Ingezonden persbericht
Leiden, 21 december 2006
Aan de heer Drs H.H.F. Wijffels
Kabinets(in)formateur
Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Postbus 20017
2500 EA DEN HAAG
Over politiek en klimaatverandering
Samenvatting
Hierbij brengen wij onze verontrusting tot uitdrukking over de vanzelfsprekendheid waarmede politici en beleidsmakers uitgaan van de juistheid van alarmerende berichten over dreigende antropogene klimaatverandering. Deze berichten worden hoofdzakelijk geproduceerd door onderzoekers binnen het vakgebied van de klimatologie. Naar onze mening houden die echter onvoldoende rekening met algemene wetenschappelijke inzichten die een ander licht werpen op de klimaat-'problematiek'.
Tegen deze achtergrond is er ons inziens dringend behoefte aan een onafhankelijke taxatie-studie ('scientific assessment') van recente vorderingen in de klimatologie. Daarbij dienen aangrenzende disciplines te worden betrokken, met name geologie, oceanografie, gletsjerkunde, astronomie en paleobiologie, alsmede andere natuur- en ingenieurswetenschappen. Voor een dergelijke wetenschappelijke taxatie is de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) de meest aangewezen instantie. De Regering kan daartoe, als opdrachtgever, 'terms of reference' verstrekken.
Zeer geachte heer Wijffels,
Met belangstelling volgen wij uw inspanningen om op grond van de recente verkiezingsuitslag de basis te leggen voor de vorming van een kabinet. Inhoudelijk voelen we ons vooral ook daarbij betrokken omdat mag worden aangenomen dat in de gevoerde programmatische besprekingen eveneens aandacht zal worden geschonken aan het tot 2010 te voeren milieu-, energie- en klimaatbeleid. Wij achten het namelijk gewenst dat daarbij het tot op heden gevoerde 'klimaatbeleid' aan een grondige heroverweging wordt onderworpen.
In het bijzonder zijn wij verontrust over de vanzelfsprekendheid waarmede vele beleidsmakers en politici de alarmerende berichten over dreigende, door menselijk handelen geïnduceerde klimaatverandering voor waar aannemen. Deze berichten, die onrust, ongerief en maatschappelijke kosten veroorzaken, zijn ons inziens gebaseerd op informatie en inzichten die niet voldoende wetenschappelijk zijn onderbouwd.
Gebrekkig klimaatonderzoek
Er heeft zich een wetenschappelijke mode ontwikkeld die alle recentelijk waargenomen meteorologische verschijnselen uitsluitend toeschrijft aan de stijging van de concentratie van CO2 in de atmosfeer. Deze zou worden veroorzaakt door het toenemende gebruik van fossiele brandstof. Daarbij wordt CO2 afgeschilderd als een milieuverontreinigende stof. Elke waarneming op zichzelf, bijvoorbeeld het extreem warme jaar 1998, is echter te verklaren op grond van bestaande kennis op het gebied van de geologie, de oceanografie, de gletsjerkunde, de astronomie, de paleobiologie en de klassieke meteorologie. De eerder genoemde eenzijdige verklaring van verschijnselen wordt voornamelijk gepropageerd vanuit het Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Deze instantie heeft als exclusieve opdracht de 'scientific assessment of human induced climate change', en niet de vaststelling van klimaatveranderingen in het algemeen.
De conclusies steunen overwegend op computersimulatiemodellen. Overeenkomstige computersimulaties vinden tegenwoordig toepassing in alle natuur- en ingenieurswetenschappen; de laatste decennia hebben ze een grote ontwikkeling doorgemaakt. Zij creëren echter steeds een denkbeeldige wereld, een wereld die niet noodzakelijk met de werkelijkheid overeenstemt. De uitkomsten van de simulaties zijn voorts sterk afhankelijk van de gegevens die worden ingevoerd. Gaat men er bijvoorbeeld bij een klimaatmodel vanuit dat de verhoging van de CO2-concentratie in de atmosfeer een wereldwijde, gemiddelde temperatuurstijging zal veroorzaken, dan is dat ook de uitkomst van de simulatie.
Fundamentele vraagstelling
Zeer fundamenteel bij het zoeken naar verklaringen voor aanwijzingen van klimaatverandering is de vraag: wat is oorzaak en wat is gevolg? Het zou in dit betoog te ver voeren alle wetenschappelijke argumenten aan te voeren die aanleiding zijn tot een omkering van de door het IPCC veronderstelde causaliteit. Een enkel argument mag, als voorbeeld, echter niet onvermeld blijven. Uit geologisch onderzoek, met name onderzoek naar het optreden van ijstijden, blijkt dat de invloed van CO2 in de atmosfeer op temperatuurvariaties gering is en dat de temperatuurverandering daarentegen een verandering van de CO2-concentratie in de atmosfeer veroorzaakt
De mogelijke omkering van de oorzaak-gevolg relatie is bij vrijwel alle waarnemingen van samenvallende verschijnselen aan de orde. Voor sommige coïncidenties is deze vaststelling uiteraard nog speculatief omdat niet alle werkzame krachten bekend zijn. Dit geldt bijvoorbeeld voor de oorzaak-gevolg relatie bij gletsjerterugtrekking en zeespiegelstijging. Dit neemt echter onze verontrusting over de nalatigheid van de internationale 'main stream' van het huidige klimaatonderzoek niet weg: de betrokken onderzoekers verzuimen doorlopend de omkeringsproblematiek expliciet aan de orde te stellen. Zij spreken slechts van 'onzekerheden' die het nog onmogelijk zouden maken om de antropogene invloed op het klimaat volledig kwantitatief te verklaren.
Voornamelijk vanuit andere wetenschappelijke disciplines dan de klimatologie presenteren wij ons bezwaar tegen deze benaderingswijze. Wij zijn, kort samengevat, van oordeel dat de internationale 'main stream' van de huidige klimatologie zich daarmee plaatst buiten de traditie van de westerse wetenschapsbeoefening. Daarin wordt immers steevast de socratische vraag gesteld: liggen de zaken werkelijk zo als men ze op het eerste gezicht interpreteert?
Deze socratische vraag is de basis geweest voor de snelle ontwikkeling van de natuurwetenschappen in de westerse wereld sinds de renaissance. Zij is in het bijzonder relevant in onderzoeksgebieden aan de grenzen van onze kennis. Daartoe moet ook de klimatologie worden gerekend, vanwege de vele verschillende krachten die bij de veranderingen van het klimaat op elkaar inwerken.
Niet onderkende dilemma's
In wezen is ons bezwaar tegen het denken en het handelen van politici en beleidsmakers dat zij tot dusver dit dilemma - en de hierna te bespreken problemen - in de wetenschappelijke wereld onvoldoende onderkennen. Zij vertrouwen op oordelen van experts in een nauw begrensd onderzoeksgebied die niet noodzakelijkerwijs ook overzicht hebben over het geheel van relevante disciplines. Dit is inherent aan de hedendaagse, gespecialiseerde wetenschapsbeoefening, als gevolg waarvan de waarde van de 'expert mening' wordt overschat.
Er is bovendien met de groeiende milieuproblematiek een specifieke groepering ontstaan van maatschappelijk bewogen onderzoekers die het als hun verantwoordelijkheid beschouwen de samenleving te wijzen op bedreigende ontwikkelingen. Dit heeft op bepaalde terreinen zijn nut wel bewezen. Delen van die groepering blijken zich echter ook te ontwikkelen tot pressiegroepen die zich beroepen op een grote consensus met betrekking tot te nemen maatregelen. Consensus is in principe evenwel een onwezenlijk begrip in de wetenschapsbeoefening omdat - zoals de wetenschapsgeschiedenis leert - doorbraken veelal ontstaan doordat individuele onderzoekers tegen de dominante opvattingen ingaan.
