Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by sonhouse
I still boils down to Singer and his disciples and the rest of the scientific community. Real science is not done by 90 year olds. Besides, we have sensor technology a thousand times better than Singer played with back in 1878.....

Sensor technology cannot go back in time to set the data straight. Not even back to as recently as 1978, you know....when Singer existed.
90 year olds cannot do science? You are getting up there in age yourself. When you are 90 will you stop expressing your opinion about this then?

Originally posted by wildgrass
Yeah, climate change deniers enjoy saying obvious things like "we're not the primary factor" and "CO2 might not affect atmospheric temperature" as if they're debunking some elaborate hoax. At first I thought it was just a misunderstanding of the facts, but it appears instead to be willful ignorance of the data, the science, and the key policy issues.

"CO2 might not affect atmospheric temperature"

More lies from you. Nobody suggested that on this thread.
Are you just going to continue lying and hope nobody cares? You are destroying your own credibility. How much embarrassment can you take before giving up on peddling lies in a completely intentional way? Have you no shame? Is that what science is about, lying until people believe your lies?

Originally posted by humy
The critical question he will never give a straight answer to, and we here all know why, is;

How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?

The data is the data. The problem is that overly zealous people like you cherry pick the data so that irrelevant data (like the heat island effect) are used to fool people into ignoring the important data that is relevant. Warming pavement does not reflect global temps....period! Only idiots and propagandists use irrelevant data like that.

There is your straight answer. Now you will probably resort to more lies as you have done so numerous times before. That is all you have. Keep embarrassing yourself if you like. It amuses me.
😀

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You're not debunking any important myth by stating that "anthropogenic factors are factors, but just not the primary factor", driving global warming. It's a myopic and unscientific viewpoint. "

Really? Then why did so many people try to prove man is the primary factor on this thread and all failed miserably? They obviously thought it was important an ...[text shortened]... s resort to lies in the end. Give it up or debate without the lies. You are not fooling anybody.

Oh come on. I have not contradicted myself. I joined this thread optimistically thinking that this was just an argument over definitions (what do you mean by primary?) I tried to clear up that one issue, but you still have not adequately answered it, and have instead resorted to name calling.

I think in the typical usage of this term by scientists, since datasets are never entirely complete, a primary factor is one that is proximal to the event. As in, a fundamental or basic cause of a measurable effect. Since the available, highly rigorous data proves quite convincingly the contribution of humans to global warming, anthropogenic causes are primary to the event. If you ever get around to reading the dozen or so studies I've posted here, which are peer-reviewed in actual journals (not websites), you would see it's not just heat islands. From that point on, we enter a more speculative debate about whether specific gov't policies will change anything.

The first thing a climate scientist would ask you is: Have you defined what the other primary factors are? What is the specific contribution from these mysterious other factors? What data/factors would be considered "secondary"? Or is this just a man vs. nature poll? If man contributes 10% and "nature" contributes 90% to global warming, then by your definition is man a "primary cause"? In that case, do you think that eliminating the human factor would contribute to current changes to our climate?

The decision-making part of data interpretation will always be probabilistic. Cutting down on your cholesterol intake reduces your risk of heart disease. But by how much? That depends on a lot of other primary factors, including genetics and other unknowns. High cholesterol is still a primary cause of heart disease. It's unethical to tell a patient "go and eat lots of bacon, it's only increasing your risk 4%." We know that cutting down on high-cholesterol foods helps, so even if you really like bacon that policy should be enacted by the patient. The same goes for climate science, and specific policy initiatives.

As far as my source of information on this Singer guy, you do have a point. I can't find a single piece of original data he has submitted to any major scientific publication. Maybe it exists but I haven't seen it. Usually, when scientists publish their findings, they disclose conflicts of interest. Since he hasn't published anything, I have to look elsewhere. His face and opinions are all over the "Science & Environmental Policy Project" website. This is a think-tank / lobbying organization, with a clear agenda to downplay the significance of climate change. As opposed to your argument on primary factors, however, many of their talking points assume that anthropogenic factors are primary factors, and instead come down to, in effect, "who cares?". Singer makes the argument that the Vikings did very well in Greenland during a warming period, so we should be embracing a warmer world.

You seem very convinced though, so please share the data.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Oh come on. I have not contradicted myself. I joined this thread optimistically thinking that this was just an argument over definitions (what do you mean by primary?) I tried to clear up that one issue, but you still have not adequately answered it, and have instead resorted to name calling.

I think in the typical usage of this term by scientists, sin ...[text shortened]... should be embracing a warmer world.

You seem very convinced though, so please share the data.

Hey wildone, what do you do for living? You seem knowledgable and don't get rattled easily.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The data is the data. ...
... (usual arrogant ignorant insults followed from you, the non-expert, to the experts that know more about it) ...
There is your straight answer.

