Pathological Science: What every journalist and politician should know (part 3 of 3)

As you read this Substack version please keep in mind that subscripts and superscripts were not displayed after uploading.

Although bad science has always been around, most people usually pay very little attention to it because it doesn’t affect them. Journalists and politicians, on the other hand, love bad science because it provides them with the authority of real science without the need to follow the scientific process. Bad science becomes particularly insidious when it is mixed together with some real science, making it quite difficult to detect. So, the obvious question to ask is how do you recognize bad science when you see it?

Fortunately, Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir provided the answer to that question in a seminar he gave at the Knolls Research Center in 1953. In his famous talk, Langmuir presented a detailed description of the six symptoms of Pathological Science, which he called "the science of things that aren't so." Langmuir described the practitioners of pathological science as researchers who simply tricked themselves into believing their false results with wishful thinking.

A short overall summary of Langmuir’s six symptoms of pathological science is displayed in Figure 1, and more complete information about pathological science, pseudoscience, and junk science is in the references and notes provided [1-3].

Today, bad science is more prevalent than ever because nearly all of the current government-sponsored scientific work has become highly politicized [4]. One of the best examples of bad science is the research on catastrophic carbon dioxide (CO2) global warming, which exhibits all six symptoms of Langmuir’s pathological science. In addition, catastrophic CO2 warming also represents a classic case of mixing bad science with real science, and a point by point analysis using Langmuir’s six symptoms makes it possible to identify the bad science and separate it from the real science [5]. 

Symptom #1: Fantastic Theories Contrary to Experience

According to one member of Congress, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and the biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?” Fortunately, things have improved somewhat, because it used to take only 10 years for CO2 to bring about the end of the world.

There are many other fantastic claims associated with CO2 warming, and a few of them are listed in Fig. 2 below, followed by an individual discussion for each claim explaining why it is fantastic and contrary to experience.

• A trace gas (CO2) warms the earth, the oceans, and controls the earth’s climate

Most people know from experience that you don’t use a hair dryer to heat water in a bathtub or that throwing a hot rock into a swimming pool won’t increase the temperature of the water by much [6]. These everyday observations about heating things make it hard for anyone to believe that a microscopic amount of CO2 somehow easily heats all of the earth’s atmosphere, land, ice masses, and oceans.

In order to get around the problem of people expecting that CO2 warming will be very small, the climate practitioners invented something called the climate control knob. It is so esoteric that even climate experts are confused about how it works [7], and, of course, only the climate models are capable of using it. 

The biggest advantage of invoking the climate control knob is that it conveniently dismisses the inconvenient observation that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. The phrase “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing” is a climate claim that relies on the fact that water vapor condenses out in a few days while CO2 does not. This sets up the positive feedback process that supposedly turns the pipsqueak CO2 warmer into a climate blow torch [8].

However, that’s only half the story. The tabulated numbers in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics show that water vapor never goes away when it’s near the earth’s surface, even after it condenses out of the atmosphere (see Fig. 3). Measured water vapor concentrations are always approximately 1 to 5 times greater than CO2 at the poles and around 100 times greater at the equator [9, 10].

Because the leftover water vapor concentration after condensation is always greater than the concentration of CO2, water vapor warming will always overwhelm the tiny pipsqueak warming from CO2 near the earth’s surface [11-13]. Only at very high altitudes far from the earth’s surface or during the coldest of cold days at the poles, does the CO2 concentration finally approach the concentration of water vapor.

• One global average temperature measures the earth’s climate and predicts future climate

The energy content (enthalpy) for dry air is quite different from that for humid air. Similarly, 1 kg of water and 1 kg of air at the same temperature have huge differences in energy content. Averaging the temperatures of many different mass parcels with variable energy content in order to calculate one average global temperature that determines a global energy imbalance is meaningless. It’s like averaging the number of buses and taxis in many different cities to determine a total average ridership for all the cities, but not counting the actual number of people that ride each bus or taxi.

Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus at MIT, recently summarized his view of using one temperature to predict future climate with the following statement, “It is implausible that a system as complex as the climate system with numerous degrees of freedom should be meaningfully summarized by a single variable (global mean temperature anomaly) and determined by a single factor (CO2 level in the atmosphere).”

• The addition of one molecule of CO2 to 10,000 molecules of air over a period of 100 years creates panic

The increase in the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere has been about 100 ppm over the past 100 years. This tiny increase is one additional molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air over 100 years. Claiming one CO2 molecule can change the “state of the world” from a calm mode to one of panic is unrealistic.