Sprekers vanuit het internationale IPCC-circuit beroepen zich frequent op consensus binnen een grote groep klimaatexperts Dit kan op zichzelf reeds worden beschouwd als een signaal dat er iets mis is met de wetenschappelijke instelling van deze groepering.
Het (internationale) publieke debat over de IPCC-doctrine heeft voorts een nare bijsmaak gekregen doordat opponenten over en weer verdachtmakingen uiten ten aanzien van de motieven die de tegenstander tot zijn stellingname zouden hebben gebracht. Aanhangers van de IPCC-doctrine wordt verweten 'advocacy research' te bedrijven, dat wil zeggen: publiekelijk aandacht te trekken voor eigen onderzoek om overheidsfondsen te verwerven of specifieke maatschappelijke opvattingen te verwezenlijken. Opponenten van de IPCC-doctrine zouden in dienst staan van de grootindustrie en 'rechtse' groeperingen die ongebreidelde economische groei propageren om de welvaart en het menselijk welzijn te verhogen, met verwaarlozing van eventuele milieu-aspecten. Zij worden ook wel aangeduid als 'ontkenners' van de milieuproblematiek en - vooral - van door de mens geïnduceerde klimaatverandering.
Noodzaak van een nationale taxatie-studie
Voor alle duidelijkheid: wij stellen ons op als critici van de wetenschappelijke benaderingen die in het IPCC-circuit worden gevolgd, en als critici van politici en beleidsmakers die zonder eigen afweging als ultieme waarheid accepteren wat vanuit een op consensus leunende 'main-stream view' wordt beweerd.
Wij stellen ons beslist niet op als 'experts' die het beter zouden weten. Het gaat ons om de principiële wetenschappelijke benaderingen die worden toegepast en het gaat ons om de wijze waarop waarnemingen aan het grote publiek worden gecommuniceerd via persberichten van wetenschappelijke instellingen .
Het zou in dit betoog te ver voeren diep in te gaan op wat onzerzijds wordt beschouwd als schending van de wetenschappelijke integriteit door het IPCC. In het kort: dit betreft, naast de eerder genoemde interpretatie van computermodelsimulaties en de onvoldoende afweging van oorzaak- en gevolg-relaties, het selectieve gebruik van data om stellingnamen te onderstrepen, het selectief citeren uit de literatuur en het toepassen op complexe systemen van statistische methoden die zich daarvoor niet lenen.
De in de aanhef genoemde taxatie-studie zou zich in het bijzonder op deze punten van kritiek dienen te concentreren.
Onzerzijds wordt het ook van belang geacht dat waarnemingen niet slechts worden getoetst aan één enkele doctrine (die van het IPCC), maar dat ook toetsing aan alternatieven plaatsvindt (zie annex I en II van 'Principles').
Ten vervolge op de wetenschappelijke taxatiestudie zal het Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau (MNP) de SPM waarschijnlijk onderwerpen aan een maatschappelijke taxatiestudie, waarvoor andere normen en vaardigheden gelden en nodig zijn dan voor een wetenschappelijke.
Het bestuur van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW) heeft reeds het voornemen kenbaar gemaakt begin 2007 een seminar te houden over 'Scientific Assessment of Climate Change'. Dit zou een goede gelegenheid kunnen zijn om de 'Principles' van kanttekeningen te voorzien en accenten voor nader onderzoek te suggereren, met - zoals eerder gesteld - een stevige inbreng van vertegenwoordigers van disciplines die aan de klimatologie grenzen.
In dit verband mag niet onvermeld blijven dat met name in de astronomie een opvatting leeft dat rekening dient te worden gehouden met de mogelijkheid dat vanaf omstreeks 2012 een toenemende afkoeling merkbaar zal worden, een proces dat tot in 2050 tot steeds lagere temperaturen zal leiden
Tenslotte: rekening houdend met de mogelijkheid dat een kabinetsformatie nog geruime tijd op zich zal laten wachten, hopen wij brede adhesie voor dit initiatief te ontvangen, zowel uit wetenschappelijke als uit politieke kring. Informeel kunnen dan reeds enige voorbereidingen worden getroffen, in afwachting van de formulering van 'terms of reference' van regeringswege.
Hoogachtend,
Prof. Dr. Ir. A. R?rsch, penvoerder
Pieterskerkhof 40c, 2311 ST Leiden arthur@keykey.nl
Dr B. van Geel (paleobiologie)
Prof. Ir H. van Heel (milieutechniek & oud Hoechst)
Prof. Ir R.W.J. Kouffeld (energievoorziening)
Prof. Dr. F.H. Kreuger (hoogpspanningstechniek)
Prof. Dr. H.N.A. Priem (isotopen-geologie & planetaire geologie)
Prof. Dr Ir D. Thoenes (Proceskunde en oud AKZO)
Prof. Dr R D. Schuiling (geochemie)
In kopie verzonden aan:
de Fractievoorzitters in de Tweede Kamer,
de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer,
de Voorzitter van de Eerste Kamer,
de Vice-voorzitter van de Raad van State,
de Voorzitter van de Algemene Rekenkamer,
het Bestuur van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW),
de Directeur-Generaal van het Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau (MNP),
het Bestuur van de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO).
Bijlage I
PRINCIPLES FOR 'SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT' OF CLIMATE CHANGE .
Arthur Rörsch 6th revision 21-8-2006
CONTENTS
1. SUMMARISING INTRODUCTION
2. THE NATURE AND AIMS OF SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT
2.1 General Principles.
a) Quality assessment
b) priority assessment
(c) Hypothesis Assessment
2.2 The mutual relationships
2.3 Priority assessment.
2.4 Quality assessment
2.5 Hypothesis Assessment
3. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SETTING-UP OF A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Selection of auditors
2. Selection of papers
3. Formulation of hypotheses
4. Second round of selection of papers and their quality assessment
5. Assessment of proof
6. Assessment of uncertainties.
7. Falsifiabilty
4. SCIENCE POLICY ASPECTS OF SETTING-UP A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
4.1 Assessment of assessments
4.2 An independent Scientific Assessment of the research on climate variability
4.3 Subjects for consideration in a general Scientific Assessment
4.4 Hierarchy and levels of assessments. Recommendations.
Annex I SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR CHALLENGES TO THE SCIENTIFIC BASE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
Annex II A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF THE ART OF RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
1. SUMMARISING INTRODUCTION
Quality is a benchmark in science. The credibility of research groups, institutes or even of a whole discipline depends on it.
Various fields of science have reached different levels of stringent quality control. Some comparative studies reveal a number of common basic principles for the quality control that are outlined in this note. However, the different levels of quality control may be that some researchers are insufficiently aware of how traditions in assessment studies have developed in other fields. This is relevant to climate change because current performance of experts in this field is subject to criticism from scientists in neighboring disciplines .
Climate Change is a 'hot topic' in science and in politics. It is an interesting subject of study in science because it is a very complex problem. Certainly, it is a great challenge to science to find new approaches to tackle it. And it has interest for politics because of the publicly expressed fear that current anthropogenic use of fossil fuels might affect the average global temperature. This political interest has an influence on the conduct of the science (e.g. it leads to provision of research funds).
However, the quantity of research is insufficient to guarantee the rate of progress of a scientific field in the absence of quality control. Moreover, the size of the investment in climate research - and public interest in its results - provides a need for public accountability for the research expenditure. This accountability needs a clear understanding of the measures to be taken to guarantee the proper use of the various forms of assessment that are related to quality control of scientific research.
This note uses the general term Scientific Assessment to cover the various forms of judgment which are employed to estimate and to improve scientific quality and to enhance scientific progress. It assumes there is a 'customer' for a Scientific Assessment, and that the customer assigns the Assessment to an audit committee with specific terms of reference. The members of the audit committee are indicated as the auditors.
