08 Jan '17 19:12>
I had a death in the family. I don't have the time I used to. I will get to it when I can.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
pp.s Are you admitting, then, that at least 45% of global warming is anthropogenic?