Double K

You've failed to accurately grasp the point I was making, and further misrepresented my position while doing so. Please review my comments again in context and ask questions if you are unsure of my meaning.

BINGO!

It's frustrating when that happens isnt it?

Where did this hostility come from? Who is sowing the seeds of enmity between climate science researchers and a certain demographic of the population? Why can't this debate simply be reasonable?

Human Nature (not the band) - the condition

and

Politics.

On the contrary, if you're looking for unscientific "as my gut tells me" type of debate on climate science, perhaps you're in the wrong place.

My initial impression from the OP was that this was a "throw around" topic relating to the integrity of the science, not one for scientific debate on the analysis methods used, although it certainly turned into that as I tried to justify my position. (when i say throw around dont interpret it as throw away, there's a difference)

Well, at least you're consistent. That, too, is irrelevant and unrelated to the argument you've presented.

You're consistent with your trolling also. I guess we have more in common than I thought.

But just for the record, I think you'll find that it addresses your complaint.

Aspartame was denied by the FDA for many many years, until one day the new head of the FDA decided to allow this substance into the market. The head of the FDA also happened to be the CEO of a company who made (surprise surprise) aspartame (nutrasweet). So as far as an "authority" bending the rules to pad their pockets regardless of data I think this demonstrates that it can and does happen.

I should mention that I don't enjoy strawmen, either.

It's good to see that you agree the CW argument is a strawman argument then. I'm glad we agree on something.

Lack of an magnetic field between the reversal of the poles would be more likely to have an effect on electrical devices. Especially satellites that depend on the earths magnetic field to shield them from solar storms.

 

I recall when I first heard this idea that they did say if it happened that there would be a period of rebalance where the poles would be almost non existant, I recall them talking about problems with the "shield" (gaussian shield?) protecting earth at this time. I'll see if I can find any documentary or such on it, your comment jogged my memory that I had seen something about that before

Is it possible for the earth to reverse its polarisation in relation to magnetic poles, so that the negative becomes the positive and vice versa?

Assuming this were possible, what becomes of all electrical devices does it affect anything?

What sort of effect would a polar reversal have?

While I appreciate your point, it is sort of not relevant. Until you can demonstrate that these enforcers gave false representations or let flawed results into the literature to pad their own bank accounts.

Have a quick look into the history of aspartame, and you'll see a case of this.

You were making semantic arguments earlier, going as far as to paste the definition of hypothesis, and suggest that unless others consider AGCC to be a hypothesis they didn't understand what a hypothesis is.

Personally I find it hard to fathom that you are still banging on about it not being a hypothesis. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

You wanted me to link you "data" for the express purpose of "debunking" it. Which indicates to me you don't really care about understanding the science. You just want it to be wrong.

And you wanted me to post my arguments against, for the express purpose of proving your theory correct. There seems to be an interesting double standard going on there, but I'm sure you don't see it given the self righteous stance so far. If the purpose of analysis isn't to find and limit error, then please explain to me the purpose of a Quality Assurance analysis.

When I linked you IPCC AR4 you immediately looked for any words that conveyed fear, uncertainty, or doubt and ignored the rest.

Uhm, in a debate, one argues the positive, and one argues the negative. That's how this works, I find points that support my case, you find points that support yours. So far, in regards to every point all you have done is shout me down, not provided me with hard data that proves it works, I'm sorry you have not convinced me that these errors in the system have been accounted for adequetly.

Why are you trying to "disprove" climate science? Since you'd never even heard of IPCC AR4 you do not appear to have much of a background in the topic. You try to understand climate science first before coming to an opinion as to whether or not it's wrong. But, as I stated earlier, your bias is that it's wrong, and you are now actively looking for information to support that bias.

Again, debate - positive/negative, its how debate works.

And no, you've assumed my bias is that it's wrong, I personally have no bias I couldn't give a rats a** if its right or wrong to be honest with you, but you've asked for review on the science and you've recieved it, but you obviously just dont like people making comment on it unless they are a climate expert, I suggest to you that you're looking in the wrong place if that's the sort of discussion and analysis you are after. This again leads to the point I explained earlier where scientists assume that because someone doesn't understand the finer points of their science that they somehow can not contribute in a meaningful fashion.

