Cold War ended in 1989? 
  • Einstein became four-dimensional in 1915 preparing the eleven dimensions of string theory?
  • statistical mechanics and its offspring quantum mechanics coined coin-tossing as science?
  • set theory became the basis of mathematics in Principia Mathematica in 1910?
  • Cantor introduced his transfinite numbers in the late 1900s?
  • the Lebesgue-integral replaced the Riemann-integral in the early 1900s? 
  • Prandtl became the father of modern fluid mechanics in the early 1900s?
  • set theory took over elementary school education in the 1960s?
  • the pocket calculator made long division powerless? 
  • Big Bang became the one and only cosmology starting in the 1960s. 
  • chaos theory could be used as explanation of the unexplainable?
  • Wikipedians took command of scientific truth? 
  • the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences endorsed IPCC?
Some of these questions are discussed in my My Book of Knols and previous blog posts. Or was
it not until IPCC showed that climate models were reliable? Compare Washington Post's Scientists' use of computer models to predict climate change is under attack.

torsdag 1 april 2010

Phil Jones Rentvådd enligt SvD

SvD meddelar idag svenska folket att
  • Brittiske klimatprofessorn Phil Jones rentvås i en utredning i parlamentet.
  • Enligt den finns inget i hans hackade e-mail som visar att han har fuskat.
  • Panelen uttrycker också förståelse för att Jones sannolikt har känt sig frustrerad över att lämna ut data till klimatskeptiker vars syfte är att underminera hans forskning.
  • Panelen konstaterar att det vetenskapliga anseendet är intakt, såväl för Phil Jones som för hans klimatforskningsavdelning,
Så kan man alltså rapportera 1 april. Jämför med Scientists Admit Global Warming is a Hoax,

tisdag 23 mars 2010

Scientific Assessment by the Royal Society

On the recommendation of the Royal Society, Lord Oxburgh FRS is to chair a  Scientific Assessment Panel of six scientists to examine the veracity of the science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

But the Royal Society is already assessing CRU in its stated support of IPCC, and so is to perform a form of self-examination, which is not the essence of science.

Moreover, Lord Oxburgh is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables depending on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.

Professor Trevor Davies, UAE pro-vice-chancellor for research, said that the university had been aware of Lord Oxburgh’s business interests but believed that he would lead the panel of six scientists “in an utterly objective way” while making the following excuse:
  • It is unlikely that a group of people who have the necessary experience to assess the science, but have formed no view of their own on global warming, could be found.
In an interview in 2007, Lord Oxburgh said that the threat from global warming was so severe that 
  • it may be that we shall need . . . regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Evidently, Lord Oxburgh has  invested in global warming and so his independence will be questioned...See Another Tainted Inquiry. 

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is also supporting IPCC but does not seem to see a need for any reassessment...

tisdag 2 mars 2010

Standard (Mal) Practice of Science

In the UK MPs Science and Technology Commitee Inquiry into Climategate the key scientist Phil Jones claimed that it was "standard practice" to not release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research. See a summary of the British reaction to the  tragi-comics here. Then compare with the stunning NYT message: Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound! Peers.

What Jones says may be true: The standard practice of science may not be what it is supposed to be, as expressed by the Institute of Physics in its submission to the inquiry, namely:
  • The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.
The "standard practice" seems to be that computer codes and data can be kept as secret belongings to scientists, and that the peer-review process is closed to inspection and biased (corrupted)

Much of science is of little interest to society, politics and people, and  it does not matter much exactly what standards are used in the internal fights between different cohorts of scientists. 

But some science is of critical importance, and then the standards matter. Climate science is
an example where highest standards are required, at least if it as now is supposed to determine global politics. 

A good thing with Climategate is that it exposes scientific malpractice, and can lead to a renaissance of the holy principle of (nonclassified) science: data, codes and methods open to scrutiny by anybody. 

We are still waiting for the Royal Swedish Academy to express its support of this principle, in the foot-steps of the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Society of Statistics, in a withdrawal of its statement of support of the "standard practice" of IPCC and thereby indirectly of the "standard practice" of Phil Jones. When will it come?

