Does AR5's, "Physical Science Basis" contain empirical data?

[Crick]

Two posters here have recently claimed that "The Physical Science Basis", produced by Working Group I (WG-I) of the IPCC as part of their Assessment Report 5, contains NO empirical data. They claim that instead, it is filled entirely with the output of models. Do you agree or disagree? The document may be viewed at www.ipcc.ch. The full version is quite large, roughly 1800 pages as I recall. But a shorter and simpler version is available as the "Summary for Policy Makers".

 

[westwall]

Two posters here have recently claimed that "The Physical Science Basis", produced by Working Group I (WG-I) of the IPCC as part of their Assessment Report 5, contains NO empirical data. They claim that instead, it is filled entirely with the output of models. Do you agree or disagree? The document may be viewed at www.ipcc.ch. The full version is quite large, roughly 1800 pages as I recall. But a shorter and simpler version is available as the "Summary for Policy Makers".

How about posting the links to the parts of the AR5 that you seem to think are empirical. I really look forward to you posting it up for us to look at.

The fact that you REFUSE to do so is pretty compelling evidence to a thinking person. That there are little bits of empirical data included is a certainty. However, the doom and gloom reports from AR5 universally computer model sourced.

 

[Muhammed]

False dichotomy.

It contains no relevant data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

All of the so called science in AR5 is based on modeling devoid of empirical fact...

Another attempt to validate failed modeling by an alarmist drone.. William Connelly is that you?

 

[Crick]

Two posters here have recently claimed that "The Physical Science Basis", produced by Working Group I (WG-I) of the IPCC as part of their Assessment Report 5, contains NO empirical data. They claim that instead, it is filled entirely with the output of models. Do you agree or disagree? The document may be viewed at www.ipcc.ch. The full version is quite large, roughly 1800 pages as I recall. But a shorter and simpler version is available as the "Summary for Policy Makers".

How about posting the links to the parts of the AR5 that you seem to think are empirical. I really look forward to you posting it up for us to look at.

The fact that you REFUSE to do so is pretty compelling evidence to a thinking person. That there are little bits of empirical data included is a certainty. However, the doom and gloom reports from AR5 universally computer model sourced.

Whether or not "The Physical Science Basis" contains empirical data does not rely on whether or not I point it out to you. I have no intention of doing so until I see some votes here. You and Billy Bob have already stated your position elsewhere. It should be interesting to see how well that position holds up to the actual facts.

 

[Crick]

False dichotomy.

It contains no relevant data.

That's about the most bullshit dodge I've ever seen. If you don't have the balls to vote, just bugger off, eh.

 

[Crick]

All of the so called science in AR5 is based on modeling devoid of empirical fact...

Another attempt to validate failed modeling by an alarmist drone.. William Connelly is that you?

Bravo! A man with some balls. No brains, but he's got some balls.

 

[Muhammed]

False dichotomy.

It contains no relevant data.

That's about the most bullshit dodge I've ever seen. If you don't have the balls to vote, just bugger off, eh.

No thanks.

You are presenting a false dichotomy in order to reinforce your paranoid delusions.

 

[Crick]

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think that's a false dichotomy? Do you believe there's no difference in the value of empirical and unobserved data?

 

[westwall]

Two posters here have recently claimed that "The Physical Science Basis", produced by Working Group I (WG-I) of the IPCC as part of their Assessment Report 5, contains NO empirical data. They claim that instead, it is filled entirely with the output of models. Do you agree or disagree? The document may be viewed at www.ipcc.ch. The full version is quite large, roughly 1800 pages as I recall. But a shorter and simpler version is available as the "Summary for Policy Makers".

How about posting the links to the parts of the AR5 that you seem to think are empirical. I really look forward to you posting it up for us to look at.

The fact that you REFUSE to do so is pretty compelling evidence to a thinking person. That there are little bits of empirical data included is a certainty. However, the doom and gloom reports from AR5 universally computer model sourced.

Whether or not "The Physical Science Basis" contains empirical data does not rely on whether or not I point it out to you. I have no intention of doing so until I see some votes here. You and Billy Bob have already stated your position elsewhere. It should be interesting to see how well that position holds up to the actual facts.

Still waiting for a link to your supposed empirical data.

 

[westwall]

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think that's a false dichotomy? Do you believe there's no difference in the value of empirical and unobserved data?

Where is the empirical data that supposedly supports your statement? We've been waiting for two days now. If it is so compelling where is it?