I can assure you climate scientists do not wear white coats. The ones I worked with liked jeans, polo shirts, and tennis shoes.

Yeah, again, I think you're taking some things I say far too literally, broaden your scope a little mate.

but you don't seem ready to at all entertain the idea that they might be right. Then, after all that, you wonder why there's a need to label people with "climate science denier" as you claim climate scientists are wrong while having only a tentative grasp on the issue.

Again you expect people without the science background to converse on an equal playing field. You're never going to get that happen, and that is actually my point. You also do not seem ready to entertain the idea that it might be wrong. I propose a new label for people that support the idea of climate science.

Climate Elitist Wanker. Lets see how that one flies in the public domain.

You see the problem is with the negative connotation associated with the "denier" label. Climate Change Denier. I mean really. This is just stupid.

Before you try to claim the leading experts in any field are wrong, you should do them the courtesy of attempting to understand their field. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

At least I'm not blowing smoke up them simply because they are scientists.

Merged post follows:

That's funny, because Newton's law of gravitation has been falsified by general relativity.

Sorry, I don't make the definitions, and I don't have the authority to change "Newtons Laws" to "Newtons theories" so if you would like these changed complain to the relevant authority. Apply to whoever does to have these changed.

First understand the role of the thyroid, and the cause of diabetes.

Also, there are a few types of diabetes, such as insulin dependant, and

non-insulin dependant and gestational diabetes mellitus(GDM).

Type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune disease where the body's immune system destroys the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas.

Type 2. This type of diabetes, also known as late-onset diabetes, is characterised by insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency. The disease is strongly genetic in origin but lifestyle factors such as excess weight, inactivity, high blood pressure and poor diet are major risk factors for its

development.

GDM. Risk factors for GDM include a family history of diabetes, increasing maternal age, obesity and being a member of a community or ethnic group with a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. While the carbohydrate intolerance usually returns to normal after the birth, the mother has a significant risk of developing permanent diabetes while the baby is more likely to develop obesity and impaired glucose tolerance and/or diabetes later in life.

http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Types_of_Diabetes

Overall, the thyroid gland is responsible for the speed of metabolism (metabolic and chemical processes) in our bodies, by affecting every cell, tissue, organ and organ system.

When it comes to metabolism -

Carbohydrate metabolism: Thyroid hormones stimulate almost all aspects of carbohydrate metabolism, including enhancement of insulin-dependent entry of glucose into cells and increased gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis to generate free glucose.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/physio.html

Carbohydrate metabolism begins with digestion in the small intestine where monosaccharides are absorbed into the blood stream. Blood sugar concentrations are controlled by three hormones: insulin, glucagon, and epinephrine. If the concentration of glucose in the blood is too high, insulin is secreted by the pancreas. Insulin stimulates the transfer of glucose into the cells, especially in the liver and muscles, although other organs are also able to metabolize glucose.

During strenuous muscular activity, pyruvic acid is converted into lactic acid rather thatn acetyl CoA. Durlng the resting period, the lactic acid is converted back to pyruvic acid. The pyruvic acid in turn is converted back to glucose by the process called gluconeogenesis (anabolism). If the glucose is not needed at that moment, it is converted into glycogen by glycogenesis.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/600glycolysis.html

When you eat, the food is digested and then broken down into glucose. Glucose is the simple sugar that is the body's main source of energy, otherwise known as blood sugar. Carbohydrates are broken down into glucose and are absorbed from the intestines into the bloodstream after you eat.

The pancreas then secretes insulin in response to the increase in blood sugar. Most cells of the body have insulin receptors which bind the insulin to the cell. When a cell has insulin attached to it, the cell then is able to activate the other receptors. These receptors are designed to absorb glucose from the blood stream and move the glucose into the inside of the cell for energy.

Without insulin, the cells in our bodies would not be able to process the glucose and therefore have no energy for movement, growth, repair, or other functions. Insulin is key to unlocking the door of the cell to allow the glucose to be transferred from the bloodstream into the cell.

Ordinarily, when glucose enters our blood, the pancreas automatically produces the right amount of insulin to move glucose into our cells.

