I beg to differ that the concentrations (and distributions) of global elements and compounds are well known. Even simple physical factors like readings from thermometers are being debated hotly. Chemical detection and analysis adds more complex techniques to the methodology mix.

You mention carbon, so essential in biological processes. It has thousands of natural compounds and the measurement of some is still in progress. (By coincidence, there is another thread with a reference by Luke about Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC, that comprise a significant portion of the C in the atmosphere). The plant substances that make the Blue Mountains look blue, present at the time of Cook in 1770, are still there today as part of the poorly understood aerosol grab bag. Some are thought to give positive feedback to forcing, some negative, but nobody has produced the definitive answer.

Just as we do not know the feedback multiplier (if it exists) for Carbon Dioxide forcing, we collectively do not have not much of a clue about the many organic carbon compounds in the air. Chemical analysis methods are still being developed for some, previously thought absent or not considered. Then add in the life cycles of abundant sea creatures and predator-prey cycles and you find even more uncertainty.

Sorry, far from settled, far enough to keep causing substantial doubt about GCMs. Look at the pathetic way the IPCC tried to hide aerosols in their cartoon of the 2007 carbon cycle by making its box so thin that you had to look hard to see it.

I beg to differ that the concentrations (and distributions) of global elements and compounds are well known. Even simple physical factors like readings from thermometers are being debated hotly. Chemical detection and analysis adds more complex techniques to the methodology mix.

You mention carbon, so essential in biological processes. It has thousands of natural compounds and the measurement of some is still in progress. (By coincidence, there is another thread with a reference by Luke about Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC, that comprise a significant portion of the C in the atmosphere). The plant substances that make the Blue Mountains look blue, present at the time of Cook in 1770, are still there today as part of the poorly understood aerosol grab bag. Some are thought to give positive feedback to forcing, some negative, but nobody has produced the definitive answer.

Just as we do not know the feedback multiplier (if it exists) for Carbon Dioxide forcing, we collectively do not have not much of a clue about the many organic carbon compounds in the air. Chemical analysis methods are still being developed for some, previously thought absent or not considered. Then add in the life cycles of abundant sea creatures and predator-prey cycles and you find even more uncertainty.

Sorry, far from settled, far enough to keep causing substantial doubt about GCMs. Look at the pathetic way the IPCC tried to hide aerosols in their cartoon of the 2007 carbon cycle by making its box so thin that you had to look hard to see it.

As a layman I’ve been interested in AGW for a while, initially believing the media, and later becoming skeptical as claims of virtual certainty surrounded unproven computer models about the future. But all criticisms about this science field eventually have to deal with climate change supporters’ faith in the IPCC as the world Authority, and the world Consensus.

The BBC has just broadcast a fairly obviously biased series, “Climate Change Wars” (in as much as they underrepresent skeptical criticisms), and I think, as skilled professionals, they can read all the complaints on their message boards, and just put hand on heart and just refer to the IPCC for validation.

I think your observations about how literature reviews are done in other fields, is very pertinent, and starts to put things in perspective, and unravel the almost mythical stature of the IPCC.

As a layman I’ve been interested in AGW for a while, initially believing the media, and later becoming skeptical as claims of virtual certainty surrounded unproven computer models about the future. But all criticisms about this science field eventually have to deal with climate change supporters’ faith in the IPCC as the world Authority, and the world Consensus.

The BBC has just broadcast a fairly obviously biased series, “Climate Change Wars” (in as much as they underrepresent skeptical criticisms), and I think, as skilled professionals, they can read all the complaints on their message boards, and just put hand on heart and just refer to the IPCC for validation.

I think your observations about how literature reviews are done in other fields, is very pertinent, and starts to put things in perspective, and unravel the almost mythical stature of the IPCC.

If it isn’t formal, is it science?

If it isn’t formal, is it science?