Is Climatology Science?

A recent paper by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi from the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the University of Turku in Finland has cast doubt on the opinion of many climatologists that man-made increases in CO2 levels are responsible for global warming. Another paper published by Masayuki Hyodo, Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan came to the same conclusion.

These scientists argue that cloud formation is the principle engine of climate change.

Green house gases have the power to retain heat from the sun and thereby increase the temperature on earth.

CO2 is a green house gas that is currently 400 parts per million of the total atmospheric gasses. However, this is only .04% of the atmosphere.

The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor. It constitutes 97% of all greenhouse gases. (globalchange.mit.edu (MIT Joint Program on Global Change).

Clouds are formed from water vapor. Up to 70%% of the earth is covered by clouds.

95% of CO2 comes from natural sources, such volcanoes or natural decomposition processes. The human contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere is only .0016 percent. www.realclimate.org.

Yet, climate computer models employed by most climatologists are formulated in such a way that CO2 is weighted as responsible for most of global warming, while the cooling effect of clouds is either minimized or ignored. This was done by claiming that the weather is particularly sensitive to CO2--even though there is no experimental data to support such a claim.

Clouds reflect the heat of the sun back into space. Without clouds, the retention of heat by water vapor would not be moderated, and the earth would be a veritable oven incapable of supporting life.

According to Kauppinen, Malmi and the Japanese scientists, cosmic rays stimulate the formation of clouds. When there in an increase in cosmic rays striking the earth, more clouds are formed and the global temperature decreases. Thus, cosmic rays, although they are high in energy, cause a reduction in the temperature of the earth’s surface—the opposite of what one would expect.

There have been periodic reversals of the earth’s magnetic field over the millennia. These disruptions resulted in a significant increase in cosmic rays reaching the earth with a consequent increase in cloud formation and a decrease in temperature.

Drs. Kauppinen and Malmi report that the magnetic field has been moving erratically from the Canadian Arctic towards Siberia so unpredictably that we may be in for a reversal of the field. If this happens, the earth will suffer another ice age by reason of an enormous bombardment of cosmic rays [The last such reversal occurred some 780,000 years ago.]

The Finnish and Japanese scientists concluded that a small reduction in cosmic rays in the modern period has caused a slight increase [less than1%] in the earth’s mean temperature but that this condition can reverse at any time, and we can do nothing about it.

They point out that an increase in temperature causes a greater release of CO2 from the oceans (Henry’s Law). Thus, the causal relationship is not that a rise in CO2 causes a significant rise in global temperature but rather the reverse—that a significant increase in temperature causes an increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, rising temperatures cause increasing CO2 levels, and not the other way round.

An increase in CO2 of itself causes no significant increase in temperature owing to the fact that it is a minimal constituent of the atmosphere, and the claim that the weather is especially sensitive to this particular gas is a mere makeweight.

The Kauppinen/Malmi paper is highly critical of the climate models employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists maintain that in order to implicate CO2 as the principal cause of climate change, the IPCC “had to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component.”

In other words the IPCC exaggerated the influence of CO2 to get the results they wanted. In so doing, they minimized the influence of cloud formation.

Thus, the Finnish and Japanese scientists would argue that the claim that increases in CO2 traceable to human activity are responsible for global warming is not established by experimental data (as the scientific method would dictate) but rather depends on climate models that reflect only the opinion of the climatologist who baked that opinion into them. This constitutes intellectual dishonesty in the form of circular reasoning, in that the climate models presume the very thing they purport to establish.

Kauppinen and Malmi emphasized that computer models cannot be considered experimental evidence—a statement of the obvious.

They stated further:

“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.
“The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature has increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

See, http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
[Press “paper” to get complete text.]

As for myself, I did not find that either the Finnish or the Japanese teams presented much in the way of experimental evidence to support their claim that cloud formation is the principal engine of climate change.

However, It is possible, in principle, to construct an experiment that will tell us exactly to what extent cloud formation contributes to global warming. Thus, unlike the CO2 theory, the cloud postulate has the major advantage of being susceptible to experimental falsification or verification.

The CLOUD experiment at the Cern Laboratory has attempted to do just that. Dr. Jasper Kirkby, a particle physicist has designed a cloud chamber that creates a parcel of the atmosphere that can be subjected to various substances and to the “Cern beam,” a very close approximation of cosmic rays supplied by a device called the Proton Synchrotron.