Section 2 of this note elaborates on the issues of judgment by presenting definitions.
Section 3 discusses the more technical aspects of the organization of a Scientific Assessment. It essentially a plea to maintain quality standards for the assessment. Attention is also given to the above mentioned accountability with focus on the individual auditors.
Section 4 suggests types of assessments that could be considered with more or less priority in the near future. And it suggests subjects to be considered by those assessments.
Annex I presents a summary of the major challenges to the scientific base of the assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Annex II presents personal views of the author on a different approach to scientific assessment of climate research to that which seems to have been applied so far, and provides his suggestion of how the quality of research in climate variability could be evaluated.
-----------------------
PCCC (Platform Communication on Climate Change)
Voor suggesties zie de notitie die reeds onder de aandacht van het bestuur van de KNAW is gebracht. 'PRINCIPLES FOR 'SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT' OF CLIMATE CHANGE', Arthur Rörsch 6th revision 21-8-2006. Voor de inhoudsopgave en samenvatting zie bijlage I Bij het opstellen van specifieke 'terms of references' voor de wetenschappelijke taxatie kan het Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau adviseren.
Vele mineralen zijn rijk aan CO2 (carbonaten). Elke bouwsteen in de levende natuur, DNA, eiwit, vet, celwand, heeft CO2 als grondstof
'Garbage in garbage out.'
De wetenschapsgeschiedenis is rijk aan voorbeelden. Zie bijvoorbeeld Hal Hellman, 'Great Feuds in Science, ten of the liveliest disputes ever'. (John Wiley & sons, inc. 1998
Er is waarschijnlijk in andere disciplines, zoals de astronomie en de geologie, een even grote overeenstemming over de opvatting dat andere invloeden dan de antropogene emissie van CO2 eventuele klimaatverandering in overwegende mate bepalen.
Ons is daar in Nederland niets van bekend
Voorbeeld van ons inziens vertekende berichtgeving. Onderscheidene meteorologische instituten in de wereld brachten in november 2006 onder de aandacht dat 2006 weer tot de vijf 'warmste' sinds mensenheugenis zou gaan behoren, terwijl het warmste jaar sinds de middeleeuwen, 1998, inmiddels acht jaar achter ons ligt.
Het te maken onderscheid is waarschijnlijk in zuiver wetenschappelijke kring onvoldoende bekend.
Een op één vergaderdag uitvoeren van een wetenschappelijke taxatie is uiteraard een onmogelijke opgave.
In a letter dated July 4, 2006 from the Netherlands Royal Academy (KNAW) to the author a scientific assessment of climate change was announced. Similar exercises are expected to take place in other countries.
The author is retired Vice President of The Netherlands Organization for Applied Research (TNO) (1980-1995) and former Chairman of the Netherlands Agriculture Research Counsel (1995-1999) with experience in scientific assessment in a variety of disciplines, also in EU bodies and with private requests from universities.
See section 4. Criticisms mainly concern the use of the peer review system, of statistics and of numerical computer models.
Among scientists, their personal responsibility is frequently emphasized without definition of the accountability. But, in western social systems, carrying responsibility without accountability has no meaning. See also footnote 17.
---- --
Leiden, 21 december 2006
Aan het Bestuur van de
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
Postbus 19121
1000 GC AMSTERDAM
Betreft: Taxatiestudie Klimaatverandering
Geacht bestuur,
In Uw brief van 4 juli berichtte U terloops over het voornemen in 2007 een Themabijeenkomst over 'Scientific Assessment' van klimaatverandering te houden. Op 20 juli 2006 zond ik U een voorlopige reactie en notitie waarin een zorgvuldige voorbereiding van zo'n 'Scientific Assessment' werd bepleit, mede door het van te voren opstellen van 'terms of reference'. Zoals aangekondigd heb ik deze voorlopige notitie met collega's besproken en dit heeft geleid tot een herziene meer algemene notitie 'Principles for Scientific Assessment of Climate Change' in de verwachting dat meerdere organisaties in de wereld een initiatief zullen ontplooien. Deze heb ik U ter kennisneming op 28 augustus 2006 toegezonden.
In een formeel schrijven aan de informateur, met afschrift aan de Tweede Kamer, vraag ik thans namens een aantal collegae die zeer geïnteresseerd zijn in het onderwerp, de overheid zich formeel op te stellen als opdrachtgever van een wetenschappelijke taxatiestudie en de 'terms of reference' te doen voorbereiden door het Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau (MNP).
De KNAW is naar onze mening de aangewezen instantie om bij een 'Scientific Assessment of Climate Change' het voortouw te nemen, teneinde te verzekeren dat daarbij ook aangrenzende disciplines worden betrokken, met name de geologie, oceanografie, gletsjerkunde, astronomie en paleobiologie, alsmede andere natuur- en ingenieurswetenschappen. Wij achten het van belang dat de wetenschappelijke benaderingswijzen binnen het kerngebied van de klimatologie, mede door buitenstaanders aan een kritische beschouwing worden onderworpen.
Hoogachtend,
Arthur Rörsch
Pieterskerkhof 30c
2311 ST Leiden
---- --
PRINCIPLES FOR 'SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT' OF CLIMATE CHANGE .
Arthur Rörsch 6th revision 21-8-2006
CONTENTS
1. SUMMARISING INTRODUCTION
2. THE NATURE AND AIMS OF SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT
2.1 General Principles.
a) Quality assessment
b) priority assessment
(c) Hypothesis Assessment
2.2 The mutual relationships
2.3 Priority assessment.
2.4 Quality assessment
2.5 Hypothesis Assessment
3. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SETTING-UP OF A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Selection of auditors
2. Selection of papers
3. Formulation of hypotheses
4. Second round of selection of papers and their quality assessment
5. Assessment of proof
6. Assessment of uncertainties.
7. Falsifiabilty
4. SCIENCE POLICY ASPECTS OF SETTING-UP A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
4.1 Assessment of assessments
4.2 An independent Scientific Assessment of the research on climate variability
4.3 Subjects for consideration in a general Scientific Assessment
4.4 Hierarchy and levels of assessments. Recommendations.
Annex I SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR CHALLENGES TO THE SCIENTIFIC BASE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
Annex II A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF THE ART OF RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
1. SUMMARISING INTRODUCTION
Quality is a benchmark in science. The credibility of research groups, institutes or even of a whole discipline depends on it.
Various fields of science have reached different levels of stringent quality control. Some comparative studies reveal a number of common basic principles for the quality control that are outlined in this note. However, the different levels of quality control may be that some researchers are insufficiently aware of how traditions in assessment studies have developed in other fields. This is relevant to climate change because current performance of experts in this field is subject to criticism from scientists in neighboring disciplines .
Climate Change is a 'hot topic' in science and in politics. It is an interesting subject of study in science because it is a very complex problem. Certainly, it is a great challenge to science to find new approaches to tackle it. And it has interest for politics because of the publicly expressed fear that current anthropogenic use of fossil fuels might affect the average global temperature. This political interest has an influence on the conduct of the science (e.g. it leads to provision of research funds).
However, the quantity of research is insufficient to guarantee the rate of progress of a scientific field in the absence of quality control. Moreover, the size of the investment in climate research - and public interest in its results - provides a need for public accountability for the research expenditure. This accountability needs a clear understanding of the measures to be taken to guarantee the proper use of the various forms of assessment that are related to quality control of scientific research.
This note uses the general term Scientific Assessment to cover the various forms of judgment which are employed to estimate and to improve scientific quality and to enhance scientific progress. It assumes there is a 'customer' for a Scientific Assessment, and that the customer assigns the Assessment to an audit committee with specific terms of reference. The members of the audit committee are indicated as the auditors.
Section 2 of this note elaborates on the issues of judgment by presenting definitions.
