Select to expand quoteNotWal said..Paradox said..Marvin said..
First, it's not fudging if you can measure the overall flux with greater confidence than the theoretical components. To take the car speedo analogy again, the police speed gun may have low uncertainty/very high confidence as to the observed car's speed, but a concurrent project to estimate of the weight of the car, the fuel burn from the exhaust emission plume, the headwind, the roughness of the road, the tyre pressure and so on - as component contributors - may not be so confident, individually.
Second, it's about CO2 equivalence (CO2e), not just CO2. Methane in particular is a very important ghg at 25 CO2e (1 tonne is equivalent to 25 tonnes CO2). The IPCC always report in CO2e terms.
Finally, the IPCC is clearly onto it. The basic story hasn't changed since the 1980s. The biosphere continues to confirm the broad outcomes - retreating glaciers and warming poles are just two.
OK, but that graph shows estimated forcings. It does not provide any detail on observed or predicted global temperature. That requires another step also with significant potential error. (enter the models)
I will also point out the graphs estimation of net human FORCINGS ranges between 50% to 150%. Thats a pretty big error bar just on the forcings and highlights what happens when you start adding things up with large errors.
What that graph doesn't show is the then very important step of climate sensitivity. That is what is needed to bridge the gap between forcings and actual measured temperature. No one has any real idea of sensitivity as the modelled results are all over the place using a large spread, the lower end of which conforms with observed warming.
www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
To recap, we are discussing the validity of the IPCC 95% confidence that observed warming is predominantly human caused. I am not arguing that there is no human influence, only that IPCC 95% confidence is unreliable.
The IPCC are simply saying that when we add everything up and crunch some numbers with our black box models we get bigger results than what we are seeing. So therefore we are really confident that most of what we are seeing must be due to some aspects of our theorys, even though we don't know which.
Given the uncertainty in all the factors that build up the outcome, stating a 95% confidence based on a "what else could it be?" is scientifically unsound, especially coming from an organisation that does not have a charter or mandate to actually look into anything else. IPCC was not formed and does not operate to look for any other contributions to global warming than human ones. Consequently a 95% confidence in thier own existance is not surprising however unsound it may be.
"The IPCC's mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society's options for responding to it." www.ipcc.ch/2017/09/21/ipcc-statement-clarifying-the-role-of-the-ipcc-in-the-context-of-1-5oc/
So not just anthropogenic causes as you seem to think.
Your lack of confidence in The IPCC's confidence seems unjustified. My guess is that you can only maintain it because of the commonly expressed mistrust in The IPCC and there's very little substance to that just a lot of fud from mischief makers and ct from the nuttersphere.
I'm inclined to leave the climate science to the climate scientists and trust that the normal scientific methods will sort the grist from the chaff. In short, I think second guessing the IPCC without good substantiated reason, is pissing in the wind.
Happy with that answer. Thumbs up from me.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
"The IPCC's mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society's options for responding to it." www.ipcc.ch/2017/09/21/ipcc-statement-clarifying-the-role-of-the-ipcc-in-the-context-of-1-5oc/
So not just anthropogenic causes as you seem to think.
Your lack of confidence in The IPCC's confidence seems unjustified. My guess is that you can only maintain it because of the commonly expressed mistrust in The IPCC and there's very little substance to that just a lot of fud from mischief makers and ct from the nuttersphere.
I'm inclined to leave the climate science to the climate scientists and trust that the normal scientific methods will sort the grist from the chaff. In short, I think second guessing the IPCC without good substantiated reason, is pissing in the wind.
Yep, thats the latest iteration of thier mandate. I am sorry but you have been misled and that is one of the reasons I have little regard for the organisation. Deliberate obfuscation in order to misdirect by a political body, not a scientific one.
The IPCC mission statement held until recently was: to assess "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change"
And the original definition of climate change in the IPCC Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1.2, defined climate change as "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."
I will leave it to you to judge why they did that recent change (as a hint your response and subequent view of the IPCC is a good indicator) but I can assure you thier actual mission has not changed and does not pursue non human related causes.
Apart from a very one sided purpose, the issues I have with the IPCC can be summarised as:
1) the IPCC is a political arm of the Unitied Nations. They are not an independant scientific body (they are not a scientific body at all, they are a political one) and it was established by a very questionable individual. I will let you look up Maurice Strong yourself.