In science, credibility is the most important asset of any scientist or scientific organization. 
To hand out Nobel Prizes requires scientific credibility. 

A recent poll gives the credibility of IPCC a 81% F, the worst grade. What would a poll for the Academy give? When will Swedish MPs inquire Swedish climate scientists? Compare Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise:
  • MP Graham Stringer had done his homework, and through patience and dogged persistence, he began to swing the chairman behind him. Mirroring the collapse in public sympathy for climate science since the scandal broke, the stalwarts so vocal at 3pm were silent by the close.
It took 2 hours to go from alarmism to scepticism...

The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee giving the 2007 Prize to Gore/Pachauri is now 
in trouble as demands of withdrawing the Prize are being made.

Which Committees, Academies and Societies will sink together with Jones/Gore/Pachauri? So far the Royal Society has said nothing indicating any departure from the sinking ship, nor has the Royal Academy...

But the Royal Society was shaking already on January 23: Royal Society capitulates on climate debate in worst week for global warmers since Climategate and thus can be expected to give in and follow the Royal Societies of Chemistry and Statistics and Institute of Physics any moment...and then the Royal Academy will have to follow as well...Eller hur Gunnar Öquist?

Now NYT! reports: 
  • Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, said that there was a danger that the distrust of climate science could mushroom into doubts about scientific inquiry more broadly. He said that scientists must do a better job of policing themselves and trying to be heard over the loudest voices on cable news, talk radio and the Internet.
This also applies to the Royal Academy in particular. Let's hear!  

According to NYT at least Pachauri speaks out in an e-mail message:
  • Scientists must continually earn the public’s trust or we risk descending into a new Dark Age where ideology trumps reason.

PS2 To get some perspective take a look at historic reports on climate change.

fredag 26 februari 2010

Pachauri Facing Independent Inquiry

Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to face an international inquiry into the performance of his organisation.

Since the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is supporting IPCC and Pachauri, it may seem motivated to let also the Academy face an independent inquiry.

Why bother about a statement of the Academy in support of IPCC? Because Swedish climate policy is based on this statement as a statement of the highest scientific authority: If the Academy would change position and withdraw its unconditional support of IPCC, then Swedish climate politics would have to change.

But the Academy has not modified its statement/support of IPCC after the scandals hitting IPCC since Climategate in November 2009. Nor has Swedish climate politics changed after
Copenhagen. But this is unreasonable, and in science unreason does not last...

  • The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
But the Academy does not seem to be worried...

lördag 20 februari 2010

Det Politiserade SvD

Thomas Gur skriver i dagens SvD Kolumn om Den Politiserade Klimatvetenskapen:
  • Att ingå Faustkontrakt med politiken kan vara lockande för vetenskapen – ens ämne kommer i debattens centrum, forskningsanslagen strömmar till och som expert hamnar man i rampljuset tillsammans med andra celebriteter.
  • Politiker som beslås med fel eller inte lever som de lär får löpa gatlopp.
  • När vetenskap politiseras får den vara med om samma sak.
  • Vägen tillbaka är enkel i teorin. Det gäller att frikoppla sig från den politiska dagordningen, dela med sig av forskningsdata och välkomna den kritiska granskningen. Men så hade också Faust svårt att komma loss från sitt kontrakt.
Men det kontrakt Gur skriver om har ju också ingåtts av SvD, som bedrivit politiserad klimatrapportering. Skall SvD nu få löpa gatlopp? Finns en väg tillbaka för SvD?

Compare with this example of serious unbiased climate journalism.

onsdag 17 februari 2010

Law vs Science in Climategate

The Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) headed by Sir Muir Russell will only consider legal aspects (open data software FOI) and not scientific (if the science is true/correct or false/incorrect). This raises an interesting question concerning the relation between legal and scientific truth, in Climategate and in general. There are four possible combinations:
  1. Legally correct and scientifically correct.
  2. Legally incorrect and scientifically correct
  3. Legally correct and scientifically incorrect
  4. Legally incorrect and scientifically incorrect.
Sir Muir Russell is supposed to decide between legally correct or incorrect, irrespective of
scientific correctness. However, the real question is scientific correctness, irrespective
of legal correctness. If the science is correct, it is more or less irrelevant if some legal aspects
are incorrect. If the science is incorrect, it is irrelevant if legal aspects are correct.

