Klimaatbeleid blijkt gebouwd op wetenschappelijk luchtledige.
Eerder schonk ik aandacht aan het opmerkelijke proefschrift van Alexander Bakker over de robuustheid van klimaatmodellen. Hierbij commentaar van Albert Jacobs en Judith Curry. Albert Jacobs:
* Bakker is entirely submerged in the culture of the KNMI. His loyalty to the organisation is evident throughout. That means his field of view is limited to the in–house wisdom with respect to the use of GCMs. He believes in GCMs, only decries that they are “not robust”. He only wants them improved, may–be even a “new paradigm” and a more open disclosure.
* He is critical of the suppression of uncertainties and the political aspect of the steps from the science to the “users” and critical of the political interference within the science effort of WG I.
* He does not question the IPCC credo that the gap between a non-CO2 GCM and reality must lead to the the capstone parable of the IPCC: inclusion of human–caused CO2 in the model. He does not seem to consider anything else.
* Nowhere in the dissertation is there any mention of looking for climate influences beyond the atmosphere’s CO2, even when “a different paradigm” is being mentioned. There is no mention of any solar orbital or radiative influence, and that even includes Svensmark’s GCRays/cloud cover.
* Other than one Pielke and one Curry reference, there is no reference to any sceptic that I could spot in a quick search.
However, it did take courage for a promovendus to go even this far. Anything more would have been a bridge too far both for him and his Faculty Committee. Could he have said in summary that the present uncertainties of the IPCC’s conclusions should preclude the development of >$ 1 trillion worth of worldwide economic policies on the basis of those conclusions?
Adus Albert Jacobs.
There isn’t too much in Part I of the thesis that is new or hasn’t been discussed elsewhere. His discussion on model ‘tuning’ – particularly implicit tuning – is very good. Also I particularly like his section ‘Lines of evidence or circular reasoning’.
However, the remarkable aspect of this to me is that the ‘philosophy of climate modeling’ essay was written not by a philosopher of science or a climate modeler, but by a scientist working in the area of applied climatology. His experiences in climate change impact assessments provide a unique perspective for this topic. The thesis provides a very strong argument that GCM climate models are not fit for the purpose of regional impact assessments.
I was very impressed by Bakker’s intellectual integrity and courage in tackling this topic in the 11th hour of completing his Ph.D. thesis. I am further impressed by his thesis advisors and committee members for allowing/supporting this. Bakker notes many critical comments from his committee members. I checked the list of committee members, one name jumped out at me – Arthur Petersen – who is a philosopher of science that has written about climate models. I suspect that the criticisms were more focused on strengthening the arguments, rather than ‘alarm’ over an essay that criticizes climate models. Kudos to the KNMI.
I seriously doubt that such a thesis would be possible in an atmospheric/oceanic/ climate science department in the U.S. – whether the student would dare to tackle this, whether a faculty member would agree to supervise this, and whether a committee would ‘pass’ the thesis.
Aldus Judith Curry.
Lees verder hier.
Bij mij overheersen eveneens positieve gevoelens over het proefschrift. Het zelfreinigend vermogen van de wetenschap in actie! En, ik durf het haast niet op te schrijven: Nederland als gidsland.
Maar Albert Jacobs heeft natuurlijk gelijk. Het zou wenselijk zijn indien wetenschap en politiek de consequenties zouden trekken uit het proefschrift van Bakker – consequenties die zelfs voor een buitenstaander met niet meer dan gemiddelde intelligentie onmiddellijk duidelijk zijn: stop met die onzin van het klimaatbeleid.
Voor mijn eerdere DDS–bijdragen zie hier.