Section 3 discusses the more technical aspects of the organization of a Scientific Assessment. It essentially a plea to maintain quality standards for the assessment. Attention is also given to the above mentioned accountability with focus on the individual auditors.
Section 4 suggests types of assessments that could be considered with more or less priority in the near future. And it suggests subjects to be considered by those assessments.
Annex I presents a summary of the major challenges to the scientific base of the assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Annex II presents personal views of the author on a different approach to scientific assessment of climate research to that which seems to have been applied so far, and provides his suggestion of how the quality of research in climate variability could be evaluated.
2. THE NATURE AND AIMS OF SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS
2.1 General Principles.
In general, depending on its purpose, three different but mutually related types of assessment (i.e. quality assessment, priority assessment, and hypothesis assessment) may be used and can be described as follows.
a) Quality assessment.
This is usually meant to assess the quality of the research performed in the recent past by specific research teams. Science administrators can base decisions to continue, to discontinue or to change the financing of a particular team on results of such an assessment.
b) Priority assessment.
Efficient attainment of particular scientific goals requires that priorities be set for research in specific directions. This can have great importance for a scientific institution or (national or international) or organization with limited resources.
c) Hypothesis assessment.
It is necessary to assess the weights of the scientific evidence pro and contra hypotheses when controversies emerge about hypotheses and theories in a specific field of science.
2.2 The mutual relationships.
The most important Scientific Assessment that needs to be performed concerning climate change is Hypothesis Assessment of the current mainstream view most prominently presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The needed hypothesis assessment concerns whether the observed rise of CO2 in the atmosphere does significantly warm the Earth's surface on a global scale. This will require evaluation of the evidence presented in the international scientific literature, and - of course - not only the evidence in papers which supports the mainstream view.
Quality Assessment and Priority Asssesment will necessarily be elements of the Hypothesis Assessment, but with different emphases than presented in 2.1 (a) and (b). Quality Assessment of papers is a necessity for their validation to sustain a particular view. Priority Assessment requires more specification then mentioned above if its main purpose is contribution to Hypothesis Assessment.
Priority Assessment may provide for some pitfalls and, therefore, requires first consideration.
2.3 Priority assessment.
Priorities are set in pure scientific research (e.g. by scientific institutes and branch organizations) because the demand for funds by scientists exceeds the offer of funds from financing administrations and agencies. The major criteria for selection of research proposals are both the performance of the applying leading scientists in the resent past and the feasibility of the proposed research project. In this setting the judgment of proposals has an element of competition among these proposals that are produced 'bottom up' (in the sense that the researchers take the initiative to design the proposals).
In the context of a Hypothesis Assessment, these criteria and the competitive approach are somewhat less relevant and the auditing committee might be expected to recommend priorities from other angles (but the feasibility of a line of research should not be neglected). From the point of view of pure 'science' a major criterion for propagating future research should be which approach would best stimulate the progress of the scientific field. In practice, this would be an assessment of 'missing links' in the hypotheses under investigation.
However, research with public relevance must anticipate questions that arise from society and from authorities whose attention may be focused on particular lines of research. Strictly speaking this is not a Scientific Assessment but a social assessment. However, it would not be realistic to separate the two assessments completely. Unfortunately, the scientific and social interests may be conflicting. A very strong focus on social relevance may not be in the interest of the progress of the science and may divert the attention from important scientific questions.
Also, a Priority Assessment as part of a Hypothesis Assessment may become biased if the auditors are specialists within a specific field and have a personal interest in that field.
2.4 Quality assessment
Quality assessment within the context of a Hypothesis Assessment needs to focus attention on assessment of the quality of research papers.
In all sciences, standard criteria for the quality of research papers are
. the reliability of the presented data,
. the quality of statistical processing of the data,
. the quality of the description of methodology and applied technologies (i.e. the description is clear and concise, proper), and
. not selective reference to other scientific papers.
A well-known problem is the selective use of available data to come to specific conclusions.
Its discussion/conclusion section is an important part of a paper which supports or rejects a specific hypothesis. The authors are expected to deduce by using logical reasoning what they consider to be 'proof' and what is worthwhile speculation (e.g., for further research).
Evidence from a specific single source provides a major problem concerning the reproducibility of its observations until there has been a follow-up by other, independent researchers.
Lastly, a Quality Assessment of a paper by an individual may contain elements of his/her personal appreciation (or depreciation). An audit may request some argument that justifies the validation and which would allow the client to judge the quality of the assessment.
2.5 Hypothesis Assessment
Hypothesis Assessment basically consists of determining which elements of the hypothesis are considered to be sustained and which are not supported, challenged or refuted. The latter elements may be indicated as uncertainties or, as said before, as the missing links. With a high level of uncertainties it is most fruitful to formulate an alternative hypothesis and to compare the levels of uncertainties of both.
It is reprehensible to adhere to a single hypothesis that has a high level of uncertainties. It inhibits the progress of science, makes it 'dogmatic', and is called 'pseudo-science' in western science philosophy.
3. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SETTING-UP OF A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
In the light of the basic elements for Scientific Assessment studies mentioned in the previous sections, this Section considers how a Scientific Assessment of Climate Change could be organized with a view to the development of terms of reference for the auditors.
3.1 Selection of auditors
The first question which arises concerns the criteria for the selection of the auditors to consider scientific papers that they will choose.
Much literature on the subject of climate change has been produced by several thousand scientists around the world. Hence, a worldwide-scale audit may be the initial ambition, and this has been the ambition of the IPCC.
It seems obvious that auditors should be recruited from the authors of what are considered the best scientific papers in the field. But this requires a decision concerning the 'best papers', and the citation index will be of some help in determining this. Let's assume that several dozen auditors can be nominated that way.
3.2 Selection of papers
It also seems obvious that the selection of the papers to be assessed should not be solely left to the choice of the auditors. This would cast doubt on their objectivity from the beginning.
A more open approach would be to call for the nomination of papers by the scientific community as a whole followed by a second round of selection by the auditors (who would be expected to show some reserve to assessment of their own papers). Bias can never be excluded but may be reduced by a third round of selection of papers for assessment following the formulation of the hypotheses to be assessed.
3.3 Formulation of hypotheses
There is a mainstream view of climate change that is explained in reports from the IPCC and is challenged by other scientists. This mainstream view has to be considered to be a hypothesis if its supporting evidence has significant uncertainties. Obviously, the customer should at least formulate the mainstream hypothesis to be assessed, and use of a few review articles would help the formulation. Then, for the sake of clarity, it is recommended that one or more alternative hypotheses be formulated . These could also be derived from review articles. The formulation of the alternative hypotheses should preferably be presented by the customer but - if not - then it is expected that the auditors will formulate them (and thus demonstrate their objectivity).
3.4 Second round of selection of papers and their quality assessment
Based on the formulation of alternative hypotheses (see Section 3.3), additional papers that support the alternative hypotheses can be selected for consideration. And, at this stage, the auditors should indicate their reasons for not having initially considered particular papers that were brought to their attention by the 'general call'. The weighing of the quality of all papers should be based on the criteria mentioned above in Section 2.4 'quality assessment'.
Also at this stage, it would be fair if the initially appointed audit committee members invite supporters of alternative hypotheses to contribute to their further deliberations
3.5 Assessment of proof
As stated above, the main purpose of a Hypothesis Assessment is to determine which elements of the hypothesis are considered to be sustained and which are not supported, are challenged or are refuted. Additionally, when assessing the quality of an hypothesis it is important to determine its falsifiability. Indeed, the philosophy of science says that the falsifiability of a hypothesis is more important than whether the hypothesis is considered to be sustained.
Section 3.7 of this note considers falsifiability, but two essential practical elements of falsifiability are mentioned here.