There are two types of insulin errors that the pancreas makes. The first is type 1 diabetes which produce no insulin. The second is type 2 diabetes. The pancreas in people with type 2 diabetes does not always produce enough insulin.

http://www.free-online-health.com/what-is-insulin.htm

"Discounting of unknown variables"? What exactly do you mean by that? The model output has a known range of uncertainties. That's standard scientific practice. You make it sound as if climate science is built on a tower of assumptions.

What you fail to realise is, that a system built on data input into it has a margin of error, it is also, only a model, it is not the real thing. I can show you a computer model (or even a physical model) that makes a UFO shaped object fly, that doesnt mean I can replicate it's occurance in the physical world, at the full scale. You see a virtual world is constrained by paramaters that I place on it, and whilst it may have a gravity engine (built using laws of gravity) and a thermodynamics engine (built using thermo laws) and a harmonics engine (etc etc) I have still forced on it some variables to make it "behave" as I would expect, and this does not mean it will emulate the real world. Scale models are great, they provide a good expectation of what might happen in the real world given that all of the variables you have input are correct, the less accurate the data input, the less acurate the output. With computer models once you go stacking errors or flaws, the reliability of the model is reduced.

And now people are using semantics to win over their side of the argument saying the hypothesis is built using law. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make it a law. I think you are all missing the true meaning of the word hypothesis and taking it to mean that somehow makes it science fiction, it doesn't it means a proposal has been brought forward to show an expected outcome. That proposal must now be subject to rigorous testing in order to observe the validity of the proposal. All science begins this way, and even the most simple lab experiment is done this way you "expect" a result and you test to see if what you expect actually happens repeatedly. The GW model does not repeatedly perform, and they say this in their own paper. Then they go to express the limitations and errors of the model.

The fact this model has been created using some laws does not make it also a law. The Hypothesis is that Global Warming (or climate change) is driven by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This is not a law, this is the proposal that science has brought forward and now it must stand up to rigoris testing and observation.

It's just the general attitude. They start with the assumption that the science is wrong and work backwards.

and Science starts with the assumption that they are right and go about proving they are by testing. How is it different to begin expecting a right answer, or a wrong answer either way it should be tested.

Then they apply an extreme degree of confirmation bias, ignoring any supporting evidence and actively looking for any words or phrases they can cherry pick to undermine the science. Projections! Uncertainties! Margins of error! Unknown quantities! Unexplained behaviors!

 

If there is a way to educate these people as to the science, I haven't found it. They're on a cherrypicking expedition and can't seem to be convinced otherwise.

-confirmation bias is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses. Which is exactly what you (and general science) is doing, only you argue for the positive, that doesn't make your comments or thoughts any more or less justified than theirs. It also means that if you go about trying to disprove something, you're looking for mistakes and errors, there's no real suprises there. If you are trying to disprove something you don't look for supporting evidence, you're working on the assumption it's wrong and trying to find fault with the method, this is actually the way that a hypothesis is tested.

You can spout off that its a law and that its built on known science, but the fact is that the causality has not been proved and there are errors in their models, and this they readily admit.

Personally I want industry to change, less pollution is a great idea, less reliance on consumable resource is sound and logical, innovation of new clean technologies (or refining older technologies) can only be a plus. Put the issue of climate change science aside and I will agree with you on every single point regarding the environment because I believe we currently live inharmoniously with the environment and that this can not continue. I also think most people will agree with all of that. What they don't agree with is a bunch of guys in white coats shoving a very complex idea down their throat and then telling them they are idiots for not just believing their authoritar.

Good to see though that you grabbed my term "cherrypicking" and used it to cherrypick my argument. Although every point you grabbed out is exactly what should be investigated. If I can find error analysis in several minutes of reading the chapter on model limitations with so many stacked errors, that's the first place I would start looking for something that doesn't work properly.

Obviously I don't have access to the math, or programming used to produce the model, so how can you expect me to scientifically analyse this data, and yet call me a simpleton for not being able to show you the problem with the data. Scientific argument in favor of the science must be more understanding and prove its case not just say "We did it, we're right, cos we're smarter than you and we know about laws, and clouds and complex compositions" prove the case, and do so without getting entagled in whining about how the terms were cherrypicked out of context, show how and why and the reason that most supporters of climate science dont take this approach is because they have no more access to, or understanding of, the hard data used to arrive at the model, they have just accepted the assertation that is from a trustworthy source, and also believe that changing our ways is for the better.

