Assertion without evidence.LeafByNiggle:
Yes, because science, at least climate science, is no longer dependent on data.
Pretty much everything about climate science is assertion without evidence.
You continue to put this question of “where the heat went” front and center, despite the fact that answering that question, while it would be nice, is not necessary to confirm heat gain.niceatheist:
Let’s start with this assertion. The question of where the heat went became a concern only in the last 20 years when global warming…paused. The issue then became one of finding where the “extra” heat went, because it had to go somewhere since everyone knew there must be extra heat. The only reasonable explanation was the ocean, therefore it was decided the heat went there, so that’s what was claimed even though the data were inadequate to confirm the claim (a common situation in the field of climate science).
Again, the lack of reason for an observed event in a system that we know is chaotic is not the huge problem you make it out to be. Suppose the answer is “we don’t know.” How would that contradict climate change theory?
You are cherry-picking from the abstract. The article is about some newer and more precise measurements. The comment you quoted is only to contrast with the method described.
Another assertion by you without evidence.LeafByNiggle:
Pretty much everything about climate science is assertion without evidence.
That quote was Ender’s quote, not mine. I disputed it.LeafByNiggle:
Science is DATA.
Without data, then you have a religion … based on belief.
Skeptics don’t dispute there is heat gain, stop pretending that they do.
If we don’t know where it went, can’t find it, and can’t measure it, how do we know it exists? Saying “It’s got to be somewhere” is not all that scientific a response.
Actually I was citing the specific comment that supported my contention: the current system of measuring the heat of the ocean is woefully inadequate to support the claims being made. This is precisely what is meant by “limited observations and a lack of robust reconstructions.” If by “cherry-picking” you mean citing the relevant comment then I plead guilty.
True. Your comment was “There are other ways in which the theory has been confirmed.” The “other ways” you referred to being ones independent of data…which is pretty much what Monte was objecting to.
OK, fine. How about these:
It is if measurements of (name removed by moderator)ut energy and output energy imply it exists. It is quite scientific to say “it’s got to be somewhere.” You keep trying to make this a “must answer” question when it just isn’t.LeafByNiggle:
If we don’t know where it went, can’t find it, and can’t measure it, how do we know it exists? Saying “It’s got to be somewhere” is not all that scientific a response.
I should have called it quote mining, since you are stating it without its context. The author was not making the same point you are trying to make from his quote.
The evidence for this statement has already been provided by mainstream scientists.LeafByNiggle:
OK, fine. How about these:
niceatheist: “Well, we know where the extra heat has gone.” (#38)
…ditto…
…not a statement.
You can call it figgy-pudding but the fact remains that the statement is either true or false. That it was presented merely as an observation regarding the current state of the science can hardly falsify it.
In this post you argue both (statement one) that it doesn’t matter that scientists don’t know where the heat has gone as well as (statement two) that they do know where it has gone. I shouldn’t be surprised at this - this position is not uncommon in climate science circles.
Your response is an evasion. The claim is that increased energy in the climate has led to “stronger weather effects like tornadoes and hurricanes”. That claim is false, and completely unsupported by the data.
I have a B.Sc. majoring in chemistry. I’m quite aware of how the theory works. My view is shared by many chemists who work in the oil industry. We’re not going to pretend the theory isn’t robust simply because jobs are at risk. However, that also doesn’t mean we will endorse many of the policies proposed, almost all forget there’s a large proportion of workers relying on the energy industry exist and have no plans for us. The science is not what bothers me, it’s the policy aspect.
I have a BS in chemistry as well, which doesn’t qualify me to interpret the data, but does mean I can at least follow the arguments, and it is precisely the unscientific claims behind the theory that bother me.
Like what? We know CO2 (and other gases) are IR active and radiate IR wavelengths back down. We know that the concentrations of GHGs have rapidly increased and yes, it’s a correlation but we can give explanations on causation, just as much as we can demonstrate cigarettes cause cancer. We have evidence that show shifts in climate patterns.
Yes, CO2 concentrations have increased rapidly…and temperatures have not. Even though the temperature record has been and continues to be “adjusted” the data still do not align with the theory. A significant unanswered question for me is: if the science so overwhelmingly supports the theory, why has there been so much dishonesty involved in demonstrating the facts? Why do we repeatedly hear that hurricanes are more frequent/stronger because of global warming when the facts are otherwise? Why did that entire episode exposed by the hacked emails occur? Why does the IPCC allow the “Summary for policy makers” portion of their reports to be written with a disregard for what the scientists themselves have said in the body of the report? Claim after unsupported claim is made. Why is any of this necessary if the theory is so solidly demonstrated?
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean but the global average has been increasing ‘adjusted’ or not.
If you refer to political commentators, then ask them. I don’t refer to them for anything science related. I base things on what scientists have said and what my professors have taught me.
They have been getting stronger but not frequent.
That involved about 4 researchers. Regardless of what they did, there are hundreds who aren’t them, independent and not part of any planned conspiracy.
The UN is not my source either. It’s a corrupt organization. Textbooks and academic journals are better. The UN is redundant. And whatever their motives are, just because some individuals behave that way doesn’t negate the actual science out there.
And there are claims that are turning out to be true. Forest fires are getting worse in Western Canada and even though I live quite a distance away, we’re choking on the smoke for nearly a week, which is rare according to those who are much older than me and not this bad when it occurs occasionally. And they’re getting more frequent too. Then there are the drought problems in Australia.
This has been explained already. If you have a problem with the explanation, please get straight to it instead of pretending this is the first time this point has been made.ATraveller:
Yes, CO2 concentrations have increased rapidly…and temperatures have not.
A. There are going to be a lot of questions that you ask that will be unanswered.
The people who make that combo claim definitively are claiming more than is supportable.
ATraveller answered this well.
Theory is solidly demonstrated. Correct policy response is not.
I don’t trust abstracts …