It's all over but for the sweating?

[Arragonis]

IPCC AR5 (nobody else has mentioned it so I might as well). This :



has been reduced to this



Described here, but not explained anywhere in the AR5.

Are we supposed to commit to spending a sizeable chunk of the world GDP on this nonsense ? No wonder China is ignoring it - except to make money from our gullibility in buying windmills and solar panels...

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by P-hack

You are too presumptuous. Climate research is driving policy that implicates humans as modifying the climate. Who are our accusers and what is the evidence? Everyone should have free access. I refuse to accept evidence for ransom. a million rabbit holes with thousands in fees. You can present actual evidence if you like, but otherwise those links are junk.

What extra information do you think you will get from seeing the full papers vs the abstracts (and tables and graphics)? Having seen both, I can tell you there's not a lot more (for the lay person) in the papers.

The abstracts are available to anyone, the names of the people who contributed to the papers are accessible to anyone, the papers themselves are accessible to anyone who want's to pay the journals' subscription fees.

There is a case for, and has been some discussion over, allowing greater access to scientific papers, and indeed the work that underpins them. That is, in part, what lead to the existence of PLOS ONE.

But, why only science relevant to climate change? I'm sure if you needed treatment for a health condition you wouldn't be asking to see the papers that provide the evidence for how effective the treatment might be. You'd just accept that it worked.

The whole process of science is a check. Each research group is a check against the others. Where, exactly, is it that you think that process doesn't work?

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

IPCC AR5 (nobody else has mentioned it so I might as well). This :

has been reduced to this

Still with the simple graphics of temperature.

Are we supposed to commit to spending a sizeable chunk of the world GDP on this nonsense ? No wonder China is ignoring it - except to make money from our gullibility in buying windmills and solar panels...

If you think China is doing nothing with respect to climate change you don't know what it is they are doing. Are they doing enough? No.

Crazy is still building pipelines and other infrastructure in order to extract fossil fuels that will never be extracted. It's called stranded investment.

[NeilBlanchard]

The upper and middle depths of the ocean are where most of the heat is going. Similarly, much of the carbon dioxide is going into the ocean.

So, you cannot just look at average global surface temperature, and you cannot just look at atmospheric carbon dioxide.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Where, exactly, is it that you think that process doesn't work?

I could tell you but I have to charge you first.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, you cannot just look at average global surface temperature, and you cannot just look at atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Yes you can... Average global temperature helps smooth out the weather effects. For instance if its above average in southern hemisphere, most of Europe, and Asia, but below Average in the US, the global average is still above average. There are multiple pieces to the puzzle, I am just trying to work on one of them, even though I am being told that is not good enough and that I don't know what a climate model is.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

What extra information do you think you will get from seeing the full papers vs the abstracts (and tables and graphics)? Having seen both, I can tell you there's not a lot more (for the lay person) in the papers.

The abstracts are available to anyone, the names of the people who contributed to the papers are accessible to anyone, the papers themselves are accessible to anyone who want's to pay the journals' subscription fees.

There is a case for, and has been some discussion over, allowing greater access to scientific papers, and indeed the work that underpins them. That is, in part, what lead to the existence of PLOS ONE.

But, why only science relevant to climate change? I'm sure if you needed treatment for a health condition you wouldn't be asking to see the papers that provide the evidence for how effective the treatment might be. You'd just accept that it worked.

The whole process of science is a check. Each research group is a check against the others. Where, exactly, is it that you think that process doesn't work?

I want to see the guts of their calculations, I want to see how they came about their answers.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Yes you can... Average global temperature helps smooth out the weather effects. For instance if its above average in southern hemisphere, most of Europe, and Asia, but below Average in the US, the global average is still above average. There are multiple pieces to the puzzle, I am just trying to work on one of them, even though I am being told that is not good enough and that I don't know what a climate model is.

No, because the quantity of heat energy trapped depends on local temperature. The way in which heat is moved around (via mass transfer) affects local temperature depending on where it ends up. Heat energy is not the same thing as temperature.

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

I want to see the guts of their calculations, I want to see how they came about their answers.

Even access to the full papers won't tell you that. The method used will be described and the results discussed. There is sufficient information for another group of people to duplicate the work if it is possibly equivocal or avoid duplicating if it is not. In either case an alternative method may - almost invariably will - be used as a check by another group.

There is sufficient information in the abstracts to get an idea of the approach taken anyway.

In the case of models, the detailed code is not accessible. That is the IP of the people doing the work.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

In the case of models the detailed code is not accessible. That is the IP of the people doing the work.

Not if it is evidence.

I have a secret program that says unquestionably you are responsible for global warming. LOL

Open or nothing.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Not if it is evidence.

I have a secret program that says unquestionably you are responsible for global warming. LOL

Open or nothing.

So you could ask them (presumably very nicely) for it, offer to pay for access to it or develop your own and, subsequent to scrutiny for obvious errors in method, have it published in competition with them. Good luck!