Climate For All

An All Around Science Blog

Climate Waffles

Just gotta get me some of that

Climate Waffle

With all the current media hype over how climate change is responsible over every catastrophe that is happening, I thought it would be a good idea and go back to see exactly what the IPCC had said about ‘Climate Change’.

Here is a portion of the UNIPCC report on climate change and sea levels. If your eyes are already glazing over, just attempt to notice the words I’ve highlighted and we can move on:

STABILIZATION OF ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GASES: PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

IPCC Technical Paper III

1.2.4 The Global Temperature and Sea Level

Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases

This report considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change. It is important to realize, however, that climate change will not occur uniformly over the globe; the changes in temperature and in other climate variables such as precipitation, cloudiness, and the frequency of extreme events, will vary greatly among regions. In order to evaluate the consequences of climate change, one must consider the spatial variability of all factors: climate forcing, climate response, and the vulnerability of regional human and natural resource systems. However, consideration of regional details is outside the scope of this paper.

The spatial patterns of some radiative forcing agents, especially aerosols, are very heterogeneous and so add further to the spatial variability of climate change. In this paper, aerosol forcing is presented in terms of global averages so that an impression can be gained of its likely overall magnitude, its effect on global average temperature, and its effect on sea level rise. The effect of aerosol forcing on the detail of climate change, however, is likely to be quite different from the effect of a forcing of similar magnitude, in terms of global average, due to greenhouse gases. In terms of regional climate change and impacts, therefore, the negative forcing or cooling from aerosol forcing must not be considered as a simple offset to that from greenhouse gases.

Temperature and sea level projections depend on the “assumed” climate sensitivity, the target and pathway chosen for CO2 concentration stabilization, and the assumed scenarios for other greenhouse gases and aerosol forcing. The relative importance of these factors depends on the time interval over which they are compared. Out to the year 2050, CO2 concentration pathway differences for any single stabilization target are as important as the choice of target; but on longer time-scales the choice of target is (necessarily) more important. Outweighing all of these factors, however, is the climate sensitivity uncertainties in which dominate the uncertainties in all projections.

as·sume/əˈ uh-so͞om/

1. Suppose to be the case, without proof
2. Adopted in order to deceive; fictitious; pretended; feigned
3. To take for granted or without proof; suppose
4. An expression what the assumer postulates, that is often a confessed hypothesis or theory.
The author(s) of this paper really liked the word, assume(d). There are 39 references to the word, assume(d), 39 times.
For this being a scientific paper to prove climate change is man-made, there seems to be alot of assumptions.
Forget the scientific method and base facts on assumptions is what this technical paper offers. Assumptions.

un·cer·tain/ˌənˈsərtn/

1. Not able to be relied on; not known or definite: “an uncertain future”.
2. (of a person) Not completely confident or sure of something:
There is another word these author(s) used with even greater use;  uncertainty(ies). The word uncertainty(ies) is used 91 times.
So what we have here is a authored technical paper in the UNIPCC manuscript that uses assumptions and uncertainties to turn theories into facts. Go figure.
Then we have millions of people make reference to these papers in the UNIPCC reports as their basis for their belief on CAGW( Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
But lets move to the subject matter of this technical paper, before we ‘assume’ too much.
They write,” The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”
So, based on assumptions and uncertainties, the scientists that wrote this technical paper believe that all we need to know is global temperatures will rise, which will cause sea levels to rise, assuming man-made Co2 rise causes climate to change.

So we are not confused what the IPCC considers climate change, lets use the definition thats provided in the glossary of this technical paper.

Climate Change is: Climate change as referred to in the observational record of climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction between its components, or because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these causes. Projections of future climate change reported by IPCC generally consider only the influence on climate of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and other human-related factors.

So, climate change is natural reasons or because of human activities, but it is uncertain to conclude the causes, and for future predictions, the IPCC only considers man-made increases for their predictions.

Simply amazing. They narrowed down climate change to either natural or man-made, can’t attribute global warming to either, but will predict climate change will occur, assuming GHGS will influence climate change.

I feel so much more at ease, now that they clearly define what ‘Climate Change’ is. I am so relieved. /sarc

Another little tidbit of oddity is another word found in the Glossary of Terms in this technical paper. Falsifiability Rule.

The word isn’t even used in the paper, but found it necessary  to include it into the vernacular. Lets look at its definition.

Falsifiability Rule : Science today recognizes that there is no way to prove the absolute truth of any hypothesis or model, since it is always possible that a different explanation might account for the same observations. In this sense, even the most well established physical laws are “conditional”. Hence, with scientific methodology it is never possible to prove conclusively that a hypothesis is true, it is only possible to prove that it is false.

Does everyone grasp this. They can’t prove any truth to their models or assumptions or uncertainties, but it is possible the theory of climate change can be proven only to be false. Thanks for clearing that matter up.

So what we are being told is, these scientific papers are but hypothesis, theory and speculation. These assumptions in no way prove any absolute truth and in only proving that these theories as false can these observations and/or predictions not be true.

Holy shit!

So this scientific paper, and probably every other paper included in the IPCC reports, assumes we take their predictions in faith until their assumptions, predictions, theories can be proven false.

No wonder Al Gore said there is no room for debate. If the whole concept of ‘Climate Change’ is but a theory that can only be found false using the falsifiability rule, it makes sense why there can’t be a debate. As long as Climate Change can’t be debated, it can’t be found to be false. If the peer-review process produces any contrary evidence to suggest ‘Climate Change’ to be false, then ‘Climate Change’ doesn’t exist.

It makes perfect sense why there is no transparency in data from the Met Office in East Anglia. It makes perfect sense why it has been nearly impossible to get skeptical scientific articles published to be peer-reviewed.

The believers of CAGW only have theories to suggest man is responsible for climate, admit it so in scientific papers and then make reference to current catastrophes  as a result of CAGW, based on those ‘scientific’ papers.

Ya with me now?

The ‘alarmist’ can’t prove a damn thing. All they need to do is claim a catastrophe is man-made, because the theories haven’t yet been proven to be false.

I think the skeptical layman and scientist have established a clear difference between current observations of climate, in opposition to the IPCC claims, and clearly, the only battle left to fight is the ‘alarmists’ denial system.

As it might take even more facts to prove “Climate Change’ to be false, it will also take an army of therapists to help as well.


					
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: