Question by Richie: Are some AGW supporters here correct when they suggest the Royal Society shouldn’t use the word uncertainties?
A suggested word has been “confidence Interval”, why did the Royal Society choose not to use this word when talking about the key data like climate forcing?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmmlDBJcYWXpFzjRcoiy7O__5nNG;_ylv=3?qid=20101102173109AAXGWlu
It is strange why so many people claiming to be scientific some even proclaim to be leading scientists however they deny these uncertainties as highlighted by the Royal Society and their implications for AGW. These uncertainties are fundamental to AGW theory and by discussing them will they only have a chance of changing peoples opinions?!?!
FYI… The Royal Society is a Fellowship of the world’s most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence. They aim to expand the frontiers of knowledge by championing the development and use of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine for the benefit of humanity and the good of the planet.
Their priorities address the future of science in the UK and beyond. They aim to invest in future scientific leaders and in innovation; influence policymaking with the best scientific advice; invigorate science and mathematics education; increase access to the best science internationally; and inspire an interest in the joy, wonder and excitement of scientific discovery.
Their Fellows and Foreign Members, who are elected for life on the basis of scientific excellence, have included Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, Albert Einstein, Dorothy Hodgkin, Francis Crick, James Watson and Stephen Hawking. Today there are approximately 1,500 Fellows and Foreign Members, including more than 70 Nobel Laureates.
The Society has three roles: it is the UK academy of science promoting the natural and applied sciences, a learned society, and a funding agency.
As the UK’s independent national academy, the Society represents the British scientific community within Britain and in relations with individuals and groups of scientists throughout the world.
Baccheus… Wait until you see the IPCC AR5 report, I predict here with >90% confidence that their will be uncertainties all over it and you will be eating your words!
Baccheus: You say “The only uncertainty is the range” But the range is everything and is massive at anything between 0.8Wm-2 to 2.4 Wm-2!
This massive range is key to all of your AGW theory cause and effect computer predictions!
Computer programmer says, “Lets see what computer says when we use the 0.8Wm-2 Anthropogenic climate forcings oh no lets use 2.4Wm-2 instead… the variability is huge!
Best answer:
Answer by Baccheus
It is great that people are reading and understanding that the only uncertainty is the range. They use the term “uncertainly” sometimes to quote the 90% confidence interval.
It is great that you continue to note that they never question the reality of global warming. You have stopped you denying ways and now fully accept that scientists are telling us without doubt that it is real.
The IPCC calculated 90% confidence intervals. The Royal Society is quoting those numbers and rather than talk in statistical terms are saying it is uncertain exactly how much heat we are contributing. Go back and read the IPCC’s report; it is all there. There is no uncertainty that we are warming the environment, there is a statistical range required to make a statement with 90% accuracy.
The Royal Society is fully embracing the IPCC report. Scientists understand exactly what is in the IPCC report.
(Ritchie, you can go on and on about this, but educated people understand what the Royal Society is saying when they use the term “uncertainty to quote confidence intervals”. This is basic high school statistics. People who have not had such schooling need only understand that this great body of scientists are saying we can only know that man’s contribution is within a range that is causing warming. Whether it is greater or less than the mid-point is still being calculated. But nobody who believes the Royal Society is admirable can deny that AGW is undisputed.)
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!