08 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou lie. If you want to view the full article, you just register, which is FREE.
I am unable to open the full article.
"...I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. Do you really expect anybody to accept a claim without viewing the whole article? If they don't explain how he/she concludes their assertion it isn't science. ..."
err, clearly there is 'something there', so you lie again, and anyone whole wants to view it can do so by registering for FREE, no problem. So it is scientific and you are talking total bullocks, as usual.
+
you said;
"...I clicked on "full text" and nothing was there. ...
...Besides, it says 24%. You said 69%..."
and yet it can be clearly seen that it says 69% WITHOUT having to click any "view full text". In other words, you lie.
Here is what it clearly says WITHOUT having to click any "view full text" button and before that button is reached;
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
"...the anthropogenic signal is detectable with high confidence in glacier mass balance observations during 1991 to 2010, and the anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss during that period has increased to 69 ± 24%...."
I would say the "69" figure is clearly stated there. You must be getting desperate.
09 Jan 17
2 edits
This news about an iceberg (from LarsenC in Antarctica) to be formed soon is very interesting. It can become a problem of some kind, seeing its size is about the size of Wales. Maybe it will break up, as did LarsenB a while back. We'll hold our breath...
and call it an icebreaker, in this thread...
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/08/antarctic-iceberg-larsen-c/
09 Jan 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainYeah I think my computer is auto logged in to those sites (I read a lot of science), so I don't ever see the paywall. But I double-checked to make sure this one was free open-access so anyone can view the contents.
I am unable to open the full article. If you are going to post a link at least point out that you have to log into it to view it. I find it very annoying when people incorrectly assume I can view it just because you can. I never lied as humy claims. You are all just reckless assumers.
Regardless, the info's been confirmed by a few others on here. All the methods and conclusions are available. The article's been cited at least 30 times in other articles, meaning that other scientists are acknowledging the work has been done properly.
Now that the evidence has been presented (as you asked), what do we do now? I would like to hear a (slight) concession from you that, at the very least, there is data showing anthropogenic causes of global warming are "primary" (as you have defined it). And I'm happy to continue down this road article after article, but it's not going to work if you aren't going to read them. Every once in awhile its a good idea to read something that challenges your opinions.
09 Jan 17
10 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassNo doubt he will continue to strongly imply it is unscientific even though it is clearly to the rest of us here that it is perfectly scientific.
Regardless, the info's been confirmed by a few others on here. All the methods and conclusions are available. The article's been cited at least 30 times in other articles, meaning that other scientists are acknowledging the work has been done properly.
I would like to hear a (slight) concession from you that ...
I am afraid he really needs to do a lot more than give a 'slight' concession if he is ever to leave his fantasy land and enter the world of reality. But you will not even get that slight concession. There is no hope for him. But at least we are in the world of reality so, cheer up!
12 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wildgrass"But I double-checked to make sure this one was free open-access so anyone can view the contents."
Yeah I think my computer is auto logged in to those sites (I read a lot of science), so I don't ever see the paywall. But I double-checked to make sure this one was free open-access so anyone can view the contents.
Regardless, the info's been confirmed by a few others on here. All the methods and conclusions are available. The article's been cited at le ...[text shortened]... read them. Every once in awhile its a good idea to read something that challenges your opinions.
You did not post anything & I did register on that site and still cannot view the full text. Maybe the library computer I am using does not have the PDF download or something like that, but every time I try it is a waste of time despite jumping through the hoops so to speak.
Why don't you copy and paste the full article so we can all read it? At least post a link instead of forgetting. As for humy calling me a liar he is the liar. Any reasonable person can see he has no proof I read the article and I have not. I would like nothing more than to scrutinize it as I believe the so called proof is more opinion than anything.
69 ± 24%
There are two numbers there with a sign in between. What does that mean? If there were only one number I would not question which one it is. Does that sign mean something like it could be anywhere from 24% to 69% or a margin of error 24%. Please explain.
12 Jan 17
14 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainAs I pointed out to you again and again before, obviously you do NOT need to view the "full text" to see that 69 percent because that figure is clearly stated BEFORE the full text button. Get it?
I did register on that site and still cannot view the full text. .
69 ± 24%
There are two numbers there with a sign in between. What does that mean? If there were only one number I would not question which one it is. Does that sign mean something like it could be anywhere from 24% to 69% or a margin of error 24%. Please explain.
My god I knew you where ignorant of science but didn't know that you where THAT ignorant! Even the most basic study of maths notation (that generally used in statistics in this case) should have told you that;
69 ± 24%
means 69% with a maximum error of plus or minus 24%
(Note the most likely values are usually approximately closer to the exact middle of the two extremes with that middle 69% being considered to be the best estimate )
I would have thought even you would have known that! This is pretty basic stuff. Just like most people here I am sure, I learned this at school (in basic GCSE maths in my case and well before university);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus-minus_sign
"...
