'Mini Ice Age' Looms As NASA Scientist Warns Lack Of Sunspots Could Bring Record Cold

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

Phil C. McNasty said:
Hey Frankie, I want you too look very carefully at this meme which makes fun of Lefties.
See anything familiar?? (top and middle left side)

Oh, I'm slayed Phil, absolutely slayed.

Not only do you have your 'feelings' and 'common sense' now you've got a cartoon as well!
Holy shit, and all I have are 120,000 scientists and what you think is 'confusing science' on my side against your 'feelings', 'common sense' and now this devastating cartoon.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

Phil C. McNasty said:
This is exactly how I feel about it. I do think the CO2's contribute a small amount to global warming, but not very much.

Phil C. McNasty said:
You should try common sense instead of relying on complicated science

Phil C. McNasty · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
Trump won't last that much longer anyways

Phil C. McNasty said:
Lets make another sig bet then

You never responded to this ^^

Sig bet, or are you too chicken??

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

Phil C. McNasty said:
You never responded to this ^^

Sig bet, or are you too chicken??

Phil, you need to first admit that I am honouring the terms of the bet we made and apologize for calling me a welcher before we can start talking about any other bets.

shack · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
Not only do you have your 'feelings' and 'common sense' now you've got a cartoon as well!
Holy shit, and all I have are 120,000 scientists

Yes, but that is ONLY 95% of scientists, and Phil claims that that is woefully low. Btw, that means that is 120,000 out of 126,316 that agree.

Phil C. McNasty · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
Phil, you need to first admit that I am honouring the terms of the bet we made and apologize for calling me a welcher before we can start talking about any other bets

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

Phil C. McNasty said:
[video=videoofmymother]10hoursvideoofmymother.com[/video]

Phil, why would I take another bet with you when you called me a welcher?
Why would you want to bet with me if you think I didn't honour the bet?

Is it to sooth your hurt 'feelings'?

Phil C. McNasty · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
Why would you want to bet with me if you think I didn't honour the bet?

Because I will make our next bet with much stricter conditions.

You said Trump will be gone soon anyways, so why not take the bet??

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

Phil C. McNasty said:
Because I will make our next bet with much stricter conditions.

Phil, you need to first admit that I am honouring the terms of the bet we made and apologize for calling me a welcher before we can start talking about any other bets.
I would never take another bet with you until you act honourably, otherwise I think you'll just be a welcher like moviefan.

Phil C. McNasty · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
Phil, you need to first admit that I am honouring the terms of the bet we made and apologize for calling me a welcher before we can start talking about any other bets.
I would never take another bet with you until you act honourably, otherwise I think you'll just be a welcher like moviefan

No Frankie, the real reason why you wont take the bet is you know I'll kick your ass again.

And of course, you will (try to) welch again

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

Phil C. McNasty said:
No Frankie, the real reason why you wont take the bet is you know I'll kick your ass again.

And of course, you will (try to) welch again

No, you are not honourable and I will not take a bet with you until you admit I am honouring the terms of the bet and you have apologized for calling me a welcher.
In fact, if you don't apologize I think it fair that I consider that you have failed to hold to your side of the bet and I am no longer to be held to mine.
And there will be no more bets with anyone I don't think is honourable.

Your call.

basketcase · Jan 16, 2019

K Douglas said:
Not sure what you mean by suddenly, I've accepted this data consistently. Yes it shows a warming trend of 0.13C per decade. However, if you remove the 1997/1998 and 2015/2016 ENSO events that warming trend is pretty much flat. And in that same time CO2 has risen from 337 ppm to 413 ppm a 22.6% increase.

Nice strategy. Ignore the data you don't like and the data proves exactly what you want. If we ignore the 1999/2000 and 2008/2009 la Nina events then the warming trend would be much greater.

Funny that you quote data while arguing against it.

K Douglas · Jan 16, 2019

basketcase said:
Nice strategy. Ignore the data you don't like and the data proves exactly what you want. If we ignore the 1999/2000 and 2008/2009 la Nina events then the warming trend would be much greater.

Funny that you quote data while arguing against it.

Give me a break. The La Nina's weren't nearly as strong as the El Nino's. You can see after that 1997/98 event there was a step change of 0.2C. That represents 40% of the entire warming shown in the 40 year satellite record. And that has nothing to do with CO2 levels.

Phil C. McNasty · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
No, you are not honourable and I will not take a bet with you until you admit I am honouring the terms of the bet and you have apologized for calling me a welcher.
In fact, if you don't apologize I think it fair that I consider that you have failed to hold to your side of the bet and I am no longer to be held to mine.
And there will be no more bets with anyone I don't think is honourable.

Your call

K Douglas · Jan 16, 2019

Frankfooter said:
Right, so satellite temperature data isn't surface data its troposphere data.
That's the first point in the debate, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The second, and more important point is what you call the 'proper' data.
UAH has gone through multiple revisions based on errors like not correcting for satellite drift, over the years and you seem to link only to old and faulty data.
That's what you call 'proper'.