I think if science wants to win people over on this debate they would do well to appeal to something other than they currently are, show people how they will benefit from a cleaner environment, show people how the beaches will be cleaner, all life will prosper (not economically) and why they should support climate reform. I personally support climate reform, regardless of whether the boffins that came up with the model are correct or not, but science has put forward a model and said "here" and now people have gone about analysing it and science is sitting back feeling all insecure that it's under the spotlight. If you present something for analysis, expect it to be analysed with a fine tooth comb and be prepared to justify each point. This is true of any hypothesis, and climate change models should not be exempt from this analysis simply because its such an important issue.

The thing that tells me government wants just a free lunch out of it all, is that no serious changes have occurred. If we're sitting on so convincing of a time bomb, then all industry and pollution must stop. Send us back to the dark ages for 15 years, if we're talking about total destruction of the planet then there is little other option, we must change, and yet gov. and big oil are still swimming in the piles of cash, and now demanding a fresh pool be set up over here because they want a heated pile of cash as well as the cold hard pile of cash they have. I can tell that its not that serious by the reaction of the government who are the main proponents and spokespeople for the argument. Action speaks louder than words or computer models.

If I drop you of a cliff, you will fall at an acceleration (neglecting air resistance) of about 9.8 m/s^2

 

Is that an hypothesis? It uses Newton's Law of gravitation and Laws of motion.

 

Your earlier statement "Hypothesis preceeds theory preceeds law" is wrong, though. Theories do not become laws. Laws are incorporated in theories (and the term is outdated — we don't tag new equations as laws very much anymore.)

It uses Newton's Law so no, its not a hypothesis, by definition.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

It would seem I am not wrong, either that or my science text books and psychology text books have been wrong for the past 20 years...its possible I guess.

Heres some more articles claiming the same thing, just so you don't think I've cherry picked it.

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

http://www.ohu.ac.uk/publications/HYPOTHESIS.pdf?CFID=491070&CFTOKEN=63751968

http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/TL/filson/writhypo.php

What Is a Real Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction. A hypotheses should not be confused with a theory. Theories are general explanations based on a large amount of data. For example, the theory of evolution applies to all living things and is based on wide range of observations. However, there are many things about evolution that are not fully understood such as gaps in the fossil record. Many hypotheses have been proposed and tested.

See... now, me? I don't call skeptics "deniers". Confidence in global climate change amongst the public is FALLING thanks to scorn-and-ridicule, "scientific consensus" and the declaration of all skeptics as "deniers".

 

Even worse, I think it's fast becoming gauche and cliche to state support for GCC. I recently asked my students, as part of a discussion on logic and reason, whether they believed that global climate change is real. Half of them laughed and scoffed and the other half looked embarrassed and stayed silent.

 

Do y'all want to smirk and denigrate, or do you want to convince people to take action while there's still time? Choose wisely.

Thanks for putting far more elloquently in one post and 3 paragraphs that which I have been trying to demonstrate for about 16 consequtive posts!

(no sarcasm is intended, genuinely this sums up what I was trying to go about saying)

See... Now, me? I'm just tired of stupid people who can't negate the science so use obfuscation instead.

Interesting paradox given that the science has caused the initial obfuscation.

See now me? What I can't stand is bigots who think that because they have knowledge pertaining to something that the rest of the world must be idiots if they can't comprehend or don't understand the same in the same manner (regardless of the fact that there is no provision of the education that they were privvy to in order to achieve said level of knowledge) and then expect them to argue on an equal playing field and yet belittle them for not being able to.

Therein lies the answer pertaining to the integrity of the climate change debate, and yet again you have proved my point by resorting to prejudice in order to prove your point "only those with an engorged brain pan like mine can understand, please shoo insignificant fly" does not go to further the understanding of your position it merely alienates and infuriates and you would think someone with an order of intelligence would also not be ignorant to the challenge confronting those who are trying to assimilate the mountain of data and yet it is a pre-requisite that anyone who wish to attempt to converse on the subject of climate change be well versed in the science required to arrive at the hypothesis. But good luck with that, alienate as many as possible and perhaps all opposition will end allowing full control and really, with people like that in control who needs genocide?