2) The IPCC is designed to put political leaders and bureaucrats rather than scientists in control of the research projects. It is a membership organisation composed of governments, not scientists. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, select the scientists who get to participate, and revise and rewrite the reports after the scientists have concluded their work.
3) The summaries are controlled by a small number of lead authors whose selection and appointment is far from transparent. Lets say you dont get to be a lead writer on an IPCC paper if you merely have exceptional qualifications. You must have the correct view. There is no balance.
4) Those lead authors have previously been found to have manipulated and exlude data and papers that don't match the narrative. They skew the whole process to promote the climate change "message" www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
5) I do not believe anythiing has been done since climategate to make it more transparent or balanced. Except maybe a more secure email server.
6) Finally, I have read thier reports. I find a huge mismatch in the wording of the scientific papers they review and include and the summaries they produce. Again there is no balance or consideration of the situation as a whole. I once went through and tried to find reference to the many benefits a warmer planet would provide so it could be assessed on the negative. There was nothing. No reference let alone an assessment to balance positives with the negatives.
I am unsure whether that passed your test of a "good substiantiated reason" but if it doesn't I have little hope anything will.
Select to expand quoteNotWal said..
I'm inclined to leave the climate science to the climate scientists and trust that the normal scientific methods will sort the grist from the chaff. In short, I think second guessing the IPCC without good substantiated reason, is pissing in the wind.Paradox said.Marvin said..
First, it's not fudging if you can measure the overall flux with greater confidence than the theoretical components. To take the car speedo analogy again, the police speed gun may have low uncertainty/very high confidence as to the observed car's speed, but a concurrent project to estimate of the weight of the car, the fuel burn from the exhaust emission plume, the headwind, the roughness of the road, the tyre pressure and so on - as component contributors - may not be so confident, individually.
Second, it's about CO2 equivalence (CO2e), not just CO2. Methane in particular is a very important ghg at 25 CO2e (1 tonne is equivalent to 25 tonnes CO2). The IPCC always report in CO2e terms.
Finally, the IPCC is clearly onto it. The basic story hasn't changed since the 1980s. The biosphere continues to confirm the broad outcomes - retreating glaciers and warming poles are just two.
OK, but that graph shows estimated forcings. It does not provide any detail on observed or predicted global temperature. That requires another step also with significant potential error. (enter the models)
I will also point out the graphs estimation of net human FORCINGS ranges between 50% to 150%. Thats a pretty big error bar just on the forcings and highlights what happens when you start adding things up with large errors.
What that graph doesn't show is the then very important step of climate sensitivity. That is what is needed to bridge the gap between forcings and actual measured temperature. No one has any real idea of sensitivity as the modelled results are all over the place using a large spread, the lower end of which conforms with observed warming.
www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
To recap, we are discussing the validity of the IPCC 95% confidence that observed warming is predominantly human caused. I am not arguing that there is no human influence, only that IPCC 95% confidence is unreliable.
The IPCC are simply saying that when we add everything up and crunch some numbers with our black box models we get bigger results than what we are seeing. So therefore we are really confident that most of what we are seeing must be due to some aspects of our theorys, even though we don't know which.
Given the uncertainty in all the factors that build up the outcome, stating a 95% confidence based on a "what else could it be?" is scientifically unsound, especially coming from an organisation that does not have a charter or mandate to actually look into anything else. IPCC was not formed and does not operate to look for any other contributions to global warming than human ones. Consequently a 95% confidence in thier own existance is not surprising however unsound it may be.
"The IPCC's mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society's options for responding to it." www.ipcc.ch/2017/09/21/ipcc-statement-clarifying-the-role-of-the-ipcc-in-the-context-of-1-5oc/
So not just anthropogenic causes as you seem to think.
Your lack of confidence in The IPCC's confidence seems unjustified. My guess is that you can only maintain it because of the commonly expressed mistrust in The IPCC and there's very little substance to that just a lot of fud from mischief makers and ct from the nuttersphere.
Exactly Notwal. That's all paradox and Ian are doing, pissing in the wind.
And it doesn't matter how much longer the pissing gets, it's still just piss.
Thing is, with thousands of words from paradox we still haven't seen one shred of evidence to back his claims that the IPCC is off the mark.
Gotta love the nuttersphere Notwal. 
I guess at the point where scientists went from flat earth to the world is round and it's the centre of the universe, the consensus would have been not to question the scientists
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..NotWal said..
