[quote author=leeforward link=1432893299/60#60 date=1434248322][quote author=Deathridesahorse link=1432893299/58#58 date=1434157987]What is data, einstein?[/quote]


Well, I have never claimed to be Einstein.

What I wrote was -
[quote author=leeforward link=1432893299/57#57 date=1434094091]The output of theoretical models is NOT data.[/quote]

The IPCC Climate models are examples of theoretical models.  What they do is they use some physics input into the computer, and some "parameters" (numbers), for those things that the computer can't do. (BTW computer modellers are not computer scientists). So we have a mixture of both science and best guesses. In other words wishful thinking. The output of such a process cannot be called data.

Now if we were to ignore that and say for the sake of argument that climate models output "data"; then we now have a problem.

The IPCC climate models say we have warming of 0.29C/decade. Now that is the mean of the models-  some higher and some lower.

Karl et al (2015), say that the "data" shows warming is 0.116/decade, less than half the warming of the Climate models.


So two lots of "data", with completely differing results. Which "data" set do you prefer?[/quote]
Lee can't give a deifintion for 'data' : thanx for playing lee  :D :D

Science is all about definitions btw but lee is just a shite breathing child hater that just happens to love smoking crack with his landlord daddy loving mates who all inherited wealth so who cares  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[highlight][size=7][b][sub]Hey, don't forget to carry the point bugger all percent so your girlfriend/temporary wife doesn't roll her eyes tonight  ;) [/sub][/b][/size][/highlight]

The Argo buoys show serious ocean warming of 0.023C/decade, I guess that's why Karl et al didn't include them.