It is very difficult to define 'proof' but the assessment of empirical evidence comes near to it. However, although results of some measurements can hardly be doubted (on the basis of the quality of the research teams that produced the data), disputes arise when there is selective use of these data to sustain a particular view. More generally, interpretation of the data as indicating cause-effect relationships can be very contentious (e.g. there can be arguments about whether these assumed relationships are coincidence or can be correlated).
The assessment of 'proof' must come down to a critical consideration of the logic and arguments used to assume 'correlations' between empirical data, or whether authors of scientific papers 'jump to conclusions' from intuition rather than use judgment when discussing their empirical data. An assessment of proof must also include quantification (provided by statistical methods) of cause-effect relationships suggested by empirical evidence. In addition to being an indication of 'proof', this quantification also enables future assessments to evaluated progress that has been made in the science.
3.6 Assessment of uncertainties
The assessment of uncertainties is intended to resolve two important questions: viz.
. To what degree do the uncertainties undermine the hypotheses?
. What research can be propagated to eliminate the uncertainties?
It requires that all the uncertainties should be defined and specified. And the science of Climate Change provides for a remarkable number of uncertainties.
One class of uncertainties is provided by data indicating climate parameters throughout geological ages that are used to define the climate up to the present time. There is much less doubt about empirical data collected over the last century by meteorological and other stations. Today, a tremendous amount of data is available from all over the globe, at the surface and in the atmosphere at higher altitudes, on important parameters such as temperature, pressure, winds and cloudiness. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to produce a weather forecast for periods over more than a week. This originates from a second class of uncertainties (known as effects of 'chaos'), which are not likely to be removed by even more intensive data collection because they are inherent to complex systems in general and in particular to the complex system that determines weather and climate. In an attempt to overcome this problem with complex systems, (computer) models are being produced to simulate such systems.
The input given to such models forms a third class of uncertainties which derive from the justification of the (mathematical and physical) relationships among the modelled parameters. Scientific Assessment of the use of such models should focus on this justification.
3.7 Falsifiability
A branch of science is said to be 'pseudo' science when the leading principle of that branch becomes intuition which is not sufficiently sustained by empirical data. Current research in science philosophy indicates that the demarcation between 'real' and 'pseudo' science is more difficult than many scientists (and laymen) assume. But Poppers view is still generally accepted ; i.e.
"In opposition to logic positivism' verifiability criterion of cognitive significance, Popper proposed that science be characterized by its method: the criterion of demarcation of empirical science from pseudo-science and metaphysics is falsifiability. According to falisificationism, science grows, and may even approach the truth not by amassing supporting evidence, but through an unending cycle of problems, tentative solutions, -unjustifiable conjectures - and error eliminations, i.e., the vigorous testing of deductive consequences and the refutation of conjectures that fail."
Thus, falsifiability of paradigms is still considered to be an important demarcation between the presentation of 'convictions' and scientific 'conclusions'. To present a conviction is in itself not reprehensible, (even for a scientist) but it should not be confused with the 'scientific method' in the absence of falsifiability. Thus, it is important to give especial attention to falsifiability when making a Scientific Assessment of divergent views on climate change.
4. SCIENCE POLICY ASPECTS OF SETTING-UP A SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
This Section first considers the special case of the 'assessment of an assessment' and suggests what needs to be investigated with priority. . It then considers arguments that may be used to re-assess the science of climate change from the viewpoint of international and national science policy, and what kind of terms of reference should go with such an assement.
4.1 Assessment of assessments
The United Nations in cooperation with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has produced several reports. These reports can be read as Scientific Assessments of the state of knowledge on the subject of Climate Change. The quality of these assessments has been disputed by a minority of scientists including some meteorologists and climatologists but mostly scientists from neighboring disciplines (e.g., astronomy and geology). Objections have been underlined by critique on statements by spokesmen for the IPCC (Houghton, Hansen, Bolin) who have sustained the 'authority' of the reports by referring to the large consensus in the field of climatology about the issues presented.
Economists (i.e. Castles and Henderson) and the Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the British Parliament have independently called for the IPCC reports to be assessed by independent scientists. Initiatives may be in preparation by the American Enterprise Institute and the International Policy Network in London
The obvious way for these 'customers' to proceed with an assessment of the IPCC assessment is to define the basic principles for a proper Scientific Assessment and to have a test performed as to whether these basic principles have been respected by the IPCC. The proposals presented above for the basic principles may be of some help but, of course, need not be followed all (i.e. need not be followed merely on the basis that the author of these notes is an experienced auditor).
Nevertheless it is suggested here that special attention should be given to:
1. The quotation by IPCC reviewers of their own work ,
2. The suspected selective evaluation of the mainstream view on the causes of observed climate change with neglect of alternative views for what ever reasons, which also would follow from the papers that have been, or not been, investigated.
3. The sorting out of which statements are based on empirical evidence and which on (numerical) computer modeling or a mixture of the two.
4. The listing of uncertainties and missing links.
This 'assessment of an assessment' is in itself an assessment of procedures - in the first place a test of IPCC objectivity - and not the assessment of scientific evidence. Therefore this assessment could be restricted to the first two items listed above with some extra attention for the quality criteria used to refer or not refer to specific papers (see section 3.4 and its footnotes). However, item 3 in the above list is a very hot one in science and it touches on the problems of the use of modeling as 'proof', the proper understanding of falsifiability, and selective use of assumptions. And item 3 is connected with item 4 because it will help to sort out the empirical evidence from the virtual world.
However, it is unlikely that this 'assessment of an assessment' could indicate that the IPCC is entirely 'right' or entirely 'wrong' about the causes of climate change. This would require a thoroughly review of the extensive literature.
Lastly, it is recommended that comments on the observations should be requested from the leading IPCC scientists before the result of the assessment is published. This might reveal an important fundamental difference of opinion among scientists (and scientific administrators) about the functioning of a scientific world which is primarily driven by trusted expert views and one based on continuing discussion of the falsiability of statements as part of an hypothesis. (See above quote from Popper)
4.2 An independent Scientific Assessment of the research on climate variability.
In contrast to the assessment mentioned in Section 4.1, a real Scientific Assessment should be based on a reinvestigation of the original scientific literature. In this case emphasis would fall on:
1. The quality of papers to be investigated with respect to the criteria mentioned in Section 2 with special attention for the significance of the reported results (use of statistics) and the logic used in the interpretation
2. The reproducibility of results in subsequent papers.
For other details see the previous Sections 2 and 3.
Item 2 (above in this Section) is mentioned here because textbooks used in classes that 'explain' e.g. the greenhouse effect frequently refer to papers written many years ago, and the textbooks provide numerical solutions of model equations without critical consideration.
Preferably the data should be assessed in the light of more than one hypothesis. This may require a specific mode (and mood) of investigation that is elaborated in Annex 1.
An assessment of the total literature would require a tremendous amount of work by many auditors. It could be reduced by selection for
a. key papers which are the most significant
b. the subjects to be considered.
Organizations which plan for a Scientific Assessment (e.g., KNAW) could also consider evaluating many different subjects, or limiting the effort to a few.
Suggestions for subjects follow in Section 4.3 .
4.3 Subjects for consideration in a general Scientific Assessment
The following list of subjects for consideration in a general Scientific Assessment is not exhaustive 37.
I The time series of the global distributions of average annual (or seasonal) temperature, pressure, insolation and specific meteorological conditions (precipitation, humidity and CO2 concentration, winds, movement of cyclones and anticyclones).
II The understanding of the theory of the greenhouse effect (including explanation of pressure and temperature gradients in the troposphere, and taking into account energy removal from the surface by convection and water evaporation, together with the effect of clouds)
III The time series of the global distributions of changes to sea level and glaciations.
IV The time series of the sun and cosmic ray cycles.
V Determination of which conclusions are based solely on empirical data and which are the result of numerical modeling.
