Attributie-studies

Steven E. Koonin (2021, p. 178):
I get the distinct sense that the science is unsettled enough that any unusual weather can be "attributed" to human influences.

U bent hier: inhoudsopgave - atmosfeer en klimaat - attributiestudies
Afkorting of begrip onbekend ? Raadpleeg ons milieuwoordenboek !

Follow@plattezaken en Facebook of Linkedin

	Web www.hugovandermolen.nl

Attributiestudies
Nu het klimaat nauwelijks of niet meer opwarmt en het steeds moeilijker blijkt om aan te tonen dat CO2-toename meer extreem weer veroorzaakt dan vroeger, is er onder klimaat-alarmistische onderzoekers een nieuwe tak van "sport" ontstaan: Attributie-studies.

Bij elke vorm van slecht weer laten ze hun computers ratelen met hun modellen, waar dan - vaak al binnen enkele dagen - uitkomt dat dit slechte weer nu extra frequent voorkomt dankzij de menselijke uitstoot van CO2, die toch wel een ernstige vorm van klimaatverandering zou veroorzaken.

Ze geloven in de wetenschappelijkheid van hun werk. Zoals Friederike Otto stelt: “In this way we are able to move from anecdote and conjecture, from superstition and wishful thinking, to science. We have evidence and we have facts. They are a secure foundation for news”.  Friederike Otto is dan ook een van de leidende personen bij de WWA-World Weather Attribution. Ook is ze betrokken geweest bij het opstellen van de WWA-gids voor journalisten getiteld "Reporting extreme weather and climate change".

Maar Chris Morrison maakt gehakt van deze nieuwe tak van "klimaat-wetenschap-sport":

It is simple to explain what ‘attribution’ models do. First they simulate a climate with no human involvement that does not exist, and then compare it with another simulation that is supposed to reflect the involvement of humans burning fossil fuel. 
Any weather event at a local level that is magnified in the second is, abracadabra, said to be due to human-caused climate change.

To take such results seriously it must be assumed that the models have correct information in the first place. An inability over 40 years for climate models to predict an accurate temperature would seem to indicate they are work in progress. 
Ignorance of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) number – the amount the Earth will warm if carbon dioxide is doubled in the atmosphere – would be considered another handicap. 
In addition, it is interesting to observe some academics attempting to produce a perfect model capable of such precision when they are mapping a climate system that is non-linear with numerous, only partially understood, powerful forces at work. 

How anyone can take the results seriously, with all the inevitable ‘garbage in-garbage out’ possibilities, is a mystery. Measuring cats in a sack might be considered a marginally easier task.

Attribution studies fail the falsification principle outlined by the science philosopher Karl Popper. This is held to be the test that differentiates real science from pseudoscience. Any hypothesis must be testable and conceivably proved false. Unless a suggestion can be tested in this way, it is opinion, guesswork, or, more uncharitably, crystal ball-gazing.

Stating, for instance, that a bad storm was caused by humans when a natural explanation is also available, or calculating that wildfires will consume so many more acres than before, is unprovable. It therefore fails the test to be termed science.

Morrison concludeert: "Science? Unverified guesswork would be more accurate. Popper must be turning in his grave.

De WWA-gids voor journalisten om over extreem weer te rapporteren voorziet in een behoefte hieraan bij de pers, die al in 1871 opviel;

Literatuur:

Morrison, Chris, As the Climate Refuses to Break Down on Cue, the Pseudoscience of ‘Attribution Studies’ Rises Up to Plug the Holes, The Daily Sceptic, 15-10-2022

	Web www.hugovandermolen.nl

Deze website is een activiteit van dr. Hugo H. van der Molen, Copyright 2007 e.v.

Mail ons uw commentaar, aanvullingenen en correcties !

Follow @plattezaken en Facebook of Linkedin