In other words: You can lose your academic position if your science is wrong, but not if you lose data or reject your competitors work on false grounds.

How can this be? Maybe because science has a very special nature as something which belongs
to all of us, which no-one can own and prevent others from using, which is endless. Which like Solar radiation is just there, irrespective of legality? Maybe, like in war and love, only the
result counts?

In any case, the Inquiry Team headed by Sir Muir does not appear to be correct.

  • All this is being driven by breakdowns in the science behind global warming theory and in the global resolve to respond.
  • The failure of Copenhagen to reach agreement reflected the two main problems:
  • If the science is perceived to be shaky, and the global economic situation is shaky, if follows that the politics will head in the same direction.


tisdag 16 februari 2010

Vem Granskar KVAs Uttalande om Klimat?

SvD rapporterar under rubriken "Granskningen fungerade inte" att Kungliga VetenskapsAkademien nu bryter sin tystnad och försiktigt börjar ifrågasätta sitt eget oreserverade stöd av FNs klimatpanel IPCC och dess ordförande Rajendra Pachauri. KVAs ständige sekreteraren Gunnar Öquist:
  • Nu måste FN granska klimatpanelens arbete och vidta åtgärder.
  • IPCC har i några fall uppenbart dragit förhastade slutsatser som baseras på ett undermåligt underlag. Kontrollen och granskningen har inte fungerat tillfredsställande i dessa fall. FN måste gå till botten med vad som har hänt och vidta åtgärder för att förtroendet för klimatpanelen inte ska äventyras.
  • KVA tar inte ställning till om IPCC:s ordförande bör avgå, men tror att avslöjandet får konsekvenser.
  • Sådana här saker brukar kräva sina offer.
Ett av offren skulle kunna vara KVA som uttalat sitt stöd till IPCC and Pachauri, och inte ändrat sig. Ännu. När kommer KVA att krypa till korset?

Lennart Bengtson, initiativtagare till KVAs yttrande, verkar dock ta saken med ro:
  • Min uppfattning är att IPCC har en viss tendens att hårdra i sammanfattningen till politikerna. Man vill ha ett enkelt budskap.
  • IPCC har ett stort ansvar och måste ha höga etiska normer.
  • Men man ska inte överdriva det som hänt.
  • Det kan bli misstag.
  • Men det finns inte anledning att ifrågasätta hela IPCC:s arbete för det.
Det kan bli misstag. Ingenting att haka upp sig på enligt KVA.

KVAs granskning fungerade inte. KVA har dragit förhastade slutsatser som baseras på undermåligt underlag. Men KVAs uttalande ligger fast.

Vem granskar då KVA? Vem skall gå till botten med detta? Vilka åtgärder skall vidtagas för att förtroendet för KVA inte skall äventyras? Vilka offer kommer att krävas? Skall någon tvingas avgå? Skall KVA i likhet med FNs panel granska sig själv?

Eftersom svensk klimatpolitik bygger på KVAs uttalande, har detta uttalande en viss betydelse.

måndag 15 februari 2010

d'Alembertgate

Another example of the (mal)practice of peer-review in science revealed in Climategate, is my own experience with the reception of my resolution of d'Alembert's paradox with Johan Hoffman, first submitted to the leading journal in the field Journal of Fluid Mechanics and rejected with the following referee's reports:

