Scientific Method Meets Global Warming

In general, there are only two way to prove something in science.

1. Prove a singular (fact) with an observation such as “black swans exist”.
2. Disprove a universal (theory) with a singular fact such as “all swans are white”.

The inability to disprove a singular, or to prove a universal, is due to our finite limits to our observations. In general, we cannot gather the infinite observations required disprove (1) a fact, or to prove a universal (2).

Scientists need to be rigorous and strict particularly in the initial stages of formulating a study, whether it is a singular or a universal that is being tested, and how the observations will impact.

A case in point: the impact of observations of global temperatures on the climate model projections plotted below. By a strict interpretation of scientific method, the observed “slow rise in global temperature” is a fact that disproves the universal “all possible trajectories of climate models under AGW warming”.

The only appropriate scientific response is to throw away all of those falsified models and all of the work based on them – extinction predictions, extreme events, agricultural trends, and so on – as it is scientifically worthless. You must go back to the drawing board.

The rules of science were illustrated recently in a post on Vortex about the Wright Brothers’ first flight:

To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. Suppose you asked people to place bets as to whether airplanes exist. Out of the 1.6 billion people in the world alive on that day, at that moment, the only ones who had ANY KNOWLEDGE of that question were Wilbur and Orville Wright and the members of the Kitty Hawk coast guard who had helped them fly that morning. In all the world, there was not another soul who knew the facts or was qualified to address the question. The opinions of other people were worthless. Meaningless. All the money in the world placed in a bet would mean nothing. There was an undeveloped glass plate photograph showing the first flight:

That photograph was proof. It overruled all opinions, all money, all textbooks, and the previous 200,000 years of human technology. A thermocouple reading from a cold fusion experiment in 1989 overrules every member of the human race, including every scientist. Once experiments are replicated at high signal to noise ratios, all bets are off. The issue is settled forever. There is no appeal, and it makes no difference how many people disagree, or how many fail to understand calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. The rules of science in such clear-cut cases are objective and the proof is as indisputable as that photograph.

– Jed

Nanoplasmonics – a field is born

Axil Axil suggested in the Vortex discussion list – about the only list I read these days – the name nanoplasmonics for developments in cold fusion (while referencing a very funny mockery of how academics will revise the history of cold fusion in 2015 – “History is written by the losers”).

The field is so new, Wikipedia has yet to have an entry dedicated to “nanoplasmonics”, except as a subheading to an entry Surface Plasmon Polaritons. An effect seen in bulk Nickel powder is not a surface effect. The reactors of Rossi and Defkalion may be based on a plasma phenomenon like polaritons in a nano-sized bulk medium, obviously, the headings should by rights be reversed.

How did climate skeptics know the scare was not real?

The climate scare is collapsing, it seems, as climate scientists everywhere are renouncing their previous certainty.

Skeptics OTOH have been consistent. This blog in particular has been challenging since 2005 the establishment global warming views on such predictions as mass extinctions, significance of warming, decreasing rainfall and droughts.

It is instructive to look into ourselves and ask – how could the skeptics have been right – when the consensus of the learned experts thought differently? As a recent post at WUWT asked – what was my personal path to climate skepticism? Particularly when one has never before been at odds with the scientific mainstream.

The answer for me was elegantly expressed by A.O. Scott of the New York Times review of the Disney film Chicken Little. He said the film is:

“a hectic, uninspired pastiche of catchphrases and clichés, with very little wit, inspiration or originality to bring its frantically moving images to genuine life.”

My theory is that due to their scholarship in other fields – such as engineering, the hard sciences, and economics – skeptics are attuned to genuine scientific insight and not deceived by the “uninspired pastiche of catchphrases and clichés” that constitutes the majority of global warming research.

How does cold fusion work?

A scientific paper by Defkalion Energy sets our their theory behind the desk-top reactor.

1. Powdered nickel is loaded with hydrogen and heated its Debye temperature – which is the temperature which maximizes the vibration of the individual molecules in the nickel lattice.

2. The hydrogen molecules (H2) are dissociated into a plasma by a spark from a spark plug. In the plasma the H atoms (consisting of a proton and an electron) are excited into elliptical orbits. Due to the elliptical orbit, the electron comes very close to the proton at one end, and so is screened to appear like a neutron (no charge).

3. Driven by the lattice vibration and the pulse of plasma from the spark, the screened H atom is driven into the nucleus of a Ni atom, producing Copper, Zinc, and other transmuted byproducts, and copious heat.

That’s their theory.