The use of ⟨±⟩ for an approximation is most commonly encountered in presenting the numerical value of a quantity together with its tolerance or its statistical margin of error.[1] For example, "5.7±0.2" denotes a quantity that is specified or estimated to be within 0.2 units of 5.7; it may be anywhere in the range from 5.5 to 5.9.
...
A percentage may also be used to indicate the error margin. For example, 230 ± 10% V refers to a voltage within 10% of either side of 230 V (207 V to 253 V).
..."
So, you see, contrary to what you said, we were NOT lying and it DOES clearly say 69 percent just like we said all along; you were wrong because you just didn't get it.
Before commenting about science, it really helps a lot to have covered at least the very basics of science. That includes the basic maths notation commonly used in science. I wouldn't criticize you (nor anyone else for that matter) for being uneducated but there is something you can do about that and, in the mean time, until you know something real about science, you are in no position to have an opinion on it or comment on it unless to merely ask questions.
12 Jan 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainAbstract: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
You did not post anything & I did register on that site and still cannot view the full text. Maybe the library computer I am using does not have the PDF download or something like that, but every time I try it is a waste of time despite jumping through the hoops so to speak.
Why don't you copy and paste the full article so we can all read it? At least ...[text shortened]... an something like it could be anywhere from 24% to 69% or a margin of error 24%. Please explain.
Full Text: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919.full
PDF: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf
News Article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140814191824.htm
These links work and have been posted already. Are you saying I need to include them in every single post?
Yes, the number 24 is the margin of error. From my reading, they used 12 different climate models. They ran each model using natural climate forcings (NAT) and all climate forcings (FULL) (including anthropogenic) in each of the last 160 years and compared it against glacial volume worldwide. The data rigorously demonstrates in no uncertain terms that recent changes in global mass loss rate cannot be otherwise explained without incorporating anthropogenic forcing variables, such as carbon dioxide, anthropogenic aerosols, and land use changes. They conclude with a few caveats about how "it is not possible to distinguish between glacier mass losses caused by internal variability and natural forcing.." (which I take to mean "we don't yet know everything about how our climate works" ) but regardless, "we find unambiguous
evidence of anthropogenic glacier mass loss in recent decades."
I am sorry to hear that you have to jump through hoops. It took me awhile to read your entire Singer article, too. But if you can't bother reading this article, see the key figure here: https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/345/6199/919/F1.large.jpg
In panel A, they run Green (NAT results) red (FULL results) compared to black, (observations). In the natural run, they find a recent, statistically significant deviance in the model that can be fully explained with the introduction of anthropogenic variables. Once those are included in the model, the model fits the observations.
To me, this is very solid evidence that we are altering our climate. And again, I can't stress enough that this is one of many. What am I missing? It is theoretically possible that a mysterious unknown (yet natural) variable that has been increasing in recent years, and is at fault for the 69% deviation. But what else could it be? What makes more sense: aliens or fossil fuels?
15 Jan 17
Originally posted by humy"As I pointed out to you again and again before, obviously you do NOT need to view the "full text" to see that 69 percent because that figure is clearly stated BEFORE the full text button. Get it?"
As I pointed out to you again and again before, obviously you do NOT need to view the "full text" to see that 69 percent because that figure is clearly stated BEFORE the full text button. Get it?
[quote]
69 ± 24%
There are two numbers there with a sign in between. What does that mean? If there were only one number I would not question which one it is. ...[text shortened]... you are in no position to have an opinion on it or comment on it unless to merely ask questions.
You moron! I knew that! Just because I still want to read the full text does not mean I cannot read the excerpt. How many freaking times have I told you not to assume? You are deeply flawed in that way. I don't know why I even bother replying to your stupidity!
As for the 69% since the margin of error is 24% (just as I suspected) you have no right to claim any more than 45% is factual and that would not be primary cause.
15 Jan 17
2 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassI get tired of jumping though hoops, especially when there are multiple hoops. Once again I have demonstrated that humy is a liar as I have many times, only this time he is lying about me being a liar. He has it out for me because I have proven him wrong so many times and exposed him for his habitual lying many times before. He would love to do the same to me so he is making feeble attempts out of frustration.
Abstract: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
Full Text: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919.full
PDF: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf
News Article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140814191824.htm
These links work and have been posted already. Are you saying I need to inclu ...[text shortened]... for the 69% deviation. But what else could it be? What makes more sense: aliens or fossil fuels?
I was able to view the science daily link. I didn't notice that link posted before, but it is possible I thought it was another sciencemag link since they look very similar.
As I pointed out to humy 45% (considering the margin of error admitted) could be the possible figure which would not be a primary cause. You have not met the criteria I set in the OP of this thread because of it, but even if it did say 50% or more it would still merely be theory since it relies on climate models which have a history of being wrong more than right. You should look into climate model reliability. We have discussed it before on the science forum in another thread and humy gave up on it for good reason and you know how determined humy is to prove me wrong or embarrass me in some way.