I'm inclined to leave the climate science to the climate scientists and trust that the normal scientific methods will sort the grist from the chaff. In short, I think second guessing the IPCC without good substantiated reason, is pissing in the wind.Paradox said.Marvin said..
First, it's not fudging if you can measure the overall flux with greater confidence than the theoretical components. To take the car speedo analogy again, the police speed gun may have low uncertainty/very high confidence as to the observed car's speed, but a concurrent project to estimate of the weight of the car, the fuel burn from the exhaust emission plume, the headwind, the roughness of the road, the tyre pressure and so on - as component contributors - may not be so confident, individually.
Second, it's about CO2 equivalence (CO2e), not just CO2. Methane in particular is a very important ghg at 25 CO2e (1 tonne is equivalent to 25 tonnes CO2). The IPCC always report in CO2e terms.
Finally, the IPCC is clearly onto it. The basic story hasn't changed since the 1980s. The biosphere continues to confirm the broad outcomes - retreating glaciers and warming poles are just two.
OK, but that graph shows estimated forcings. It does not provide any detail on observed or predicted global temperature. That requires another step also with significant potential error. (enter the models)
I will also point out the graphs estimation of net human FORCINGS ranges between 50% to 150%. Thats a pretty big error bar just on the forcings and highlights what happens when you start adding things up with large errors.
What that graph doesn't show is the then very important step of climate sensitivity. That is what is needed to bridge the gap between forcings and actual measured temperature. No one has any real idea of sensitivity as the modelled results are all over the place using a large spread, the lower end of which conforms with observed warming.
www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
To recap, we are discussing the validity of the IPCC 95% confidence that observed warming is predominantly human caused. I am not arguing that there is no human influence, only that IPCC 95% confidence is unreliable.
The IPCC are simply saying that when we add everything up and crunch some numbers with our black box models we get bigger results than what we are seeing. So therefore we are really confident that most of what we are seeing must be due to some aspects of our theorys, even though we don't know which.
Given the uncertainty in all the factors that build up the outcome, stating a 95% confidence based on a "what else could it be?" is scientifically unsound, especially coming from an organisation that does not have a charter or mandate to actually look into anything else. IPCC was not formed and does not operate to look for any other contributions to global warming than human ones. Consequently a 95% confidence in thier own existance is not surprising however unsound it may be.
"The IPCC's mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society's options for responding to it." www.ipcc.ch/2017/09/21/ipcc-statement-clarifying-the-role-of-the-ipcc-in-the-context-of-1-5oc/
So not just anthropogenic causes as you seem to think.
Your lack of confidence in The IPCC's confidence seems unjustified. My guess is that you can only maintain it because of the commonly expressed mistrust in The IPCC and there's very little substance to that just a lot of fud from mischief makers and ct from the nuttersphere.
Exactly Notwal. That's all paradox and Ian are doing, pissing in the wind.
And it doesn't matter how much longer the pissing gets, it's still just piss.
Thing is, with thousands of words from paradox we still haven't seen one shred of evidence to back his claims that the IPCC is off the mark.
Gotta love the nuttersphere Notwal.
And we've seen nothing from you except claiming he's wrong and insisting "the science is settled" with no proof of either.
Argument from authority is not an argument at all.e
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..NotWal said..
I'm inclined to leave the climate science to the climate scientists and trust that the normal scientific methods will sort the grist from the chaff. In short, I think second guessing the IPCC without good substantiated reason, is pissing in the wind.Paradox said.Marvin said..
First, it's not fudging if you can measure the overall flux with greater confidence than the theoretical components. To take the car speedo analogy again, the police speed gun may have low uncertainty/very high confidence as to the observed car's speed, but a concurrent project to estimate of the weight of the car, the fuel burn from the exhaust emission plume, the headwind, the roughness of the road, the tyre pressure and so on - as component contributors - may not be so confident, individually.
Second, it's about CO2 equivalence (CO2e), not just CO2. Methane in particular is a very important ghg at 25 CO2e (1 tonne is equivalent to 25 tonnes CO2). The IPCC always report in CO2e terms.
Finally, the IPCC is clearly onto it. The basic story hasn't changed since the 1980s. The biosphere continues to confirm the broad outcomes - retreating glaciers and warming poles are just two.