This obviously isn't a straight answer to my question by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Please don't insult our intelligence.
Obviously, "The data is the data" to any reader here clearly isn't a straight answer to my question which was;

"How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?"

Just as I said, you will never give a straight answer and we all know why.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hey wildone, what do you do for living? You seem knowledgable and don't get rattled easily.

I'm a cell/molecular biologist. Our field doesn't have quite the same level of political misinformation as climate science, but we do have the "embryonic stem cell" debate, which still suffers from a lot of poorly-conveyed news stories. Drives me crazy.

And I read a lot of scientific literature. I am a defender of the scientific method, and hypothesis-driven research. Unfortunately most science writing for popular consumption is designed for toddler-level understanding. We can't write DNA in a press release because some people apparently don't know what it is.

For anyone who cares to have a real scientific debate, you have to read the original articles. Some of it is unfortunately stuck behind pay walls, but you can still find it.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Oh come on. I have not contradicted myself. I joined this thread optimistically thinking that this was just an argument over definitions (what do you mean by primary?) I tried to clear up that one issue, but you still have not adequately answered it, and have instead resorted to name calling.

I think in the typical usage of this term by scientists, sin ...[text shortened]... should be embracing a warmer world.

You seem very convinced though, so please share the data.

You have contradicted yourself and you are still doing it. If man is the primary factor then prove it. If you cannot prove it admit you are wrong for saying it is.

Here is a link you posted earlier in this thread:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919

This is the title to the link above: Attribution of global glacier mass loss to anthropogenic and natural causes

Show me an excerpt of the article that shows man is the primary cause. Show me an excerpt from any of the links you posted for me that shows man is the "primary cause".

Here, I will show you how it is done. Here is a link with information about S. Fred Singer:

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer

Here is an excerpt from that link:

Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report

There, I proved you wrong.....again.

As far as the data goes:

YouTube

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have contradicted yourself and you are still doing it. If man is the primary factor then prove it. If you cannot prove it admit you are wrong for saying it is.

Here is a link you posted earlier in this thread:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919

This is the title to the link above: Attribution of global glacier mass loss to a ...[text shortened]... you wrong.....again.

As far as the data goes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C88HvpmeMY

So you still don't give a straight answer to my simple question?
That shows everyone here you are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Sensor technology cannot go back in time to set the data straight. Not even back to as recently as 1978, you know....when Singer existed.
90 year olds cannot do science? You are getting up there in age yourself. When you are 90 will you stop expressing your opinion about this then?

When you are 90, even if your brain is fully functioning, your colleagues have been advancing all around you and you cannot keep up with the latest findings. That's all I mean about being 90 and doing research. You get rolled over by the research of youngsters.

That said, I myself compose music and at 75 am more creative in that field than I was 20 years ago. I have a soundcloud account (google it if you don't know what that is) with 50 tracks there now, over 30 newly minted tunes, guitar, mandolin, dulcimer, keyboards. I am as surprised as anyone. Musicians may have a leg up in that regard, you don't have to outperform some 30 year old, I do my own thing and some people like my music.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have contradicted yourself and you are still doing it. If man is the primary factor then prove it. If you cannot prove it admit you are wrong for saying it is.

Here is a link you posted earlier in this thread:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919

This is the title to the link above: Attribution of global glacier mass loss to a ...[text shortened]... you wrong.....again.

As far as the data goes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C88HvpmeMY

Where is the contradiction?

I have no problem with your statement that "man is not the primary factor" if you are willing to concede that unknown "other factors" are not primary factors either (since you have not defined them, or their specific contribution either.)

The logical fallacy in your argument is the leap from there to "since we don't know the exact ratio of human-induced warming relative to 'other factors' then we should not take any action". This is wrong, since it incorrectly assumes the human contribution is insignificant. Current data shows the human contribution is significant, and can be mitigated using straightfoward policy actions.

If I'm driving down an icy road a little too fast, texting a friend and thinking about science, and the pressure's low in the tires, and someone brakes suddenly in front of me, and I crash into him, what was the primary factor that caused the accident? If I mitigated one of these factors, would it prevent the accident? What if I mitigate two of them? If statistical evidence showed an increased crash rate while using your phone, would that be enough to conclude that factor should be considered a public safety issue? From reading Singer, he's arguing that "the road was icy so the accident could not have been prevented." He's selling me on comprehensive car insurance.