 

[SSDD]

Two posters here have recently claimed that "The Physical Science Basis", produced by Working Group I (WG-I) of the IPCC as part of their Assessment Report 5, contains NO empirical data. They claim that instead, it is filled entirely with the output of models. Do you agree or disagree? The document may be viewed at www.ipcc.ch. The full version is quite large, roughly 1800 pages as I recall. But a shorter and simpler version is available as the "Summary for Policy Makers".

As usual crick..you mischaracterize, you misinform, and in short, you lie. The whole premise for this post is simply dishonest. I never said that there was "NO" empirical data in AR5. If they list a simple temperature measurement, that would be empirical, observed, measured, quantified data..

The whole discussion arises from the fact that from all those thousands of pages, and all of the tens of thousands of pages that have been published using up billions upon billions of dollars, there remains not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence THAT SUPPORTS THE ANTHROPOGENIC COMPONENT OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS.

In short, your "poll" doesn't even address the actual issue...and provides no means to get an honest opinion on the actual issue.

Now if you would like to post some of the data from that quasi religious text you revere so much (AR5) that actually supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, by all means, lets see it.

 

[SSDD]

False dichotomy.

It contains no relevant data.

That's about the most bullshit dodge I've ever seen. If you don't have the balls to vote, just bugger off, eh.

You are the perpetrator of the bullshit dodge crick...the very basis for this post is a bullshit dodge...if you have any capacity at all to read for comprehension, then you know the issue is that there is no measured, observed, quantified, empirical data in the whole of climate science that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...in your typical bullshit dodge fashion, you leave out the actual issue and claim that because there is some empirical data to be found in climate science, that there is evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....there isn't and this bullshit dodge isn't going to help you a bit.

 

[SSDD]

False dichotomy.

It contains no relevant data.

That's about the most bullshit dodge I've ever seen. If you don't have the balls to vote, just bugger off, eh.

No thanks.

You are presenting a false dichotomy in order to reinforce your paranoid delusions.

It is all he is capable of...he doesn't have an honest bone in his body.

 

[jc456]

Well, since the OP can't prove his own thread, I call the thread dead.

and in fact his lack of producing what he claims, means he is full of crap and a troll.

Crick just lost all credibility.

 

[mamooth]

Obviously, it contains massive amounts of empirical data.

For example, I opened up chapter 2.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Section 2.2, "Changes in Atmospheric Composition". The whole section is empirical data, no models at all.

Section 2.3, "Changes in Radiation Budgets". I see the Trenberth diagram, a model ... and I see a buttload of empirical data referenced, concerning satellite measurements of the top of the atmosphere.

Section 2.4, "Changes in Temperature". I immediately see the surface temperatures record, all empirical data.

No need to go on. Certain people swore there was little or no empirical data, and that claim is clearly completely wrong. Those people have some 'splainin to do, concerning why they stated such an obvious falsehood.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AR5 contains "excess heat" and tries to pass that odd concept off as "empirical data"

 

[IanC]

It's not the empirical evidence that is the problem. it is the manipulations to the evidence after it is collected and the conclusions drawn afterwards that skeptics often disagree with.

If there are a thousand pieces of evidence and you pick ten of them that support your position, and then 'correct' the other 99% to match the favoured 1%, then that is advocacy not science.

 

[westwall]

Obviously, it contains massive amounts of empirical data.

For example, I opened up chapter 2.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Section 2.2, "Changes in Atmospheric Composition". The whole section is empirical data, no models at all.

Section 2.3, "Changes in Radiation Budgets". I see the Trenberth diagram, a model ... and I see a buttload of empirical data referenced, concerning satellite measurements of the top of the atmosphere.

Section 2.4, "Changes in Temperature". I immediately see the surface temperatures record, all empirical data.

No need to go on. Certain people swore there was little or no empirical data, and that claim is clearly completely wrong. Those people have some 'splainin to do, concerning why they stated such an obvious falsehood.

You didn't read your own links did you. Or is it that you simply don't understand what it is that you are reading? Either way, this is the important part of the first "paper" (also called a meta study), I highlighted the relevant section for you. Care to guess what that means?

"This chapter assesses the scientific literature on atmospheric and surface observations since AR4 (IPCC, 2007). The most likely changes in physical climate variables or climate forcing agents are identified based on current knowledge, following

 

[westwall]

Well, since the OP can't prove his own thread, I call the thread dead.

and in fact his lack of producing what he claims, means he is full of crap and a troll.

Crick just lost all credibility.

crikey never had any to begin with. I find it amusing that it has now been a few days and he still can't post up a single piece.