OK, but that graph shows estimated forcings. It does not provide any detail on observed or predicted global temperature. That requires another step also with significant potential error. (enter the models)
I will also point out the graphs estimation of net human FORCINGS ranges between 50% to 150%. Thats a pretty big error bar just on the forcings and highlights what happens when you start adding things up with large errors.
What that graph doesn't show is the then very important step of climate sensitivity. That is what is needed to bridge the gap between forcings and actual measured temperature. No one has any real idea of sensitivity as the modelled results are all over the place using a large spread, the lower end of which conforms with observed warming.
www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
To recap, we are discussing the validity of the IPCC 95% confidence that observed warming is predominantly human caused. I am not arguing that there is no human influence, only that IPCC 95% confidence is unreliable.
The IPCC are simply saying that when we add everything up and crunch some numbers with our black box models we get bigger results than what we are seeing. So therefore we are really confident that most of what we are seeing must be due to some aspects of our theorys, even though we don't know which.
Given the uncertainty in all the factors that build up the outcome, stating a 95% confidence based on a "what else could it be?" is scientifically unsound, especially coming from an organisation that does not have a charter or mandate to actually look into anything else. IPCC was not formed and does not operate to look for any other contributions to global warming than human ones. Consequently a 95% confidence in thier own existance is not surprising however unsound it may be.
"The IPCC's mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society's options for responding to it." www.ipcc.ch/2017/09/21/ipcc-statement-clarifying-the-role-of-the-ipcc-in-the-context-of-1-5oc/
So not just anthropogenic causes as you seem to think.
Your lack of confidence in The IPCC's confidence seems unjustified. My guess is that you can only maintain it because of the commonly expressed mistrust in The IPCC and there's very little substance to that just a lot of fud from mischief makers and ct from the nuttersphere.
Exactly Notwal. That's all paradox and Ian are doing, pissing in the wind.
And it doesn't matter how much longer the pissing gets, it's still just piss.
Thing is, with thousands of words from paradox we still haven't seen one shred of evidence to back his claims that the IPCC is off the mark.
Gotta love the nuttersphere Notwal.
And we've seen nothing from you except claiming he's wrong and insisting "the science is settled" with no proof of either.
Argument from authority is not an argument at all.e
You appear to be obsessed with the phrase "argument from authority". It's meaningless in the context unless someone can actually demonstrate the knowledge of the authority is false - which it most definitely is not.
Whatever do you mean by this post Kamikuza? I don't dispute the rigorous science produced by a vast group of scientists from universities and meteorological institutions around the world, therefore I have nothing to demonstrate. The science looks quite robust to me.
If paradox wishes to challenge the science underpinning an international effort to demonstrate the AGW hypothesis, he'd better provide some evidence, otherwise he and you are simply pissing in the wind, or perhaps you wish to forward some conspiracy theory about a fraud?
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
I guess at the point where scientists went from flat earth to the world is round and it's the centre of the universe, the consensus would have been not to question the scientists
In 2000 there was a consensus amongst 97% of the medical community that the cause of stomach ulcers was stress, spicy food and excess stomach acid - and that the solution to this was to prescribe antacids and reduce stress in your life.
In 2010 two Aussies won the Nobel prize for medicine for proving this was wrong. It is in fact a bacteria that causes it and the solution is an antibacterial.
Nobody ever doubted stomach ulcers weren't real, or the effects of having them aren't very serious. But the rest - well it seems the accepted science was very wrong.
This thread started about "crying wolf on climate change". The original author of the first article wasn't suggesting climate change wasn't occurring or that humans weren't causing change.
The point was that for the last 30 odd years the claims of the impending results of a changing climate and what required solutions are need to stop any change has been riddled with ever increasing alarmism, and this has actually done more damage than good.
Arguing about the nuances of the science has nothing to do with the point being made.
Does nobody actually know the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf (one of Aesop's I assume) ?
You know - the one where the boy cried the alarm of immediate danger and widespread destruction when there wasn't any such immediate danger. And he did it so many times and with such ferocity that in the end everybody just ignored him. Every time he thought he heard a dog bark or the sun came out he cried wolf.
This resulted in everyone dismissing the danger more than they ever had before he started crying wolf.
Eventually of course he was proved right. The wolf came and ate the sheep. It was a fable, so it was bound to happen eventually. No doubt these days he would have say "told you so".
Problem was, if he hadn't cried wolf all those times before, then everyone else would not have ignored the danger of the wolf when it actually came.