A good visual analogy of adding a tiny amount of CO2 to the atmosphere is a picture of the Rose Bowl, which emphasizes how hard it would be to notice the addition of 10 more extra people to a stadium filled with about 100,000 fans.

The earth spins faster, the earth spins slower. The wolves eat more, the wolves eat less. There is practically nothing that carbon dioxide cannot do. Every day, journalists who suffer from climate hypochondria continue to report new ways CO2 causes disasters. This site tracks some of the unlimited number of journalistic tales of impending doom. The stories about CO2 are kind of like grandpa’s old fishing stories. The fish get bigger, the fish get smaller.

Symptom #2: Claims of Great Accuracy

The climate politician, Al Gore, has made  claims of great accuracy such as the “relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity.”  Of course, it’s easy to compare global warming and gravity, which is done in Figure 5. Contrary to his claim, the gravitational constant is approximately 600,000 times more well-established than CO2 global warming [14]. Politicians always say the exact opposite of what is true, so there’s no surprise here. 

Then there’s the climate claim that satellites spying on the oceans can measure distances smaller than microbes. Of course, digital images of ocean surfaces show that sea level varies by many meters instead of a few hundred nanometers. As displayed in Fig. 6 below [15], there is a huge disconnect between what climate practitioners think they are measuring and the real measurements of sea level variations.

Probably the most famous climate numbers are the average CO2 concentrations measured on Mauna Loa. Like so many other climate numbers, the Mauna Loa measurements have an implied uncertainty that is not consistent with the observed spread in the reported numbers.

According to the NOAA, their laboratory calibration analyses have an accuracy of about 0.07 ppm in the concentration of CO2 and the repeatability in preparing standard samples is about 0.01 to 0.02 ppm. In addition to reporting CO2 concentrations with values indicating an implied uncertainty of hundredths of ppm, the NOAA site also shows a plot of selected hourly averages collected for a typical year in 2014 (see Fig. 7 and the NOAA plot).

However, the measurement uncertainty for controlled laboratory conditions appears to be quite different from the uncertainty for the averages of field measurements. The much larger 4 to 6 ppm spread in the field averages indicates that the actual uncertainty for measurements outside of laboratory calibration conditions is much larger (probably ± 3 ppm or greater) than the uncertainty of hundredths of ppm implied by the numbers being reported at the NOAA site [16].

Symptom #3: Effect Barely Detectable and Independent of Intensity of Cause

Carbon dioxide-induced global warming is so small that it is difficult to measure because it is buried in the noise of other surrounding heat sources. The global warming imbalance of 0.6 W/m2 (watts per meter squared) is barely detectable against the large background warmth of the noonday sun of 1000 W/m2, and it’s about 100 to 200 times smaller than the 60 to 120 W/m2 of heat radiating from one human (see also here). Carbon dioxide warming is so small that even NASA says it is hard to find (see Fig. 8).

Most of the claimed effects of CO2 warming are independent of intensity of cause (see Fig. 9). Sea level rise, for example, is blamed on CO2 warming, but the linear sea level changes (up or down) don’t match the non-linear increases in CO2 concentrations. For example, tidal gauge measurements show sea level going down near Stockholm, but they are going up in Honolulu. The tidal gauge measurements near Kungholmsfort show that there has been no change in sea level for more than a hundred years, presumably due to isostatic glacial rebound.

Of course, there are many other factors known to affect sea level, like the upward or downward movements of land masses relative to changes in sea level, or the expansion of water in the oceans due to changes in temperatures [17]. If CO2 warming causes anything to happen to the sea level, it’s not very noticeable when compared to the many other effects that can cause sea level changes.

Implementing Symptom #3: Al Gore’s Information Manipulation

Al Gore’s scary movie about carbon dioxide is a good example of the mixing of bad science with real science. In his “moment-on-the-lift” sequence (video segment here), he uses real science from ice core analyses [18], but he conveniently shows separated graphs of temperature and CO2 in order to hide the inconvenient truth about the lag and lead relationships as shown in Fig. 10 below.

In a dramatic scene designed to convert his audience into believers, Al Gore suggests by implication that “off the chart” temperatures will result from “off the chart” levels of CO2. In reality, a microscope would be needed to see him if his graphs were plotted with a greater geological timescale. The little red box shown at the bottom of Fig. 10 gives a better perspective of his so-called “off the chart” temperatures.

One can only speculate, but Al Gore may have learned his approach to bad science from the BBC TV program Pole to Pole with Michael Palin, a documentary travel series made in 1992. When Palin reached the equator in Kenya, he highlighted a local tour guide’s demonstration of Coriolis forces using water rotating in the wrong direction, just like Al Gore’s fake hurricanes. At the end of the presentation, Michael Palin enthusiastically exclaimed, “It really works!”