VI Climate variability on a geological time scale.
VII Climate variability predictions (projections) in relationship to the complexity of the system.
VIII The frequency of occurrence of specific weather conditions. (e.g., storms, droughts, etc).
4.4 Hierarchy and levels of assessments. Recommendations.
Scientific Assessment has become normal practice in most natural sciences through the whole hierarchy of the scientific field, from the judgment of the performance of research groups up to the level of organizations. It would be interesting to learn what practice (and to what extent) Scientific Assessment of climate science has been adopted in various countries .
Therefore, it is recommended that a start be made to prepare an inventory of current practice at all levels of climate research, and especially of the IPCC because of the world-wide public impact of its reports.
Selection of auditors who are independent deserves special attention when new assessments are being planned. With Hypothesis Assessment this applies not only to their personal interest in a specific field, but also to their ability to distance themselves from an established view .
Annex I
SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR CHALLENGES TO THE SCIENTIFIC BASE OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
The major studied phenomena in current climate variability are the average earth surface and ocean water temperature rises, increase of the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the locally observed retreat of glaciers. Their relation to increased anthropogenic fossil fuel burning has, however, been far less convincingly demonstrated than is suggested in the Assessment reports of the IPCC. This conclusion is based on the following observations.
1. The correlation between the annual anthropogenic CO2 production and the annual addition of CO2 to in the atmosphere is low.
2. The correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the annual average calculated global surface temperature is even lower.
3. Current research on the influence of other climate influencing factors (e.g., the activity of the sun and general meteorological conditions) are underestimated.
4. The IPCC's conclusions are largely based on numerical computer simulations ('models') of atmospheric processes, and these models as yet are unable to satisfactorily mimic important observations of variable parameters with time.
5. The 'Principles of IPCC work" states that the role of the IPCC is (solely) to assess "the scientific basis of risk of human induced climate change'. The assertion of 'human induced climate change' is insufficiently subjected to tests of falsification.
The IPCC assessment of a risk is largely based on:
a. The coincidence of three changing variables over the previous century. These are
i) the calculated small rise to (moving) average global temperature,
ii) the observed (considerable) increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere , and
iii) the reported (considerable) increase of anthropogenic emissions..
b. The current understanding of the greenhouse effect; i.e. that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes significantly to warming because of it's capacity to absorb infrared radiation.
The major challenges to the IPCC assessment are:
a) Coincidences should not be mistaken for correlations. It is a basic theory of statistics that if a correlation has any significance it must be sustained with proper understanding of the underlying supposed physical principles. In principle (b) could provide for that. But these considerations are themselves subject to criticism. (see below).
It is observed that the correlation of global fluctuation of CO2 content in the atmosphere with average estimated global temperature is far less than the correlation of annual uptake of CO2 in the atmosphere with the recorded temperature change. This leads to the hypothesis that CO2 uptake in the atmosphere is the result of global average temperature change, which is the opposite of the IPCC's hypothesis reverse, that increased CO2 concentration would lead to an increased greenhouse effect.
This makes the CO2 rise in the atmosphere a significant signal of climate variability and it should not necessarily be defined as a probable cause. It is an interesting signal that could help understanding of climate variability, and it is a feature that has been largely neglected by IPCC auditors as an alternative explanation of phenomena.
b) The understanding of the working of the greenhouse effect is less well understood than suggested in many publications and textbooks (and in the IPCC reports). The expected contribution of CO2 is based on its capacity to absorb in the atmosphere infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, followed by back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and to space by infrared emitting molecules. In a radiative equilibrium state these processes are quantified by differential equations which can not be solved, and effects have been simulated until recently only by (simplified) numerical computer models. The results of these modes are questionable because, although the radiative equilibrium state is reached almost instantaneously, there is never a convective equilibrium state, and convection is connected with the heat removal from the surface by water evaporation (evapoconvection) combined with condensation and radiation from clouds into space. Convection is the major heat transport to the upper troposphere, and it cannot yet be modeled satisfactorily.
Also, conclusive empirical observations on radiation budgets on a global scale are scarce. Nevertheless, a primitive model of the radiative equilibrium state proliferates in most publications. This primitive model has recently been challenged by a new study of its underlying differential equations. This study suggests that the absorption/emission bands of the more abundantly present greenhouse molecule H2O determine the greenhouse effect, and not the CO2 absorption/emission bands.
It is often said that progress of climate research is governed by 'uncertainties'. However, observations have increased over recent decades and primary empirical data on the state of the atmosphere (e.g. pressure and temperature data) are abundantly available. Rather than of uncertainties, one should speak of 'puzzles' to be solved to explain observed phenomena. The puzzles arise as an intrinsic problem from the difficulty in interpreting behavior of a complex system which is expected never to be in an equilibrium state but, instead, is always operating far from its thermodynamic equilibrium.
Current climate research, as reported by IPCC, seems to suffer from a wish to attribute to trends a linearity which is fundamentally foreign to complex systems. This makes the 'scientific base' of AR4 IPCC less scientific than it pretends to be because it neglects developments in mathematically sustained complexity theory.
A more intriguing problem is the use of statistics in climate science. Scientists in other disciplines, and especially in the field of statistics itself, doubt the application of statistics to climate change observations. Suffice to mention the reference to a recent presentation at a climate conference
Annex II
A different approach to consideration of the state of the art of research on climate change
During the last 20 years the IPCC has focused its assessments on a single doctrine. (the CO2 case) and it does not seem to have served the purpose that our general understanding should increase about which atmospheric processes and constituents, influence climate variability . Therefore, it is recommended that the Scientific Assessment initially adopt a different approach from that taken by the IPCC doctrine, and that the Scientific Assessment more openly considers all forces that are expected to influence the climate variability.
One generally accepted principle in climatology is that climate change has always happened. It has happened on a geological time scale and on a 2000 year scale. The warm Roman period was followed by a cooling, then there was the mediaeval warm period that was followed by a little ice age from which the Northern Hemisphere has been recovering since the second half of the 19th century.
It also seems evident that climate change is contained in so called climate - or aerological - zones. 'Climate' is defined by the local average of observed meteorological parameters over a period of more than a few years. These parameters vary strongly in periodical, diurnal and seasonal cycles. The tremendous amounts of available data are handled by super computers which attempt to correlate the varying parameters. The equations which underlie the physical processes of mass and energy dynamics are used to model the observations as a method to attempt to understand the variations. The physical modeling on a global scale raises problems because the system is by definition highly dynamic (never in an equilibrium state) and 'deterministic chaotic'. But even the processes which determine climate variability, (e.g. the greenhouse effect) that have been "modeled" might be challenged on the primary (physical) assumptions they use (as described in textbooks with reference to rather old literature which may no longer be taken for granted ).
A common technique used in experimental sciences is to observe the effect of a perturbation introduced in a natural process, and to use the information thus gained to deduce the nature of the undisturbed (natural) process. A science like climatology cannot deliberately introduce such perturbations to the subject of study. But the spontaneously increased anthropogenic emission of CO2 is a lavish perturbation that could have been used to analyze the natural processes.
It is our daily experience in the moderate climate zone with strong weather variability, that the local meteorological conditions, especially the complex movement of cyclones and anticyclones (low and high pressure areas) in our North Atlantic aereological unit, mostly determine when we have a specific 'climate' condition over a time period. For example, the warm month of July in 2006 on the North Atlantic continents coincides with a relatively cold period in New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere. Such a coincidence might be explained off hand by a specific astronomical condition (in the previously introduced nomenclature, as a 'perturbation') but to unravel the processes how such primary forces do influence the daily changing meteorological conditions is probably the greatest challenge to the science of climatology. It may well turn out that it will never be possible to understand the Earth's climate system by perturbation study because the system is subject to so many and frequently occurring perturbations that cause effect responses on wide spread time scales . To circumvent this problem by averaging out the perturbations as 'noise' is an incorrect scientific approach if the hypothesis from complexity theory is not falsified (the law of predictable unpredictability). This is a central issue in the current climate debate.