Referee 1:
  • I strongly recommend that you reject this paper.
  • 1. The authors show no understanding of fluid mechanics, of how small viscosity leads to experimentally verified thin boundary layers, and of how experimentally verified these boundary layers detach when the external flow decelerates.
  • 2. The authors show no understanding of mathematics, of how in the Euler equations streamlines leaving a surface will be vortex sheets which divide the domain into regions in which there is separately potential flow.
  • 3. The authors show no understanding of numerics, of how finite element methods introduce an artificial viscosity (or hyper-viscosity in high-order methods) through the truncation error, and so their solutions are not solutions of the Euler equation but solutions of a Navier-Stokes equation.
  • I am alarmed that these authors have another paper accepted by JFM: I recommend that someone checks it for logic.
Referee 2:
  • THE AUTHORS PROPOSE RESOLVE D'ALEMBERT'S PARADOX BY SHOWING THAT THE ZERO DRAG POTENTIAL SOLUTION OF EULER'S EQUATIONS IS UNSTABLE AND INSTEAD A TURBULENT (APPROXIMATE) SOLUTION DEVELOPS WITH A NON ZERO DRAG, EVEN WITHOUT BOUNDARY LAYER EFFECTS.
  • THEY BASE THEIR RESULT ON NUMERICAL CALCULATION MOSTLY DONE IN 2006 WITH THEIR OWN NUMERICAL PACKAGE.
  • THE EQUATIONS THEY STUDY (2.1) HAVE NO PARAMETERS OTHER THAN THE VELOCITY SO THAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS MUST APPLY TO ALL REYNOLDS NUMBERS.
  • SINCE TURBULENCE DOES NOT DEVELOP AT LOW RE THEIR RESULT GOES TOO FAR. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY GET VORTICITY WHEN THE INTIAL FLOW IS IRROTATIONAL, BAROTROPIC AND WITHOUT SHEAR LAYERS.
  • I DO NOT NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR USE OF SEPARATION WHEN THERE ARE NO BOUNDARY LAYERS TO SEPARATE. I HAVE ATTACHED A CITATION FROM LIGHTHILL IN WHICH HE ADVOCATES REPLACING d'ALEMBERTS PARADOX WITH d'ALEMBERTS THEOREM.
  • THIS PAPER SHOULD BE REJECTED.
  • I DID NOT READ THEIR NUMERICAL PAPERS WHICH ARE VERY NEW AND APPARENTLY NOT VALIDATED AGAINST EXACT SOLUTIONS AND OTHER TURBULENT CODES.
It is clear that these referee's are out kill, and they do it! The paper was then submitted to Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics and was accepted and published in Dec 2008.

The story is told in my previous post The Sciencegate of Fluid Mechanics: It shows how a small group of scientists can control a whole scientific discipline by suppressing new information and new discoveries showing classical "truths" to be empty/false. See my interview with the Editors of Journal of Fluid Mechanics JFM.

It shows how this small group of scientists also controls Wikipedia, and blocks any reference

Climategate has shown that some of climate science has been a dirty business, and I have experienced similar practice in fluid mechanics. The Climategate drama is now unfolding and its consequences must be far-reaching...carbon trading is losing momentum...Maybe the emails behind dAlembertgate will also be made public...maybe according to FOI...

If you look into the details of dAlembertgate you will discover that the new resolution of d'Alembert's paradox fundamentally changes the mathematical basis of fluid dynamics and that the attitude of JFM is untenable...

For more insight into the essentials of peer-review see an example from 1945.

söndag 14 februari 2010

Time for Fight, in Climate Science

The basic scientific questions in climate science are
  • (i) Is there today unequivocal unprecedented global warming?
  • (ii) Is there scientific evidence of major AGW?
In a BBC interview Phil Jones as central scientific advocate of AGW, answers No to (i) and Maybe Not to (ii), as evidenced in:

Question A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly
different from each other.

Question D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

Phil Jones: This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Question E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Question V - If you have confidence in your science why didn't you come out fighting like the UK government's drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?

Phil Jones: I don't feel this question merits an answer.

Both question (i) and (ii) are scientific questions which can be answered today, or not. It is up to the scientific community including the Royal Society and Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to present answers or if this is not yet possible, to make this clear.

It is time for Phil Jones and the Royals to come out in the open and fight. This is how science is performed, unlike business and politics taking place in closed boards behind closed doors, and how merits in science are gained.

Or rather, this is how science is supposed to work, but the practice is different, as now being
brought into light in Climategate and Climategate Analysis by John Costella
  • So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge—  thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything)  and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers  of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-  ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the  leaders—have used. 
  • And do not be confused: I am here talking about those  scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of  hand.    
  • This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.    It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most  important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses  scientists. 

A parallel story, on a much smaller scale but with the same ingredients, is my own experience with my resolution together with Johan Hoffman of the 250 year old d'Alembert's paradox as a central problem of fluid mechanics.