So yes Paradox, the wolf exists, it is real. And one day it might even come.
But the Himalaya glaciers won't melt by 2035, there won't be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, and you won't steal Swedish school kids youth if you don't buy a Tesla tomorrow.
- and then, even when the wolf comes and steals a sheep, the rest of the flock will carry on. The shepherd might not like, it but sheep and wolves evolved and existed together long before the shepherd was born.
Oh, and Paradox whilst you are paranoid about the wolf huffing and puffing and blowing your house down, don't forget about the virus carrying little piggy next door#, the giant city being built around your lovely little sustainable straw house and the giant panda and bald headed eagle fighting to the death in the adjacent paddock.
Because one of them might eventually get you. And then some people will be proved right and get to say "told you so".
(#by 'disease riddled piggy next door' I mean Victorians obviously)
Well Carantoc, you'd best get that Nobel Prize winning crack team going to prove the IPPC wrong then.
Until then, the rest is just pissing in the wind.
Oh and the man behind the article in question has been exposed for a number of fraudulent statements, so I would put much store in his opinions in the puff piece.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
which it most definitely is not
Doubling-down and proving my point again. Smooth.
You refuse to even acknowledge that the IPCC is nothing but the immutable last word on the subject.
You refuse to acknowledge there could be flaws at all, with "the science" or with the politics of the IPCC.
You insist that "the science" is settled.
Any challenge to the authority of the IPCC you dismiss without consideration or invent conspiracy theories to poison the well.
And you refuse to acknowledge that science is actually an on-going process, not the destination.
That's what "argument from authority" means. That's not science.
I've seen the same kind of dogma before, but usually there were funny hats and collection plates involved.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..holy guacamole said..
which it most definitely is not
Doubling-down and proving my point again. Smooth.
You refuse to even acknowledge that the IPCC is nothing but the immutable last word on the subject.
You refuse to acknowledge there could be flaws at all, with "the science" or with the politics of the IPCC.
You insist that "the science" is settled.
Any challenge to the authority of the IPCC you dismiss without consideration or invent conspiracy theories to poison the well.
And you refuse to acknowledge that science is actually an on-going process, not the destination.
That's what "argument from authority" means. That's not science.
I've seen the same kind of dogma before, but usually there were funny hats and collection plates involved.
I don't make any of these claims. They are a figment of your imagination.
All I'm asking you to do, is demonstrate that the IPCC is wrong - which you haven't to date done.
If you have a hypothesis that the warming is largely natural or some such, demonstrate this with some observations, analysis and peer reviewed science.
Otherwise, you are just pissing in the wind with the same tired old hypothesis.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
IPCC needs to be defunded
Why, a bit too much truth for ya Mr Not The Suppository of All Knowledge?
OK conspritards, here's an analogy.
Evolution of The Species.
It is widely accepted that evolution of the species is a fact. Demonstrated both by the fossil records, observation and experimentation.
Few people deny this fact. If you're prepared to deny evolution is real, then you're not discussing science but faith or dogma.
Now when it comes to the theory of the mechanism by which species evolve, there is genuine discussion.
Nonetheless, we are almost certain that the mechanism is descent with modification coupled with natural selection. This drives Evolution because almost all the evidence points to this.
We are not 100% certain of course because that's not how biological sciences work, but we are almost certain due to the mass of evidence.
I see the science examining the causes of climate change in the past century or so similarly. There is a mass of evidence that points to the human markers and very little if any evidence that points to natural variability. Simply stating that it hapenned in the past, therefore it's happening again now, is highly unscientific.
So until someone can demonstrate that the current observations ARE NOT due to anthropogenic activity, the hypothesis of natural variability is unsupported by the observations and facts and the most likely, most robust hypothesis remains.
Therefore it is false to claim that "we just don't know" when it comes to AGW. That is as silly as claiming we don't know about descent with modification or the power of natural selection.
Here's a nice little graph Guac.
It shows that nothing has changed for thousands of years.
The line that goes straight up at the end is your mate's prediction for the next eighty years.
I guess the polar ice caps really did melt by 2000.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
Here's a nice little graph Guac.
It shows that nothing has changed for thousands of years.
The line that goes straight up at the end is your mate's prediction for the next eighty years.
I guess the polar ice caps really did melt by 2000.
LOL. "My mate". Are you claiming that the work of thousands of scientists and universities and meteorological institutions amounts to "my mate"?