It seems obvious that those who are occupied with General Circulation Modeling have as yet not falsified the law of predictable unpredictability . This should not disqualify the modeling attempts as 'unscientific'. They deserve attention (see Section 3.2 VII) as scientific approaches which started to emerge in 1960 from the strive to improve weather forecasting. In a qualitative sense the 'general circulation' of air and water' on the globe is rather well established (e.g. Hadley cells, ocean currents). But there is undoubtedly a need to quantify the processes to come to a better understanding.
However, conclusions derived from the modeling climate change that are presented as 'proof' have to remain subject to doubt, as being part of a virtual world . The leading author mentioned in this footnote may by now have changed his mind. However, it is clear that at present no single computer model can simulate the natural climate variability observed over the last 2000 years . Consequently, it is questionable that the 'calculated' effect of a recent perturbation can be trusted.
There is undoubtedly a need to have parts of the climate system subjected to modeling (e.g., the basics of the greenhouse effect) to obtain a better understanding of the working of the complex system as a whole. But the greenhouse effect can be expected to be established very differently at the equator, in the moderate climate zone and at the poles. Not least because of great differences in heat removal from the surface by the process of evapoconvection the dynamic state of which has been incorporated in models to a limited and (probably not justified) extent.
These problems with the physical modeling have been well recognized. Nevertheless reading through the book mentioned before the progress made is impressive. But a major objection against the approaches remains the process of parameterization, which seems to be very common among climate modelers. The practice in climate modeling seems to be that if a model derived from physical principles does not fit observations, then the chosen parameters can be modified to fit the model better. And it seems to be assumed that these modifications could make the model more realistic such that it provides for reliable for projections into the future. In my opinion this parameterization is reprehensible for two reasons.
Firstly, if models do not correspond with observations, the first question that should arise is the possibility of a missing link in the model. This question induces a search for the probably 'missed element' in the model.
Secondly, a single parameterization may not suffice. This is very fundamental in mathematical curve fitting theory, and is extremely relevant if the model is to be used for projections into the future. A completely different set of parameters from the one first adopted may fit past observations equally well but lead to very different projections into the future .
In addition to the two above reasons for considering the practice of parametrisation to be reprehensible, a third objection to the practice should be mentioned; viz. models neglect bifurcation theory if they contain insufficient attention for details of the occurring dynamic processes.
Nevertheless, the modeling of atmospheric processes is a fascinating field. But attention should be focused on their use as instruments for the better understanding of the complex climate processes, rather than using them for scenarios, projections or even predictions.
-----------------------
In a letter dated July 4, 2006 from the Netherlands Royal Academy (KNAW) to the author a scientific assessment of climate change was announced. Similar exercises are expected to take place in other countries.
The author is retired Vice President of The Netherlands Organization for Applied Research (TNO) (1980-1995) and former Chairman of the Netherlands Agriculture Research Counsel (1995-1999) with experience in scientific assessment in a variety of disciplines, also in EU bodies and with private requests from universities.
See section 4. Criticisms mainly concern the use of the peer review system, of statistics and of numerical computer models.
Among scientists, their personal responsibility is frequently emphasized without definition of the accountability. But, in western social systems, carrying responsibility without accountability has no meaning. See also footnote 17.
Or the development of 'technologies', which sustain the progress of the science.
As an example in climate science, the strong attention on the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect may have diverted the attention from the different roles of water to establish an energy equilibrium state.
It should be noted that the quality of papers in scientific journals is guarded by peer review of the members of referee boards of the journals. Whether this is sufficient guaranty for quality, e.g., from the point of view of 'originality' is being contested. It is certainly not a guarantee for reproducibility.
In principle the selective use of data is considered reprehensible, but within certain limits it is accepted that researchers weigh the validity of their observations (e.g., under social scientific control by colleagues in the institute). For example, Millikan, when weighing the electron, made selective use of his measurements. Also, laboratory experiments are usually performed in duplicate or triplicate and data are often discarded when they have insufficient match with the data sets.
Follow-up papers, which use data from previous research, may be expected to have reproduced the previous results, and to mention this. This is at least good scientific practice in experimental sciences.
An assessment has the character of a statement by the Delphi Oracle when it lacks justifying arguments. It is not unusual to collect opinions of several auditors and thus to apply what is called the Delphi method when assessing research proposals. If the opinions are very different they are brought to the attention of all participants with the question as to whether they are willing to revise their opinions or to bring them nearer to the average opinion. However, from the scientific point of view the Delphi method is an unpleasant, practical approach. It ensures that a decision is made when a achieving decision is difficult but necessary. The Delphi method, applied without justifying argument, is not a guarantee for the quality of the decision, and this should be kept in mind when considering cases were it has been applied.
However, in the experience of the author of this note, the best and/or well-known scientists in a particular field are not necessarily also the best auditors of the work of others.
The mainstream view of climate change could be summarized as:
anthropogenic CO2 emissions contribute to the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and this affects the greenhouse effect considerably.
One alternative to the mainstream view of climate change could be summarized as:
observed climate change is largely the result of natural variability and need not to be explained by a change of the greenhouse effect, and a version of this is that climate variability is due to variability of the sun's activity.
e.g., in the case of climate change, the papers with underlie the so-called 'Oregon petition' of those who identify themselves as being skeptical of the mainstream view.
L Gerhard provides a brief overview of several hypotheses and his personal falsification of them at http://www.kansasenergy.org/documents/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf.
Scientific criticism on the final report of the audit committee should focus on evidence and views that have been neglected by the committee.
The arguments need not to be part of the final assessment report but could be summarised and reported in minutes of the meetings in which the selections were made. The need for such minutes is especially relevant for international organizations (e.g., IPCC) whose reports of assessments of scientific information can lead to decisions with far reaching economic and social consequences. The need for report in minutes of deliberations should be seen in the context of the accountability of auditors mentioned in footnote 4. It is most remarkable that the governing boards of large national and multinational (commercial) enterprises take care to have their deliberations on the performance of executive boards recorded in minutes (usually by a lawyer) to protect themselves from litigation by stockholders, but there is no sign that the IPCC has felt an obligation to account for the responsibly of its auditors (named reviewers) in this or any other way.
According to current day science philosophy a theory can be rejected by falsification and never proven. But the philosophy of law can inform natural science about the nature of 'proof'.
As an example in climate change, the anthropogenic emissions of the CO2 and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have increased. Also, numerous meteorological-stations have recorded increase of several 0.1 degrees of average annual temperature over the last century.
An example of disputed cause-effect is the rise and fall of temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the question as to which preceded the other during glacials and interglacials.
Examples of less disputed data are the observed temperature rise at specific meteorological-stations and the measured increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at other observatories. There are still a number of disputes about the interpretation of satellite observations on temperature rise, infrared emissions in the atmosphere, and sea level rise.
The inherent problem derives from fundamental mathematical research of non-linear differential equations, which describe such complex systems in models.
This also touches on the problem of falsifiability. Any model is a representation of a virtual reality. In the light of the previous comment on the unpredictable behavior of extreme complex systems it is almost by definition impossible to falsify how near a model result would come to reality even if calculated data from models match empirical data.
See 'General Circulation Model Development; Past Present and Future. Edited by D.A. Randall.. Academic Press, International Geophysics series, volume 70. 2000. It is currently not available, probably because it is being revised in the light of current improvements of the Circulation Models.
M. Curd & J.A. Cover. "Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues". Norton (1998). Chapter 1. 'Science and Pseudoscience" pp 1-82
See previous footnote pp 3-10 'Science conjectures and Refutations".
