Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

Creating computer models that make predictions 100 years out based on current trends is absurd, even if you think the modellers are interpreting the data correctly.

Must be tough being so stupid you don't even realize what you can do with a computer.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/06/12136/computer-model-successfully-predicts-drug-side-effects

Of course, this thread is about how Exxon knew that doubling the atmospheric CO2 levels would raise the temperature of the globe in the late '70's, even before the models were even that good.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Of course, this thread is about how Exxon knew that doubling the atmospheric CO2 levels would raise the temperature of the globe in the late '70's....

???? :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

???? :biggrin1:

Oh right, that was the other thread you started.
My bad.

This thread was how you used a fake chart to make false accusations.
Better?

 

[basketcase]

...

I must apologise, I neglected to mention this report was from November 3, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post, yes, 93 years ago.

Papers have always published fringe scientific opinions to sell, just like the 'ice age' claims in the 70's.

The difference now is that we have actual measurements of sea level rise and that rate has been increasing. And melting ice isn't the most worrying factor. Thermal expansion will continue even if there was no ice melt.

 

[basketcase]

There's a key problem with computer modelling that tries to predict future trends: The future is unknowable.
....

I guess scientists shouldn't bother making predictions then.

We don't 'know' that the sun will rise tomorrow or even if the world will last until tomorrow; it's only a prediction. Should we throw out all of our knowledge on movement of movement of planets because tomorrow is the "unknowable" future?

 

[Promo]

Or perhaps a Venn Diagram will help get the point across?

Great charts nobody123! Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Oh right, that was the other thread you started.

Wrong again. The thread about the attack on free speech wasn't started by me.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I guess scientists shouldn't bother making predictions then.

There's nothing wrong with making predictions but speculation about 100 years from now shouldn't be confused with fact.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Predictions about tomorrow are a little bit easier than predictions about 100 years from now.

Do you really believe mankind will continue to use fossil fuels the way they're being used today for the next 100 years? To put it another way, do you really believe all progress will come to an end in 2016?

Of course not.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Papers have always published fringe scientific opinions to sell, just like the 'ice age' claims in the 70's.

The ice age prediction wasn't a fringe opinion.

For example, an Associated Press story that ran in 1972 quoted Prof. Hubert Lamb on the expected temperature trends.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...+age+coming+hubert+lamb&pg=4365,2786655&hl=en

Lamb, the director of climate research at the University of East Anglia, was one of the world's leading climate researchers at that time (he was the Phil Jones of his day).

Stephen Scheider, a climate researcher at NASA, had also published a paper in 1971 predicting a possible ice age.

 

[Frankfooter]

The ice age prediction wasn't a fringe opinion.

For example, an Associated Press story that ran in 1972 quoted Prof. Hubert Lamb on the expected temperature trends.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...+age+coming+hubert+lamb&pg=4365,2786655&hl=en

In 10,000 years, according to the article.
Lamb predicted an ice age in 10,000 years.

Really, how do you keep posting this bullshit and not notice how stupid it is?

Oh, I remember, you consider it 'immaterial' whether what you are posting is bullshit or not.

 

[fuji]

There's a key problem with computer modelling that tries to predict future trends: The future is unknowable.

The science isn't based on computer models.

We have direct scientific proof that greenhouse gases cause warming.

The models are an attempt to predict based on the science. Not the other way around. Turns out the factors we have proven, such as that greenhouse gases cause global warming, are only one factor in the climate as evidenced by the large residuals in the models.

But claiming that the science is based only on computer models is just lying.

 

[fuji]

1st,...you completely ignore the observations made,...I guess people eyes were not as "sophisticated" as they are now.

And let me get this straight,...all these graphs showing what the temp. will be some time in the future,...is NOT based on computer modeling,...???

Predictions as recent as 1978 have proven to be bull shit, so I guess that "our sophistication in doing science",...what ever the hell that means,...was wrong in 1978,...???

And once again,...NOTHING has been proven.

FAST

Yes, the methods we have today are orders of magnitude better than what we had forty years ago.

Yes, it is proven with hard, direct physical evidence that greenhouse gases trap heat.

You, CM, MF, and Sophie are talking nonsense.

 

[FAST]

Yes, the methods we have today are orders of magnitude better than what we had forty years ago.

Yes, it is proven with hard, direct physical evidence that greenhouse gases trap heat.

You, CM, MF, and Sophie are talking nonsense.

Green house gases trap heat,...wow fuji,...we didn't know that 40 years ago,...did you ever make it past grade 8.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

We have direct scientific proof that greenhouse gases cause warming.

Not to any statistically significant amount, we don't.

 

[fuji]

Not to any statistically significant amount, we don't.

Yes, we absolutely do. Direct proof, not based on modeling. You need to stop with that lie.

 

[Moviefan-2]

In 10,000 years, according to the article.

The first paragraph said "the rest of the century will grow colder and colder."

Lamb's quote in the 7th paragraph: "The last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder."

The article was written in 1972.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes, we absolutely do. Direct proof, not based on modeling. You need to stop with that lie.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[basketcase]

Not to any statistically significant amount, we don't.

Holy fuck. This has to be one of the most asinine comments from you so far. The thermal properties of greenhouse gasses have been understood for a long time.

Goes right along with your claim that we shouldn't try to predict future events.

 

[fuji]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Actual science as opposed to your emotional blither:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

Note: direct physical measurement confirming the previously theoretically predicted thermal effects of greenhouse gas by measuring the actual heat being radiating back from the sky by greenhouse gas.

Quote:

Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

So much for your "argument".

 

[Frankfooter]

The first paragraph said "the rest of the century will grow colder and colder."

Lamb's quote in the 7th paragraph: "The last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder."

The article was written in 1972.

From the article:

The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years and even then it won’t be as severe as the last glacial period.

The article was about projections 10,000 years in advance, he was not predicting an ice age in the last century or this century.

Really, you continue to not understand what you quote in the least.
Its really quite amazing how many stupid and basic mistakes you make.