Symptom # 4: Low Statistical Significance and Many Measurements

The climate model spaghetti graph (see Fig. 11) demonstrates how the climate practitioners use statistical jargon to come up with the “science of things that aren’t so.” As the calculated results of climate models depart further and further from measured observations, the IPCC claims statistically “better and better” numbers with increasing certainty.

Highly “accurate” (and/or precise) numbers generated by computer models will always be incorrect if they never match reality, no matter how internally consistent they seem to be within a model’s virtual world. After more than 30 years and many computer simulations, all the climate models have produced are 102 wrong answers.

If you buy a TV set at a retail store and it doesn’t work, you can return it for a replacement or a refund. Not so with the government-sponsored climate practitioners. They’re selling broken TV sets, and when you get one that doesn’t work you’re told to buy another. And, there is no guarantee that the newly purchased one will work either.

Symptom #5: Criticisms Met with Ad Hoc Excuses

Langmuir said it best, “They always had an answer … always.” Not much has changed since 1953. Any critique of CO2 global warming is always met with some kind of an excuse that does not address the criticism. Instead, it always explains the criticism away … always.

One the favorite words used in climate excuses is “physics.” Some of the typical phrases are “physics-based models,” “the well-known physics of,” or “new and exotic physics.” The purpose of using these types of phrases is to covey an air of authority while hiding an underlying inability to address a question or criticism.

Figure 12 lists a few of the many common phrases used in classic climate excuses. Notice that most these phrases tend to deflect questions away, rather than answer them, which is what politicians do best.

Symptom #6: Popular Support Gradually Diminishes

Although the climate practitioners don’t want to admit it, the unprecedented climate scare came and went in 2007 along with the popularity of Al Gore’s scary movie. The Google Trends site shows it’s been downhill ever since. There was some renewed interest after the release of the Climategate e-mails, but by 2020, the interest dropped to 4% to 8% of the peak. Only a few people cared about it back then, and almost nobody cares about it now.

Is it Bad Science or Bad Climate?

After many years of fearmongering and propaganda, we still don’t know if we have a bad climate problem. As long as climate research remains inextricably linked to politics, we will always have a bad science problem, and consequently, we will never really know if we have a bad climate problem.

Unfortunately for the climate activists, the journalists and politicians have recently discovered that China has a much better way to control people. It may be a bit old-fashioned and quite medieval, but the Plague is still the best brand of fearmongering out there [19].

The world’s journalists and politicians are trying to resurrect a medieval style feudal society, complete with a Grand Inquisitor. The new-age magicians, shamans, and medicine men are government-paid priests called experts who dispense televised “one size fits all” advice to protect and control.

It usually takes a while, but most people eventually get tired of being afraid all the time, especially when they finally realize they’ve been hoodwinked by a bunch of politicians.

By almost any sort of objective measure, the world has improved considerably over the past 150 years [20]. Incredibly, all that progress has taken place in spite of the large setbacks resulting from political differences. Science and the scientific process played a large role in creating the readily available benefits we now all enjoy.

Sometimes it takes longer than we would like, but science always prevails over bad science. The reason is very simple: science tackles difficult, real-world problems using the iterative scientific process. The end result is that real science, unlike the fear created by politicized bad science, always helps the world to become a better place. And that is what every journalist and politician should know.

About:

C. R. Dickson studied physics and chemistry and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University as a George B. Pegram Distinguished Fellow. He has worked for Polaroid, Allied Chemical, RCA, and the Solarex Thin Film Division, a solar cell company formed as an RCA technology spinoff. He also served as a scientific advisor to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna, to the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) in Calcutta, and to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) in New Delhi.

Notes:

1. Here are some references about bad science with an emphasis on Langmuir’s pathological science: Columbia chemistry professor Nick Turro elaborated on  pathological science here, Industrial engineer James Wilson at Univ. of North Carolina used it in a keynote address here, (publication based on his address  here), Philosopher James Woodward and physicist David Goodstein at Cal Tech write about it here.

2. Pseudoscience blends subjective beliefs with scientific jargon to create explanations for seemingly unexplainable phenomena, such as ESP or faith healing. Some examples of pseudoscience: Kirlian photography, phrenology, faith healing.  

3. Junk science is very difficult to identify because real scientific research is intentionally manipulated to support a specific agenda or litigation. Junk science becomes dishonest science when there is a willful fabrication of results for profit or personal gain.