I should point out that, as a physicist, Dr. Kirkby is in the habit of assiduously adhering to the demands of the scientific method. Unlike the CO2 promoters, he deals in experimental facts and not mere opinions. Nor does he believe that a show of hands in favor of or against a climate-change theory is controlling, for such a thing is a political process having nothing to do with the scientific method.

The notion that cloud formation is a minimal factor in climate change was based upon the prevailing belief (never experimentally verified) that there was little difference in cloudiness before and during the industrial era.

However, the CLOUD experiment demonstrated that there was much greater cloud formation prior to the industrial revolution than there is now. Thus, it appears that reduced cloud formation in the current era has had a very significant impact on climate change, but this fact is not counted in the IPCC models.

Much of Kirkby’s experimental work has to do with what are called aerosols. These are tiny particles abundant in the atmosphere (160,000 per cubic inch). They are known to come from desert dust, sea salt, soot, the burning of fossil fuels and volcanic eruptions. They may be solids or liquids.

Aerosols are important because they are the seeds that yield the formation of the cloud droplets that constitute the fabric of clouds. Because cloud droplets typically form around an aerosol--the more the aerosols, the greater the formation of clouds and the lower the temperature. As previously stated, clouds cover most of the earth’s surface.

Densely populated regions, particularly where coal is burnt in large quantities, are major sources of aerosols. Because aerosols tend to reduce air quality, their emissions have been reduced in Europe and the U.S. over the last few decades.

Ironically, because many anthropogenic aerosols themselves cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space, their reduction likely contributed to the warming of the climate.

The CLOUD experiment uncovered certain previously unknown facts about aerosols.

First of all, it was found that vapors released by trees and other vegetation form aerosols when they are oxidized in the atmosphere. High CO2 levels tend to increase plant growth and consequently foster an increase in such vapors.

Secondly, it was found that the ionization of atmospheric gases caused by cosmic rays increases the production of aerosols by a factor of 10 to 20! But what caused the current decrease in cloud formation and the consequent rise in temperature?

It may have been that the polluted atmosphere of the industrial age has blocked much of the cosmic radiation and thereby curtailed the ionization necessary to stimulate sufficient cloud formation.

However, the matter is complicated by the fact that much of what is called pollution consists of man-made aerosols that themselves, even without cloud formation, have the power to reflect sunlight back into space and thereby reduce temperatures on earth.

It may be simply that there has been a decrease in cosmic rays in the industrial era, as the Finnish and Japanese scientists claim.

Obviously, much more needs to be known before it will be possible to accurately predict future climatic changes. Even the IPCC now admits that cloud formation studies have raised considerable doubt as to the accuracy of their predictions of future global warming.

See, https://home.cern/ “CLOUD Experiment Sharpens Climate Predictions” and “CLOUD Shows Pre-Industrial Skies Cloudier than Expected”

Some say that CO2 is a pollutant detrimental to the health. Nothing could be further from the truth. Plant life would not be possible without CO2, and all animal life would, as a consequence, eventually disappear. So that it is not an exaggeration to say that CO2 is essential to all life on earth.

Commercial greenhouses create a confined space where CO2 is well over 1000 parts per million. The plants thrive on it, with no danger to the health of the greenhouse workers.

Plants do not begin to develop toxicity symptoms until CO2 levels reach about 10,000ppm (1% of the atmosphere). The current CO2 level in the atmosphere is 400ppm (.04%). At about 10,000ppm the roots are unaffected but the leaves showed deformities.

So that, for plants to begin to develop symptoms of toxicity there would have to be a CO2 level 25 times greater than the current level. Even the most fanatic climate change enthusiasts are not predicting such a monumental increase in atmospheric CO2.

Humans are actually more tolerant of high CO2 levels. The first symptom, shortness of breath during exertion, does not occur until a CO2 level of about 20,000 ppm!

https://www.quora.com/Can-plants-die-from-breathing-in-too-much-carbon-dioxide

NASA has reported:

“A quarter to half of vegetated lands has shown a significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

“The greening represents an increase in leaves of plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

This means more oxygen to breathe and more food to eat. It also means that greater plant life produces greater amounts of the vapors that increase the production of aerosols, thereby increasing cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. This tends to decrease temperature.

A little historical perspective will help to understand the political aspects of anthropogenic climate change.

In the nineteen eighties, Margaret Thatcher, in an attempt to break the back of the coal miners union, appointed a scientific commission to determine if the burning of coal was dangerous to the health. It did not take long for them to come up with the anthropogenic climate change theory.