As for your graph, if you actually read it you'll notice that the observations from 2000 were at +0.5 deg above the 2,000 year maximum.
So, your statement is not correct, whichever way one looks at it.
In reality, there have been many misleading graphs circulating the conspiritard web for years.
This kind of micro-analysis also confuses global warming with local warming in Greenland and tries to extrapolate a conclusion based on this. The trouble is, it's a bit like comparing weather with climate because what's most important is the global situation, not just one continent.
www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
If you're going to discuss global warming, you have to be global.
And if we had this in the year 1720 I'm sure you'd be convinced that we're rocketing into the next ice age
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
And if we had this in the year 1720 I'm sure you'd be convinced that we're rocketing into the next ice age
Not if you look at the above graph, no.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
In reality, there have been many misleading graphs circulating the conspiritard web for years.
I agree, including the one you posted.
It comes from an informal blog and uses quote "data from a wide variety of proxy records such as tree rings, cave deposits, corals, etc"
There are known problems with the accuracy of all those methods.
That graph has not been promoted or accepted as any kind of official record and is suspiciously "flat" compared to many of the other more official historical temperature records circulating from more reliable sources.
Maybe be a bit more careful of your own sources when calling others out.
I did a quick pick from Wikipedia. Most graphs from reputable sources look about the same. Only the conspiritard websites fudge numbers.
So it's back to denying observations now Paradox? Sums it up really.
OK, let's go back to first grade at NOAA.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
OK conspritards, here's an analogy.
Evolution of The Species.
It is widely accepted that evolution of the species is a fact. Demonstrated both by the fossil records, observation and experimentation.
Few people deny this fact. If you're prepared to deny evolution is real, then you're not discussing science but faith or dogma.
Now when it comes to the theory of the mechanism by which species evolve, there is genuine discussion.
Nonetheless, we are almost certain that the mechanism is descent with modification coupled with natural selection. This drives Evolution because almost all the evidence points to this.
We are not 100% certain of course because that's not how biological sciences work, but we are almost certain due to the mass of evidence.
I see the science examining the causes of climate change in the past century or so similarly. There is a mass of evidence that points to the human markers and very little if any evidence that points to natural variability. Simply stating that it hapenned in the past, therefore it's happening again now, is highly unscientific.
So until someone can demonstrate that the current observations ARE NOT due to anthropogenic activity, the hypothesis of natural variability is unsupported by the observations and facts and the most likely, most robust hypothesis remains.
Therefore it is false to claim that "we just don't know" when it comes to AGW. That is as silly as claiming we don't know about descent with modification or the power of natural selection.
Great post. But unfortunately, not so much for you. Sloppy language in your case is caused by sloppy thinking.
Evolution is name we give to the process we observe of descent from a common ancestor. "Natural selection" is among the best explanations we have at the moment for what we observe.
"Best explanation for now" is always the caveat that science concludes with.
Biologists are not investigating and arguing about what they observe, but how it happens.
You've overly-simplified the "mechanism" and ignored or otherwise left out the other vitally important drives like genetic drift, mutation, sexual selection, co-evolution etc etc. Natural selection cannot happen without genetic variation.
The explanations are far more complex and open to far more discussion than you're implying too. This applies to climate change as well. Over-simplifying problems to get a convenient answer is not science.
Evolution and climate change is what we observe, and AGW is a mechanism that should be up for discussion. Reasonably and sensibly, as is usual within the scientific community, without the name-calling.
And you don't prove a negative, you falsify a premise. That's not science.
Your last sentence is all over the place. The best we can claim for AGW -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is also what you've repeated from the your beloved IPCC -- is that it seems the "most likely" explanation for what we observe. "We just don't know" is inadequate without a more specific context to it (probably cos I'm not reading the long posts here).
And we "know" about descent with modification (evolution) because that's what we observe, as we observe the power of natural selection.
But knowing isn't the same as explaining. The mechanisms that explain it are what is being discussed and studied.
Insisting that you can't question what has been produced on the topic is not science.
I'm not posting this because I'm in favor of other explanations, I'm posting this because science shouldn't be done sloppily.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
I did a quick pick from Wikipedia. Most graphs from reputable sources look about the same. Only the conspiritard websites fudge numbers.
So it's back to denying observations now Paradox? Sums it up really.
OK, let's go back to first grade at NOAA.