Please, sir... Try to understand the science a bit better prior to attacking it so vociferously. You are, quite simply, wrong on this issue.

You've broken down into right and wrong what is essentially a qualatative debate.

Main problem here is that this has degenerated into an argument about the validity of the science. All my arguments go towards integrity of the science not validity of the science. I think you all would do well (including the person who made the original post) to go back to your initial question - Climate change and the integrity of science.

If you can say that this science is completely unpoliticised, completely accurate, and recieves no government funding which may be a cause of corruption or data manipulation (not necessarily on behalf of or by the scientists) then you are delusional, and I will not bother you and will allow you to return to your sheople herd.

If you are a critical thinker, capable of independant thought, and critical analysis of all the variables surrounding the climate change debate not the science, as I have tried to make clear many times.

If you can claim any of these faculties as your own then you will question the integrity, whether that be an ad-hominem or not is not the point, the question pertained to the integrity. Without access to all of the relevant data, or influences, or politics that go with it, again this is simply impossible to quantify and must be left open to opinionative debate as you have created a double edged sword and armed your opponent with it, each time they cut your evidence up they cut themselves, this is an impossible argument to win.

You can't go and accuse one party of using ad hominem approach and then claim that science is an authority therefore all arguments presented by science are valid. This reeks of a double standard, and again throws into doubt the integrity especially for any person attempting to understand the mountains of data.

Being able to recognize the distinction between "certainty" and "truth" is fundamental to our ability to articulate affirmative elemental theory and to well rounded use of requirements of sound rational thinking. In commonsense we take into account the distinction between certainty and truth.

Absolute certainty =df knowledge that is fully understood, accurately relates every idea to every other idea, and is infinitely correct in every way.

We are justified in accepting many statements and formulas as true with mathematical and scientific certainty. Mathematicians and scientists, on the whole, do well in understanding degrees of certainty. Their subjects develop at an astonishing rate.

When they step out of their fields of expertise, scientists and mathematicians can slide into absolutism or subjectivism but, as long as they stay in their field and stick to their method, they offer astounding examples of sound rational thinking. Scientists appreciate virtual certainty, but know they are not absolute. A genuine scientists continuously works with an open mind.

http://www.plusroot.com/dbook/22Certain.html

What exactly is "radioactive decay"?

The measure of energy dissipation?

You don't end up with half an atom, but it now carries half of its energy

and transforms the element

eg carbon14 becomes nitrogen14

95% certainty is widely accepted throughout science as indicating a significant result.

No, that's not 95% certainty of the entire model being correct, that's 95% certainty that the data relating to warming isnt anomolysing based on internal factors.

Now lets stack the warming model, over the cloud model (which by the way they admit warming is affected by clouds) and yet this model is by their own admission also significantly unreliable (they put not % or figure on this)

Now lets factor in many other layers of models each containing errors or anomolies.

This is the inherent problem with Climate change science.

You've done it above and it's demonstrated here with the model.

You've told me to read (infinite) number of old posts relating to the topic, or investigate and wade through mountains of data. If you look at the people involved in that document alone there is a giant list of names of people that worked on that project. That's a collective experience and knowledge and one person simply can not assimilate that much data especially in time enough to come back to you on topic. The scientific community expects the layman to take on face value their assertions that their model is correct, as there is simply too much data for any one person to assess the validity of the science.

In psychology this is an attempt to overwhelm an opponent by utilising formal authority.

Ignoratio elenchi is replete in the responses to my querries, you have not addressed my points but merely thrown mountains of data at me, old posts, or attacked my character.

Non sequitur and begging the question are approaches that have been used to justify this science, and that leads to the integrity being questioned - to try to get back to the OP (yet again)

The model you present is based on (by its source) not 100% reliable data, the model is actually layers of several models (each modelling not 100% reliable data)

In any other business risk assessment, this is not acceptable, why is it that climate change science operates outside the rules of all other analysis?