During this period, the European neo-Marxists were trying to remain relevant after the fall of the Soviet Union. Despite its conservative origins, they seized upon the Thatcher climate-change theory, basically because it was anti-industrialist. The theory soon spread throughout the world and became an article of faith for the politically correct.

The U.S. government offered generous grants to climatologists who supported anthropogenic climate change. Scientists who questioned it could not hope to receive a grant. This woeful condition remains to this day. It is no surprise, therefore, that most (but not all) climatologists argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change. This issue has been steeped in politics since its beginnings

However, many Climatologists have now seen the writing on the wall and are willing to consider the powerful effects of cloud formation.

But, what of the claim that 97% of climatologists accept anthropogenic climate change?

A proposition claiming that a majority vote among climatologists establishes any proposition as fact runs contrary to the scientific method. It is politics, not science. In real science, experimental verification establishes fact, not mere opinion, whether held individually or jointly. If a vote had been taken among so-called experts in Galileo’s time, they would have agreed overwhelmingly that the sun revolves around the earth. That view was held with a kind of religious fervor, much as anthropogenic climate change is held today among the politically correct.

Real science does not engage in the kind of circular reasoning evidenced by the IPCC climate models, wherein high sensitivity to CO2 and minimization of the influence of clouds is baked into the models, thereby predetermining the result--namely, anthropogenic climate change. Such a thing cannot logically yield truth, for it presumes the very thing it purports to prove. That is the meaning of saying that computer models cannot be considered experimental evidence.

A scientific theory cannot, for any practical purpose, be considered a fact unless it is so well established by experimental data and accurate predictions of future events that no rational person can deny it. This is the scientific method. Thus, it was not necessary for physicists to take a vote on whether or not General Relativity is true, or even to argue that a majority of physicists believe it to be so. It was the undeniable evidence that made it true.

It seems clear that the degree to which the temperature of the current age is affected by cloud formation should be determined by experimental data and not merely by opinion, for the only vote that counts is the vote of nature.

The Epistemology of Man-made Climate Change

As I have been suggesting, there are serious epistemic problems regarding the issue of anthropogenic climate change as it is presently being treated in the climatology community. These problems are such that they strike at the heart of this so-called science.

I have already pointed out the problem of circular reasoning as it applies to IPCC climate models, wherein the outcome is predetermined (for doctrinaire reasons) by including an unjustified climate sensitivity factor for the sole purpose of obtaining a desired result. Such a process, as a matter of logic, cannot yield truth. It begs the question by presuming the very thing it claims to prove.

However, where anthropogenic climate change is concerned, we have now reached the stage where a treatment of certain fundamentally epistemic issues cannot be avoided.

How do we know anything? The answer must be, ultimately by way of the senses. This is empirical evidence. However, the senses only give us information about specific events.

We can also employ our reasoning powers to formulate general causal rules that we say can be used to predict future events. This is induction. However, it has long been known that there is a serious problem with induction.

When we see a repeated conjunction of two events in all of our current experience, we say that the first in time was a necessary condition for the occurrence of the second. We say that the first caused the second.

However, because it is not possible for us to experience all things, this leaves open the possibility that the future may show that the conjunction was not really one of cause and effect.

This means that, although we are justified in believing that a conjunction consistently experienced indicates a relationship of cause and effect, we cannot say with certainty that such a relationship exists through all time. In other words, we cannot really know if generalizations are true. Therein, lies the problem.

The question arises: Is science moving us in the direction of truth? In this connection, the Twentieth Century philosopher, Karl Popper had a remarkable insight. He tells us that if a scientific hypothesis is specifically categorical in its essential features (is sufficiently risky), it leaves itself open to falsification by appropriate experimental data. In such case, the falsity of the proposition would be certain and final.

If any hypotheses cannot be falsified in this way, it is not science. If it were otherwise, there would be no end to the “confirmations” one may claim to support any hypothesis. This is why so-called confirmation is not the test of science, for one can always imagine some kind of corroboration, leaving us with only opinions pro and con but no certain knowledge.

Thus, it is only falsification that can claim certain truth, for the falsity of a scientific hypothesis is derived not by induction but by deduction. The force of logic supports it.

Accordingly, we can never be certain that a scientific hypothesis is true, but we can be certain that it is false. Yet, we are justified in believing that a hypothesis is true if it has strong predictive power and has not, thus far, been falsified.