Im sorry, exactly who was recording temperature 2000 years ago? They are not observations, they are attempts at reconstructing past temperatures using different methods of which give significantly different results. Ice cores are recognised as the most accurate.
But thank you yes NOAA is a significantly better source than wikipedia (scores a zero for reliable information) and that graph is very different to the one you first posted.
Here is some other very good information taken from Antarcitic ice cores. acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story/
"The study shows that the Millennium Drought was far from an exceptional event for eastern Australia during the past thousand years.""Droughts lasting longer than five years are in fact a normal part of long-term climate variability, and should therefore be factored into catchment management.""We now have a much clearer picture of the multi-decade cycles in Australian rainfall patterns, and therefore a more reliable means of predicting future trends."
Vote #1 for kamikuza to be parachuted into the Senate and made minister of science and climate change
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..
IPCC needs to be defunded
Why, a bit too much truth for ya Mr Not The Suppository of All Knowledge?
Same reason we defended Tim Flanery
Alarmist will do it for free anyway
As demonstrated by that liar
"CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used."
This intrigues me, can anyone explain why pre 1950 CO2 samples are collected from ice cores obtained from Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic sources yet since then, they have been collected from a location some 3,000 mtrs up the side of an active volcano (the source of thousands of tonnes of 'greenhouse gasses'),
To me this hardly seems like a reasonable comparison, a bit like taking a seawater sample from the Mariana trench and comparing it to a sample from Sydney Harbour, after all, they're both sea water, yeah?
^ Well because that's where we get optimal readings that are accurate due to the lack of seasonal vegetation.
The observatory is situated well away and upwind from any active volcanism and prevailing winds bring air directly in from the Pacific.
On occasions of eruptions spikes are detected and removed from the sample, like any observations do.
It's also not the only station measuring atmospheric CO2....
This is why we leave the science up to the scientists and not fools like Tony Abbott or nuclear spruikers like paradox.
I guess the Hawaiian guys are also in on the conspiracy to commit a fraud on humanity.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
^ Well because that's where we get optimal readings that are accurate due to the lack of seasonal vegetation.
The observatory is situated well away and upwind from any active volcanism and prevailing winds bring air directly in from the Pacific.
On occasions of eruptions spikes are detected and removed from the sample, like any observations do.
It's also not the only station measuring atmospheric CO2....
This is why we leave the science up to the scientists and not fools like Tony Abbott or nuclear spruikers like paradox.
I guess the Hawaiian guys are also in on the conspiracy to commit a fraud on humanity.
I was not doubting science I was asking a serious question and I got a serious answer right up until the last two sentences, thank you.
I acknowledge that climate change is occurring, I don't know if it is a natural cycle, a natural cycle that has been accelerated by man made interference, or wholly a product of man made influences that, is what the scientists are ascertaining and providing peer reviewed evidence to support their claims. I can live with that.
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
"CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used."
This intrigues me, can anyone explain why pre 1950 CO2 samples are collected from ice cores obtained from Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic sources yet since then, they have been collected from a location some 3,000 mtrs up the side of an active volcano (the source of thousands of tonnes of 'greenhouse gasses'),
To me this hardly seems like a reasonable comparison, a bit like taking a seawater sample from the Mariana trench and comparing it to a sample from Sydney Harbour, after all, they're both sea water, yeah?
Yep, as HG eventually got to, Mauna Loa is accepted as suitably high and suitably remote to provide accurate data on homogonous atmospheric composition. I am not aware of any issues that have been raised over it's representative accuracy.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..I'm not posting this because I'm in favor of other explanations, I'm posting this because science shouldn't be done sloppily.
OK....and your evidence that the science behind the IPCC work is quote "being done sloppily" is what, exactly?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..cammd said...Hmmm, its also true the most robust hypothesis around your identity is that you are an architect that drives a skoda.
Only a theory amongst internet trolls whose hateful personal attack topics in HW get deleted by the moderators? I wonder? So nasty they get deleted from Heavy Weather!
Pure hate is bad corrosive to the soul cammd.
Nope nothing hateful Bono, it was just demonstration that hypothesis are not facts regardless of how likely the hypothesis is.
From 2011: Questioner from the audience Dr Ian Rivlin with the 3% misunderstanding sounds a lot like he has a core problem with logic and reasoning.
All the same issues we're dealing with here are discussed in this forum - including the difference between healthy skepticism and flat out denialism.