If I went to someone with plans of a building that were a sketch made from the architects description, utilising some of the design criteria output from the engineer (but ignoring some of it also) and then produced a set of construction documents based on a 3rd party transcript of the meeting with the civil technician who overheard the conversation - I'd get laughed out of council where I was trying to get DA to go ahead with my building. I'd also have a dangerously erroneous model with which to build my structure.

It's like comparing the difference between founding on rock or founding on sand. The model they describe is replete with errors. I don't think I could find a page that didn't refer to a possible error or modelling anomoly or forced data set. once you stack this kind of data in multiple models, good god...how can that be called reliable?

How exactly do you propose time works in equations because it's constant then? That's what you said before.

 

I don't see how this is a dichotomy when it's yet to be established that time is a constant.

refer to: Saniga’s algebraic geometrical model (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/saniga_psychopathology.htm)

Apart from this noteworthy “past-present-future” pattern, mimicking everyone's common sense of time, our model gives rise to other two prominent, in a sense dual to each other, structures.

These correspond to the cases where the reference point coincides with a base point,

or

falls on a composite conic.

In the former case, clearly, all the proper conics are on-conics, whereas in the latter case the pattern is lacking any such conic, being endowed with ex- and in-conics only.

Hence, the corresponding time dimension, in the former case, consists

solely of the present moments (the “present-only” mode), whilst,

in the latter case, it comprises only the past and future, being devoid of the moment of the present (the “no-present” mode).

Time is both constant and non-constant.

& could be classed as a presence-absence dichotomy

and thus you have discovered the dilema with the equation.

(or perhaps dichotomy is more apt)

The projections are based on model output, which is in turn based on the physical science.

Which makes it a prediction, not a fact.

While there are many nonlinearities and uncertainties in the system, projections based on climate models are certainly not "assumptions" or a "hypothesis".

http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis

Hypothesis:

1.A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2.Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3.The antecedent of a conditional statement.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Furthermore, there's substantially more to the case for anthropogenically forced climate change than future projections. As you noted yourself, you're addressing 2 chapters of an 11 chapter report.

Which addresses the limitations of the model used to form the projections.

Are you familiar with the concept of "pot. kettle. black"?

Are you aware of the words

"cliche, lame, pointless, drivel, character assassination (which you've tried several times now)?"

Incorrect. You might try reading IPCC AR4 Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Do you mean the part where it states:

"There is less confidence in the understanding of forced changes in other variables, such as surface pressure and precipitation, and on smaller spatial

scales. Better understanding of instrumental and proxy climate

records, and climate model improvements, have increased

confi dence in climate model-simulated internal variability.

However, uncertainties remain. For example, there are apparent

discrepancies between estimates of ocean heat content variability

from models and observations."

So far your document isn't blowing my skirt up.

"The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system as

well as the magnitude and pattern of warming within and across the different components supports the conclusion that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely (<5%) to be the result of

internal processes."

5% Is a significant margin of error!

Or, as you're a layman, this Wikipedia article might be more your speed:

"cliche, lame, pointless, drivel, character assassination (which you've tried several times now)?"

Earlier you were criticizing climate science because you thought it was unproven:

Please do not misquote me, I did not say I thought it was unproven.

"and whilst the science that they claim to have used is proven, the hypothesis that the planet is warming due to human manipulation of the environment is still nothing more than a hypothesis."

This is, by definition, a hypothesis. If you wish to have the terms proof, theory, law, hypothesis changed you're going to have to take that up with someone other than me.

Now you're making the semantic argument that even if it's true, it's still "only" a hypothesis.

 

So, bascule has provided you the data you were looking for. Do you still hold that climate science is unreliable, or is your disagreement with bascule one of semantics?

Semantics (from Greek "σημαντικός" - semantikos[1][2]) is the study of meaning, usually in language. The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation.

Mate, they don't title the chapter "The Guaranteed outcome" for a reason.

It's called a projected outcome for a reason, and semantics is exactly what it is, if you put a document down that says "Projected Outcomes" and expect me to interpret that as "Guaranteed outcome" your brain organ is swollen from something other than knowledge.