The errors and corrections are noted in this story:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
And here:

The list of corrections to the UAH set are also noted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

So where that leaves us is that I link to the new corrected temperature sets, which agree with the surface temp sets, and you stick with the old and faulty sets because they fit your confirmation bias.
That is what you are calling 'proper'.

And of course, Roy Spencer is a creationist, so there's that as well.

I never once claimed satellite data was surface temperature. And the fact that you stat that we are comparing apples to oranges tells me you understand very little about climate science and AGW theory. Because if you did you would know that the warming that we are seeing on the surface should be close to being replicated in the lower troposphere. And we know it isn't. And the main reason for that is adjustments to the raw data and the urban heat island effect.

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

K Douglas said:
I never once claimed satellite data was surface temperature. And the fact that you stat that we are comparing apples to oranges tells me you understand very little about climate science and AGW theory. Because if you did you would know that the warming that we are seeing on the surface should be close to being replicated in the lower troposphere. And we know it isn't. And the main reason for that is adjustments to the raw data and the urban heat island effect.

The satellite data shows the same heating of the planet.

Not only that, kirk, but the oceans are also heating up.

2018 was the ocean's hottest year. We'll feel it a long time.
The ocean soaks up 93 percent of the heat of climate change. But that heat has a big and long-lasting impact.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...guardian-view-on-warming-oceans-a-rising-toll

With that is an increase in waves as well.

As The World's Oceans Warm, Their Waves Are Becoming More Powerful

https://www.iflscience.com/environm...-warm-their-waves-are-becoming-more-powerful/

Basically, the surface temps show the planet warming.
The satellite readings showing the planet warming.
The oceans are warming.

Frankfooter · Jan 16, 2019

Phil C. McNasty said:
https://philmcnastyselfy12-niceeyes.jpg[IMG][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I hearby state that Phil McNasty is not holding to the terms of the bet as we agreed to.
I have honoured the terms, admitted I've lost and posted the picture he chose according to the terms of the bet.
Since Phil has welched on his side of the bet, I hearby am entitled to stop honouring this bet.

[B][SIZE=7]Phil McNasty - You are a welcher and have broken the terms of our bet![/SIZE][/B]

Phil C. McNasty · Jan 16, 2019

^^^ LOL :biggrin1:

PornAddict · Jan 17, 2019

; said:
shack said:

Yes, but that is ONLY 95% of scientists, and Phil claims that that is woefully low. Btw, that means that is 120,000 out of 126,316 that agree.

Click to expand...

shack said:

But there's 95% agreement among scientists.

I know you will try to somehow say that 95% is not good enough but there is rarely even that much consensus in any topic as complex. Sometimes you go with the odds, even if it's 100%.

Click to expand...

Therefore your 95% consensus is garbage...97 % consesus is garbage too..

Here a peer review studies that debunk 97% consensus and link to original studies and data from moviefan which made you look like a fool and basketcase/ frankyfooter & you ( shack) look like a fool too.
See below quote by moviefan

Moviefan-2 said:
The AGW hypothesis is that man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. In the Netherlands survey, 66% of respondents voted in favour of options supporting that hypothesis, and the remainder didn't support the hypothesis.

Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Kirk Douglas is correct --->>

K Douglas said:
But there isn't 95% agreement. Never was.

Phil McNasty is correct. Here is why.. Go to page 8
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW and 34% did not support it!

basketcase · Jan 17, 2019

PornAddict said:
Therefore ...

Are you still sticking with the solar activity ice age crap? If so, how come you don't want to discuss why temperature for the past 40 years is still trending upwards and doesn't match the solar activity during that time?

basketcase · Jan 17, 2019

PornAddict said:
...
Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Only 66% of the climate scientists support AGW and 34% did not support it!

Did you read those results?

17.1% think CO2 is responsible more than 100%
32.2% think it's 76-100%
16.6% between 51 and 75%
5.2% say 26-50%
6.5% say 0-25%
9.9% say unknown
8.8% don't know.

Only 0.2% said CO2 wasn't responsible at all for the warming trend and 0.4% deny there is a warming trend.
3.1% had "other" responses.

How the hell did you come up with 34%? It is actually only 0.6% who deny AGW.

The rest of those confident in their answer are only arguing how much of a role it plays.

'Mini Ice Age' Looms As NASA Scientist Warns Lack Of Sunspots Could Bring Record Cold

dangling member

Go Jays Go

dangling member

Nitpicker Extraordinaire

Go Jays Go

dangling member

Go Jays Go

dangling member

Go Jays Go

dangling member

Well-known member

Half Man Half Amazing

Go Jays Go

Half Man Half Amazing

dangling member

dangling member

Go Jays Go

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member