However, justification does not equal certainty, for all justified beliefs must be considered provisional. To put it differently, we should leave our minds open regarding the truth or falsity of any scientific theory.

Popper advises that only falsification moves us in the direction of truth, for knowledge is always a work in progress.

By way of explanation, Popper distinguished Freudian Psychology from General Relativity.

Psychological ideas are so general that they can explain almost any mental infirmity. Therefore, psychologists can find confirmation everywhere. They take no chances.

For example, Freud said that all mental problems are rooted in childhood experiences. But, if two adults have the same problem but one was shown no affection as a child but the other was shown abundant affection, Freud was free to say that one was shown not enough affection and the other too much, and that in either case the mental problem was the result.

Similarly, any emotional instability of a woman could be explained by saying that she has “penis envy,” for Freud “put the rabbit in the hat” by declaring that this is the root cause of all such problems.

For these reasons, Popper maintained that psychology was only pseudo-science. I might add that anyone who has had courtroom experience will enthusiastically support this conclusion.

Popper explains that the situation was quite different with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein’s conclusions were categorical and allowed no room for excuses. As Popper put it, Einstein took a great risk. He opened himself up to falsification by the results of the 1919 experiment involving an eclipse of the sun.

It was pivotal to general relativity that a beam of light would bend under the influence of gravitation. The experiment would either justify or falsify the whole theory. As we all know, the experiment was consistent with the theory and Einstein became the most celebrated physicist in the Twentieth Century. Popper would say that this is what real science is all about.

[Caveat: As I pointed out, while this experiment justifies a contingent belief in the soundness of general relativity, we cannot properly conclude that it is certain that it expresses a state of affairs in the real world.]

Now, we reach the question of whether Climatology is science or pseudoscience.

Climatology shares with psychology the feature that its propositions are not sufficiently categorical (risky) to allow falsification and that consequently any information can be spun into confirmation. A few examples follow.

The entire scale used by climatologists to give a mean global temperature consists of only one degree Celsius. So that, all claimed rises in global temperature are measured in fractions of one degree. This requires very careful measurements indeed. However, the overwhelming number of the devices used to record local temperatures are clustered in the Unites States and Western Europe, with comparatively few in the third world. The entire continent of Antarctica has comparatively few of such devices.

Because of the inherent problem with accuracy in land-based global temperature measurements, NASA measured atmospheric temperatures over time throughout the world by means of a satellite. NASA advised that their satellite measurements showed that global temperature was remarkably stable.

Predictably, the climatologists scrambled for confirmation of their determinations of rising global temperatures and prevailed upon NASA to recalculate their measurements. Being an agency of a nation strongly in favor of Anthropogenic climate change, NASA’s recalculations were just as Popper would have predicted.

NASA thereafter found ways to “confirm” that the satellite measurements were consistent with the land-based measurements--even though they were strained to employ rather novel astrophysical principles.

Of course, the climatologists will give excuses for NASA excuses, and the whole business will have no end and no avenue to truth.

Similarly, the ice cores reveal that in distant ice ages, a rise in CO2 levels followed a rise in temperature by many centuries. This demonstrated that a rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2 levels and not the other way round; since, as we all know, the cause must precede the effect. No one really knows what actually caused the initial rise in temperature—although there is considerable speculation on this point.

Predictably, however, the climatologists had an excuse. They claimed that when the CO2 was released from the oceans by a rise in temperature (however caused), it took over the job of raising the temperature and thus became the actual engine of global warming.

Apparently, these pseudo-scientists were not disposed to employ the logic of Occam’s razor, which holds that, if there are two explanations for a given result, the one that requires less speculation is most likely true.

In this case, the simplest, most direct and least speculative explanation is that whatever caused the rise in temperature for centuries before the rise in CO2, also caused the continued rise in temperature thereafter.

We see the climatologists’ general disposition to have it their way no matter the facts when they claim: (1) that climate change is causing both more snowfall and less snowfall; or (2) that it causes drought except when it causes flooding; or (3) that it causes our days to get longer except when it is causing them to get shorter; or (4) that it causes both more hurricanes and less hurricanes. If we have an unusually hot summer in Europe and the U.S., it is set down to climate change. If we have an unusually cool summer, it is also climate change that is the cause. The same “logic” is used if our winters are unusually cold or unusually warm.

Because climatologists make no claim that is so categorical and clear that their whole theory rests upon it, they can endlessly pile excuse upon excuse with their central claim remaining untouched. This is not science.