Edit: That science daily link was not posted on this thread before as you claimed, I looked. Try to be more honest from now on or I will give you the same treatment I give humy for his dishonesty.
15 Jan 17
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainBut it is highly improbable. The most probable figure is still around 69%. That is how statistics work. I have studied statistics at university; have you? It is you who is the moron; not for being uneducated but for believing you know better than those that have.
As I pointed out to humy 45% (considering the margin of error admitted) could be the possible figure .
+ even a 45% means humans are a significant contributor and it is just as likely to be 93%. Why didn't you mention that?
I suppose if the real figure was 49% you would say humans are not the 'primary' cause so it doesn't matter? What about if the actual figure is 51%? Would you say then that it is the 'primary' cause so it matters? and yet there is only a 2% difference between 49% and 51%. So what matters is not which is the 'primary' cause but how much change we are causing irrespective of how much change is natural and it isn't really the difference between the two that is the critical factor. If nature is the main thing that makes something bad then that doesn't mean it is OK for us to make it a bit worse; get it?
16 Jan 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere, it seems to me you have inadvertently replied to the question I have asked repeatedly on this thread, and you have avoided. What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?
As I pointed out to humy 45% (considering the margin of error admitted) could be the possible figure which would not be a primary cause. You have not met the criteria I set in the OP of this thread because of it, but even if it did say 50% or more it would still merely be theory since it relies on climate models which have a history of being wrong more than right.
Your answer: No such evidence will ever exist.
p.s. It is always preferable to reference the original scientific articles, rather than slanted news stories about the science. I only posted the science daily link in response to your technical difficulties. It was not dishonest.
pp.s Are you admitting, then, that at least 45% of global warming is anthropogenic?
Originally posted by Metal BrainDepends what the +/- 24% represents. If it is one standard deviation then the figure is virtually meaningless, but they say with high confidence, so it could be a 99% confidence interval (I don't know, I don't want to register for the sake of looking at one article). The figure they have is an almost doubling of the rate from before 1990. Although the confidence intervals overlap, so you would be justified in claiming that the increase is not significant (in the statistical sense). However, even if we take their lower bound that 45% of the glacier loss is anthropogenic rather than natural variability should be of concern.
"As I pointed out to you again and again before, obviously you do NOT need to view the "full text" to see that 69 percent because that figure is clearly stated BEFORE the full text button. Get it?"
You moron! I knew that! Just because I still want to read the full text does not mean I cannot read the excerpt. How many freaking times have I told you no ...[text shortened]... ed) you have no right to claim any more than 45% is factual and that would not be primary cause.
16 Jan 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGreat point. For this calculation, they state that "uncertainties correspond to one ensemble standard deviation", where the "ensemble" refers to the values generated from each of 12 different climate models. The statistics look very complicated for this, but it looks generally like a standard error of the mean. So yeah that is a pretty big range.
Depends what the +/- 24% represents. If it is one standard deviation then the figure is virtually meaningless, but they say with high confidence, so it could be a 99% confidence interval (I don't know, I don't want to register for the sake of looking at one article). The figure they have is an almost doubling of the rate from before 1990. Although the ...[text shortened]... t 45% of the glacier loss is anthropogenic rather than natural variability should be of concern.
In the article, they discuss this issue at length. Since they focus on global effects, they are averaging lots and lots of different glaciers, and there is significant "regional inconsistency." This could be due to regional differences in research methodology, and differences in weather patterns.
Their statement in the abstract is a little misleading because "high confidence" corresponds to their detection of a big increase in the anthropogenic signal recently (which is >95% confidence), and not to the exact 69% figure. It makes sense to me the exact fraction would vary from region to region, but is 69% on average.
16 Jan 17
6 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassI am now totally convinced that, just like the typical young-Earth religious fundamentalists or the flat-Earth cult, no evidence will make him admit he is wrong because he will always just say it is invalid or part of some mass conspiracy etc no matter what that evidence is or how good it is. In other words, NO evidence, no matter how hypothetical or how good, will ever make him admit he could be wrong; he is that opinionated!
Here, it seems to me you have inadvertently replied to the question I have asked repeatedly on this thread, and you have avoided. What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?
Your answer: No such evidence will ever exist.
One of the many things he doesn't get, or at least pretends to be so stupid as not to get, is that it doesn't matter if global warming is not 'primarily' anthropogenic; ANY significant anthropogenic warming can be harmful. 10% would be bad; and yet he now seems to say it is 45% -yes, lets manipulate the interpretation of data to make the figures fit as absolutely closely as possible with one's religious belief.
pp.s Are you admitting, then, that at least 45% of global warming is anthropogenic?
This may be the next question he will never deliberately answer; and we all know why.