i competely succeded in my task. its not my fault some of you cant access actual scholarly articles. the free link i found was apparently overused and shut down so i just texted you all 26 pages of the article just because you lately you think im being dishonest about everything. i was able to do it because i had the pdf on ky phone. i have a lot of scholarly articles in my phone because i read them every day. its what nerds like me do.

make sure youre connected to wifi before you open it although its less than 3 megs so its not a big deal.

cheers! :)

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

completely agree! partialy why i think alexandra elbakyan is awesome. of course she broke the law, but for an awesome reason.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I beat you to it (barely!); saw it mentioned yesterday in my "local paper":
https://www.adn.com/...activity-study-says/

Neener, neener.

But I posted to this thread before you. So I win.

Deal with it.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Haven't read all this, but read a few pages, but it would seem at best 60% can be attributed to man made causes and that linkage isn't certain. While that is nothing to shrug off (which I haven't), If we started living in caves tomorrow, there is a 40% chance that climate would continue to change negatively. Is this not the case? At least that is what I'm getting from this and even whether it is 60% manmade isn't certain, using a lot of assumption models. Did I interpret this wrong? Explain in plain English what I'm missing and where it is in the article?

Explain this to an idiot.

Because like Mattis, I'm in favor of more efficient use of current energy sources. There are many benefits for that including independence from hostile nations, avoiding resource wars etc. But there are a lot of different ideas between living in a cave and what most people who whether they believe in climate change or not would find reasonable and common sense efficiency of resources. I think with most of the generaly public lot of those ideas are non-starters once real cost and impact on them is felt, and I actually buy climate changes a concern. Again, explain this to an idiot. Are you capable of that.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

The article isn't talking about global temperatures, or temperatures at all for that matter. It is discussing the degree to which summertime arctic sea ice is impacted by atmospheric conditions.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

But isn't ice cap melting and glacial shrinkage cited as evidence of the global warming and the need to do something? So by extension the same thing when trying to convince the masses?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I'm not trying to convince the masses. I'm just saying that what is contained in this paper is not what the op was saying it is.

I don't know, really, how to interpret what the paper "is" saying within the larger context of AGW and climate change. For that, I would have to spend a few years reading the references, and then some.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

That's my sole point in the argument. I'm is a complex issu. A complex issue that is demanding costly behavior changing solutions that may or may not work.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Fine, but why are you concerned about thus particular study? It is very complex, which is why I don't feel like I can comment on the importance of this particular paper.

The Ipcc reports, which combine the research into a relatively cohesive body of work, are what laymen like you and I should be looking at.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

A man-made global warming discussion isn't complete without the obligatory photo of a skinny, pathetic-looking polar bear on a shrinking sheet of ice to prove that warming is real.

I'm is a complex issu.

Indeed you are ...

Your prize is in the mail! (A skinny polar bear from jim@blotto)

Sort of, but not really. There's lots of evidence of global warming. The ice cap shrinkage is more of an effect of global warming. They could find out, for example, that the caps are shrinking because of a college prank, and we would have no less evidence of global warming than we'd already had.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Could you please help my understanding. I recall reading the IPCC Fifth Assessment about a year ago and seeing that the IPCC put the human effect at 60%. Perhaps I misunderstood, or don't recall correctly, or new studies have changed the consensus. Anyway, rather than dig that up again I was hoping you could set me straight on this rather quickly, if you would be so kind.

(Perhaps the issue is how percentage is calculated. I seem to recall the IPCC 60% as applying to the amount of warming since the beginning of the industrial age, roughly the 1880s. Perhaps 90% is a different metric.)

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I'm not sure of the context for the IPCC5 number. The percentage will vary dramatically depending on the timescale under consideration, and the statistical confidence you're looking for. I took a quick look at the IPCC synthesis (https://www.ipcc.ch/...R5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf) and they say:
"The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
I believe IPCC's use of "extremely likely" indicates a 95% confidence level.

90% is a ballpark figure from eyeballing the chart from the "Scott Adams" thread: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6246295#p6246295

Good god, you guys know what I was/am thinking?
Isn't it quite presumptuous to assume I did more than just subtracting 50-30% from 100%?

Reading, understanding and concluding that the discussion about the actual % of human contribution (depending on the model and variables) is hand waving at best (even with the best models available, and this is one of them) and otherwise totally irrelevant and pointless?

It's too late, processes have been triggered (by us), 'wheels' are in motion.
We will have fun the next couple million years.
A "Thermal Maximum" at least as strong as the one at the Palaeocene-Eozene transition (PETM) will occur.
And our capacity to wrap our mind around it is unfortunately limited to the attempt to 'rationalize' what is happening.

Well actually, this monkey just wanted to stir the pot a little.... won't be around when 'things' really start to die off.