From Marzeion et al. Science 2014 (edited for clarity and length): "Both the FULL (all factors) and NAT (natural factors) runs show negative (glaciation) over essentially the entire period considered. However, a difference emerges over the course of the 20th century. The FULL runs are generally consistent with observations during the entire period covered by the latter, whereas the NAT runs are inconsistent with observations for at least the four pentads spanning 1991 to 2010 (Fig. 1B). This means that the anthropogenic signal is detectable in observed MBs over these four pentads with high confidence, unaffected by the result that MBs would have been negative during this period even without anthropogenic climate forcing. The anthropogenic fraction of global specific glacier mass loss rates increased from –6 ± 35% during the period 1851 to 1870 to 69 ± 24% during the period 1991 to 2010 (Fig. 1C, uncertainties correspond to one ensemble standard deviation).

Glacier mass losses attributable to human activity (shown as a fraction in Fig. 1C) have increased nearly steadily since 1860. In Fig. 3 we plot the year-by-year anthropogenic global mean specific mass balance MBANTH = MBFULL − MBNAT against the concurrent anthropogenic radiative forcing R (24), and find a sensitivity dMBANTH/dR of –209 ± 33 kg year−1 W−1 (uncertainty corresponds to the 95% confidence interval). This is about twice as much as a direct calculation based on the latent heat of fusion of ice would give (–94 kg year−1 W−1), indicating that feedbacks and the spatial distribution of anthropogenic climate change play an important role."

If you were to poll climate scientists and ask them if the data above is legit and well-controlled, they would likely say yes. I'll admit that an anthropogenic fraction of 69% seems like it might be a primary factor, but that terminology is not used in this study, and other studies in other global systems have different results.

Can you post the relevant part of the youtube video with data and statistics for comparison?

Originally posted by humy
So you still don't give a straight answer to my simple question?
That shows everyone here you are wrong.

First of all, it was not a simple question because it didn't make any sense. It was unintelligible so try again with something more concise and less confusing. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were drunk when you wrote it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
When you are 90, even if your brain is fully functioning, your colleagues have been advancing all around you and you cannot keep up with the latest findings. That's all I mean about being 90 and doing research. You get rolled over by the research of youngsters.

That said, I myself compose music and at 75 am more creative in that field than I was 20 year ...[text shortened]... you don't have to outperform some 30 year old, I do my own thing and some people like my music.

He wasn't 90 when he did the interview I posted. Even so, being 90 does not necessarily mean he is being outpaced even in retirement. I had an aunt that was older than him and was surprisingly alert and up with things.

I am also a musician and I wrote some songs, but I do not play professionally anymore. I do not know how well I will play guitar when I am your age, but Keith Richards seems to be doing okay for his age so I am optimistic if I live that long.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Where is the contradiction?

I have no problem with your statement that "man is not the primary factor" if you are willing to concede that unknown "other factors" are not primary factors either (since you have not defined them, or their specific contribution either.)

The logical fallacy in your argument is the leap from there to "since we don't know t ...[text shortened]...

Can you post the relevant part of the youtube video with data and statistics for comparison?

"Current data shows the human contribution is significant, and can be mitigated using straightfoward policy actions."

What is your definition of significant? That is why "primary cause" is a better term. If someone concluded anthropogenic causes were about 5% one person might call that significant, but I would not. A poll was done using the term "significant" and it was highly misleading and pretty much means nothing since significant could be far less than a "primary cause".

I have used the term significant on this thread before, but not in a context where I suggested the term be used in a poll. That has already been done and it did nothing to settle the consensus debate.

You seem to be using the definition of the term "primary factor" as one of many. I am saying there is only one primary factor and all others are not. Nature is the primary factor in my opinion and anthropogenic causes are negligible.

Your assertion that GW can be mitigated using straightfoward policy actions is merely your opinion and nothing else. You have not even suggested what those policy actions would be and I doubt you will. If it is a carbon tax (a popular suggestion) there is nothing to suggest it would work even if I were to accept man is the primary cause, which I do not.

None of the links you posted suggest anthropogenic causes are the primary factor or even more than a negligible factor. You are simply making baseless claims without any evidence to back it up. Even after I pointed that out before you made the same false claim without any merit. That is how you are contradicting yourself. You are now willing to accept man is not the primary factor. Since nature is the primary factor how can you logically suggest it can be mitigated using (unspecific) policy actions without contradicting yourself?

"Can you post the relevant part of the youtube video with data and statistics for comparison?"

No, I do not know how to post an excerpt of the youtube video. The video has Fred Singer debating another climate scientist and they both agreed that the data was not available to the public at the time that debate took place. Maybe that has changed, but I do not know how to access it. You should watch the whole thing so you do not keep asking me for data that may still be unavailable to the public.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
it was not a simple question because it didn't make any sense. It was unintelligible....

The question was;

"How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?"

Exactly which part/parts of that is "unintelligible" and why? Everyone else here understands it just fine and obviously you are just making excuses not to answer it....and we all know why.