4. The internet is another place where bad science is proliferating almost completely unchecked. For example, carbon dioxide is a linear molecule, but many internet pictures incorrectly show it as a bent (V-shaped) molecule. One picture not only shows the wrong geometry, but it also has two carbon atoms and one oxygen atom.

5. It is impossible (in a short article) to discuss all of the bad science included (there’s a lot of it) in catastrophic CO2 global warming.

6. Increasing the temperature of a large mass by transferring heat to it from a small mass is very difficult, especially if the large mass has a greater specific heat.

7. Hansen’s treatment of feedback in his 1984 paper “confuses” feedback with gain (see Eq. 7 on p. 131). Roe (2009) delicately mentions this in footnote 4 on p. 97 and Bates (2016) in section 3.1 (after Eq. 23) points this out, as well.

8. Some standard water vapor feedback articles: The “famed water vapor feedback” here, Real Climate here, Forbes here, Climate Change Connection here, ACS here, and Skeptical Science here. The control knob Science paper is here (pay to view, use Sci Hub with DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653).

9. The numbers in Fig. 3 are similar to those given in Fig. 1 in Lightfoot and Mamer, Energy & Environment (2017), which is pay to view, (use SciHub with DOI: 10.1177/0958305X17722790). Even at the very low temperature where CO2 deposits as a solid (minus 80 o C at 1 atm) a small, but measureable, amount of water vapor remains in the atmosphere. See also here for vapor pressure, temperature, and dew points.

10. The units of ppm and ppmv as used by climate practitioners are ambiguous and confusing. However, the NOAA clearly defines ppm: “Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.” A very good discussion clarifying the nuances about ppm and ppmv is here.

11. According to the positive feedback speculation, increasing temperatures cause more evaporation of water and therefore more warming due to additional absorption of IR by the water vapor. However, any evaporation of water due to an increase in air temperature above the water is simultaneously accompanied by a cooling of the surface, which means water vapor feedback may actually be negative at the surface of the earth.

12. Both molecules, CO2 and water vapor, can function as a forcing as well as a feedback. The same sort of sophistry used to dismiss water vapor as a forcing can also be used to dismiss CO2 as a forcing and make it a feedback.

13. Near the surface of the earth where there is more water vapor than CO2, water vapor absorbs more of the outgoing radiation at more wavelengths than CO2. The overlap of the IR (infrared) absorption bands of water vapor with those of CO2 creates a competition for absorption of outgoing IR radiation. In the presence of water vapor, the CO2 absorption is considerably suppressed, i.e., more water vapor means a lot less CO2 absorption. For specific numbers demonstrating this see Table 2 (Results of HITRAN calculations) here. For spectra go here.

14. This is the definition of uncertainty by NIST. There are reasons for the variation in G. Some of the values of gravitational constant G are here and here. The 0.6 W/ m2 value (G. Stephens 2012) shows up in a lot of reports and the uncertainty varies from 0.4 to 4 W/m2 for top of the atmosphere (TOA) or for the ocean heat content (OHC). The value of 17 W/m2 is the uncertainty for the surface imbalance reported in Fig. B1 on p. 692 and in Fig.1 on p. 693.

15. See Ablain (2016) Fig. 3 and Shum (1995) Fig. 8.

16. The numbers displayed in Fig. 7 are for 2017. The most recent numbers are here. See note 5 (above) about the importance of the differences in meanings for parts per million (ppm and ppmv).

17. Sea level is not level and the official sea level is based upon a hypothetical, calculated surface called the geoid. Parts of the ocean differ by many meters from this hypothetical surface.

18. Jo Nova gives an overview of the lag in temperatures and CO2 variations obtained from ice cores and WUWT has an article discussing it as well. Some other references are Barnola Science (2003) article (pay to view or use SciHub  DOI: 10.1126/science.1078758) The article is also on ResearchGate, Jouzel (1999) has an article in Nature (pay to view or use SciHub DOI: 10.1038/20859) and on ResearchGate in 2000. Of course, there are some papers saying the lag is real, but CO2 is still the climate control knob, pay to view here (use SciHub doi.org/10.1038/nature10915), here, and here. Note the use of ad hoc excuses used to dismiss the observed lag.

19. The story of the clergyman and Plague is in the back cover of the textbook Fundamentals of Microbiology, I. E. Alcamo, Addison-Wesley 5th Ed. However, it can be read online here. Most modern dictatorships are similar to medieval feudal societies in many ways.

20. Two videos about the progress being made in the world and how it’s never been better are the TED talk of Peter Diamandis (15 min.) and Barry Kibrick’s program (about 25 min.) on PBS.

21. All figures are original and may contain parts adapted from Wikimedia Commons.