According to the proposal for the procedure in the previous sections, this should be the 'responsibility' of the 'customer'.
The most recent IPCC report was its Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. Its next report is to be published this year and is known as AR4. Each IPCC report has an accompanying Summary for Policymakers known as its SPM. Both the IPCC's reports and SPMs have been subject to criticism and the SAR the most.
'Consensus' has little meaning in science, from the perspective of science philosophy. Also, the author of this note observes that 90% of the references to published literature in the first two chapters of the draft AR4 is to work of the auditors themselves: those two chapters make very little or no mention of the work of skeptics in the established scientific literature.
Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson, Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Alan Peacock,Colin Robinson & Robert Skidelsky1. "CLIMATE CHANGE; The Stern Review 'OXONIA Papers'. A critique WORLD ECONOMICS . Vol. 7 . No. 2 . April-June 2006 pp 145
Personal communication by D. Henderson.
The consequences of this investigation may be very severe if it were to establish that supposed principles of proper assessment have been violated by IPCC. Not only for the UN WMO IPCC organization, but also for the thousands of scientists who followed the IPCC assessment principles. It might result in accusations that a large number of researchers in climate change have conducted 'pseudo science'.
It should be noted that the draft AR4 was opened for comment by anybody who wanted to make it. In this sense the procedure was more open then in previous IPCC evaluations. A limited number of sceptical scientists responded to this invitation. Most sceptical scientists refused to comment, because of their suspicion that the invitation would be used as an argument that the assessment was open to discussion but that nevertheless the appointed IPCC reviewers would neglect critical comments without arguments for the rejection. It would be quite easy for a 'customer' of an assessment of the IPCC procedure to have a call on outside IPCC reviewers to present their contribution and ask for arguments as to whether comments were sufficiently or insufficiently taken care of by the IPCC reviewers. This may be decisive for the judgment of the objectivity of the IPCC approach.
Modelling as such is in itself not reprehensible and may be an interesting tool to help understand processes. But for suggested restrictions see R.H. Essenhigh. "Prediction of the Standard profiles of Temperature, Pressure and Density with Height for the lower atmosphere". Energy & Fuels, vol. 20, no 3, 2006 . A frequently heard argument in favour of the IPCC mainstream view is, that observations will match the models only if radiative forcing by CO2 is taken in account. This still leaves open the question of the correctness of the original modelling and whether other forces may have been overlooked.
D.L. Hartmann. "Global Physical Climatology. Academic Press 1994
K.N. Liou. "An introduction to atmospheric radiation". Academic Press 2002
And it should not be excluded that in the long run it will be shown that the 'truth' may be somewhere in the middle of two views. e.g., several climatologists are of the opinion that recent rise of average global temperature can be ascribed for 80 per cent to changes of the sun activity and 20 per cent to changes in the greenhouse effect (or the Urban Heat Island effect). Not mentioned so far other theoretical possibilities, such as that the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is a secondary effect of the change of sun activity, or even if CO2 has a cooling effect in the upper troposphere then the increased CO2 liberation has the effect of a negative feedback. That is to say, that if the CO2 concentration had not risen, the global mean temperature might even have risen higher then in the absence of the CO2 rise.
The order of listing contains the personal priority of the author
The assessment of the assessment of IPCC would be unique of its kind. However, many national organizations have conducted similar studies but with different aims. Also, the assessment of a whole discipline is not unique; for example, in the Netherlands the quality of research and the quality of teaching in biology, physics, and chemistry performed in each of the university faculties has been audited.
In the experience of the author of these notes, a site visit by an auditing committee is very useful for both for auditors and the scientists under review.
This note would not have been written if the author were certain that institute directors, financing agencies (and politicians) are sufficiently familiar with the principals of scientific assessment.
In 2004 an assessment titled 'Climate Change Climate Policy' was conducted place in the Netherlands. The auditors reproduced the IPCC views only, and provided no critical contribution of their own that weighed any argument. The resulting report was 'advocacy research' (i.e. propaganda for a specific scientific view).
This summary is based on observations of the current 'climate debate'. An introduction to the 'skeptic' literature until 2005, is presented in Chapter 4 of 'Climate change on a watery planet.: the CO2 question re-examined', by A.Rorsch, D. Thoenes & F. de Wit
www.climatescience.org.nz
Published in Dutch, by Veen Magazines, 2005. ISBN 908571024 3
Livezey, Bob, and Marina Timofeyeva, 2006. Most of What a Climatologist Should Know about Correlations. Presentation at the 2006 Meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists, online at
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/files/AASC-Livezey.pdf
What follows is based on the personal opinion of the author.
This personal 'assessment' is based on a comparative study of the state of the art described in two extensive articles in Encyclopedia Britannica (1964) volume 5, page 914-927 on climate, volume 15 page 341-357 on meteorology, with current theories described in handbooks. It is noted that the IPCC CO2 doctrine has infiltrated the current theories but its contribution to better understanding of the fundamental processes is not clear.
Of course the doctrine that CO2 raise in the atmosphere would influence the greenhouse effect should not be completely neglected. It is based on a physical first principle that CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation.
This is merely an observation without obvious relationship with greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. But again, the current rise since WWII (which coincides with increased fossil fuel burning) should not a priori be neglected.
D.L. Hartmann. "Global Physical Climatology. Academic Press 1994
K.N. Liou. "An introduction to atmospheric radiation". Academic Press 2002
S. Manabe, R.F. Stricker, 1964. "Thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere with a convective adjustment. J. Atmos. Sci, 21, 361-385.
S.Manabe, R.T.Wetherals 1967. "Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of the relative humidity. J. Atmos Sci, 24, 241-259
R.H. Essenhigh. "Prediction of the Standard profiles of Temperature, Pressure and Density with Height for the lower atmosphere". Energy & Fuels, vol. 20, no 3, 2006
In the initial field of research of the author of this note (biology, biochemistry) the perturbation of natural processes by radiation and antibiotics have turned out to be extremely successful. Current knowledge on the functioning of the gene, of the function of the cell wall and the protein synthesizing machinery, the ribosome, are based to a great extent on experimentally applied (UV) radiation and e.g. the antibiotics penicillin and streptomycin.
As it has been used in climate studies on a geological time scale, taking in consideration the solar variations, deduced from isotope studies.
In mathematics it is accepted that some puzzles have no solution.
Very few papers give attention to it The author noted an exception in the book "General Circulation Model Development" Academic Press (2000) ed. D.A. Randall. In a paper by M.Gihl and A.W. Robertson "Solving Problems with GCMs" (pp 285-325) in a section C. 'Dynamical Systems Theory' attention is given to Bifurcation Theory. (It contains references to original literature which the author of this note did not read).
See previous footnote, page 137, a quote from a paper by J. Hansen et al: "Climate models by themselves can never yield an accurate and convincing knowledge of climate sensitivity. It is possible to change model parameters , e.g., in the cloud representation, that greatly alter the model sensitivity. And one can always think of climate feedbacks that may exist in the real world, but are entirely unrepresented in the model"
Neither those who adhere to the mainstream view that CO2 concentration is an important determinant for the greenhouse effect or others have so far been able to produce such models.
The most important heat removal from the earth's surface, next to radiation, is the evaporation of water on the planet 70 per cent of which is covered by oceans. Warming the surface will lead to vertical convection of air masses. The term evapoconvection combines the two processes.
"General Circulation Model Development. Past, present and future" Academic Press (2000) ed. D.A. Randall. This is largely an historical treatise to honour the 'father' of GCM, Akio Arakawa.
We illustrated that with models for the observed accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. A.Rorsch, R.S. Courtney and D. Thoenes. "The interaction of climate change and carbon dioxide cycle. Energy&Environment, 16 (2) 2005, pp 217-237.
---- --