„Wer promoviert und nachts gut schläft, arbeitet nicht richtig.“

Das sagt Dieter Lenzen – Dienstherr des Gebäudes, aus dem obiges Foto gemacht ist – im Gespräch mit der Welt. Eine interessante Einstellung. Weitergedacht, wer mit Druck und Stress nicht umgehen kann, oder sogar psychisch erkrankt, hat in der Wissenschaft nichts zu suchen?

Yoshimori et al. (2011, 10.1175/2011JCLI3954.1) on the other hand describe, how the climate sensitivity – in a perturbed physics ensemble with the japanese MIROC3.2 model – depends on the forcing that is applied and the climate background state due to differences in the feedback processes. That is, firstly, the estimate of the climate sensitivity differs for greenhouse gas forcing or a forcing thought to represent the last glacial maximum (LGM) conditions. Secondly, the feedbacks and thus the sensitivity is not the same for a doubling of CO2 in the recent climate and a doubling of CO2 in a  LGM climate.

While the results by Klocke et al. (2011) stress the importance of improving our models and of bringing to our own mind the shortcomings of our models, Yoshimori et al. (2011) to some extent give a theoretical foundation for studies of dynamic processes in the climate system under (really) cold or warm climates and under more recent (moderately) cool and warm conditions like the little ice age or the medieval climate anomaly / medieval warm period.

So,

„Decisive political action does not demand consensus
about the existence or nature of a problem. But
neither does broad agreement about the reality of a
problem mean that political processes can effectively
converge around a policy agenda that leads to effective
action.“

and this is, because in the climate change situation as it has been framed in the last 20 years

„distrusting the policy regime must
mean distrusting the science.“

Then, it is unimportant what we know, but it will always be judged against what it implies politically.

I have to admit, I do not really know what to think about it. There are so many points where I want to object or at least identify weaknesses, it’s kind of endless. On the other hand, it’s hard to really put the finger on the errors. Therefore I only want to say, that I have a problem with the foundation of his argumentation. Kampen starts from Popper‘s view of scientific theories and the necessity of falsifiers. My impression is, that he ignores much of the post-Popper philosophy of science (Kuhn and others).

Nevertheless Kampens paper is a provoking read and he probably is correct, that climate change research would benefit from the identification of falsifiers. However, these ought not to be purely mathematical but rather base on physics.

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

Of course, the authors are aware, that they may drop a clanger themselves.

Interested? Here’s the link from the Dunning Lab at Cornell
Kruger, J. M., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.

‘Climate change was happening long before anyone invented cars or coal-burning power plants, … so the current episode of climate change must be natural as well. It’s kind of like arguing that since wildfires existed for millions of years before matches were invented, they can’t be started by people.’

#http://www.climatecentral.org/news/