"The uncertainty associated with the use of flux adjustments

has therefore decreased, although biases and long-term

trends remain in AOGCM control simulations."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf (p. 591)

"Simulation of the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) remains unsatisfactory." (same page as above)

"Systematic biases have been found in most models’

simulation of the Southern Ocean. Since the Southern

Ocean is important for ocean heat uptake, this results in

some uncertainty in transient climate response."

"The possibility that metrics based on observations might

be used to constrain model projections of climate change

has been explored for the fi rst time, through the analysis

of ensembles of model simulations. Nevertheless, a

proven set of model metrics that might be used to narrow

the range of plausible climate projections has yet to be

developed."

Mate did you even read this document and the methods they used to model? This is THEIR WORDS not mine.

"Recent studies reaffirm that the spread of climate sensitivity

estimates among models arises primarily from inter-model

differences in cloud feedbacks. The shortwave impact of

changes in boundary-layer clouds, and to a lesser extent midlevel

clouds, constitutes the largest contributor to inter-model

differences in global cloud feedbacks. The relatively poor

simulation of these clouds in the present climate is a reason

for some concern. The response to global warming of deep

convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty

in projections since current models predict different responses

of these clouds. Observationally based evaluation of cloud

feedbacks indicates that climate models exhibit different

strengths and weaknesses, and it is not yet possible to determine

which estimates of the climate change cloud feedbacks are the

most reliable."

That, by the way, is what you're labeling as a "hypothesis"

Why are you so defensive?

Do you understand the definitions?

This dataset can quite clearly be put under the categories here:

"For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Like all hypotheses, the working hypothesis can be constructed as a statement of expectations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

"In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hypothesis

Chapter 3, 4, &5 are all titled "Observations:"

Chapter 10 & Chapter 11 "Projections"

A projection is not a fact, it's an assumption based on data, or A HYPOTHESIS.

You're relegating one of the central topics of modern climate science to mere "hypothesis". That is not the case. The science of anthropogenically forced climate change is supported by a wealth of evidence.

No, I'm not.

You want me to analyse and debunk DATA then provide me with DATA. If you want a general discussion then make an open ended title like

"Climate change and the integrity of science" which invokes an opinionative response, I have provided no data, you have provided no data, this is not a "scientific" debate and proves yet again my point that these debates are not based on science but based on emotion, opinion and can never continue as true debate, I think I've made this point in at least 5 posts now. Yet you continue to steamroll right past the point and continue by debunking my argument by attacking me. If there is a wealth of evidence, LETS SEE IT, I'm not just going to take your word for it, if you want to take on the role of being the planets saviour and using science as your sword of justice then you are going to have to find a way to educate the masses to see the data for what it is, not beat them over the head with the stick of data and sit there in your armchair with your superior swollen brain organ, it aint gonna work that way pal.

For someone who's accusing scientists of being "so convinced they are right that anyone questioning their line is somehow insulting them," you sure are taking an awful lot personally.

Now who's using ad-hominems to win their argument?

It would seem then from the responses that your OP was intended as bait to simply attack anyone who questions your scientific authoritar on climate change science. Yet again, one of my points. I see this daily in real life, people who do the task and think that they have foreseen everything, know everything, or do not respect the opinion and input of others, this arrogance results in costly delays, and dangerous working conditions. Just because someone is not a specialist in the field you are, does not mean they can not contribute in a meaniingful way.

I should have known that a simple example to illustrate my point (regarding the age of the planet) would be misconstrued as you try to defend your point.

The real problem is, you've made no point. Your argument has been completely based on debunking me and my opinion, and not providing any supporting evidence. You've provided me with a computer simulation. This is a simulation based on data input into it. Where is this data from? Who input the data? (did they make a typo and input a b instead of an m?) Who QA checked the data? Who provided him with his funding for the study, was it Al Gore? PS. I make computer models all day long, and I can guarantee you what happens in my computer model is not 100% correct, it's merely an accurate estimation.

I can provide you with an alternative computer simulation, please hold;

If the purpose of the post is to have data analysed, provide the data for review.

Oddly enough I pointed someone else to this for a different reason today, but I believe it explains extremely well the dilema, whilst I sit here nodding at the simplicity, I do not think I could manage to throw this together in my own words so I shall just link it for you.

1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. Extinguish all forms of clinging and attachment.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement.

It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object.

Gautama Buddha.