Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

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.

Try looking up the words "statistically significant."

Meanwhile, I'm more fascinated by your claim that the models can predict the distant future.

So, tell us ... what we will be the biggest technological innovation in the year 2060?

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

I never said that he did predict that. But he and other leading climate researchers did predict continued cooling, which didn't materialize.

 

[Butler1000]

Try looking up the words "statistically significant."

Meanwhile, I'm more fascinated by your claim that the models can predict the distant future.

So, tell us ... what we will be the biggest technological innovation in the year 2060?

I'm sure it will be flying cars! It's always flying cars! And meals in pill form! Day trips to the moon! Romantic cruises to Jupiter!

I read an article in the G and M recently about how we are actually a lot better off than we were. Less water consumption, less pollution. Do we need to continue to slowly inovate while not doing any "Leaps" (thanks Avi and Naomi!) ? Yep.

Let's not cause societal disruptions in the name of false panic shall we?

 

[Moviefan-2]

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".

Here's something a little more current.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

 

[Frankfooter]

I never said that he did predict that. But he and other leading climate researchers did predict continued cooling, which didn't materialize.

You said he predicted an ice age.

The ice age prediction wasn't a fringe opinion.

You didn't say that he predicted that it might get a bit cooler at the end of the century and then go back up (also in the article), you said he predicted an ice age.
You really are full of shit.

Come back to us in 10,000 years and tell us how that prediction works out.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's something a little more current.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

Now that you're quoting Michael Mann, one of the authors of that paper, you might as well look at his chart:

Looks pretty accurate according to Mann.

Then you need to look at this statement about the study by Mann, one of the authors:
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791


The paper you are quoting states that their findings support the understanding that we are experiencing human caused global warming.

You are lying about the paper you are quoting.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Looks pretty accurate according to Mann.

That sentence made me laugh out loud.

 

[Frankfooter]

That sentence made me laugh out loud.

Right, but then again, you also can't tell a legit chart from bullshit.

Here you go, have another good laugh.
Looks way more accurate then any of your deniers ever managed.

 

[fuji]

Here's something a little more current.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

How is that even a reply to the fact that you were totally proven wrong, with conclusive direct observation of greenhouse gas causing global warming?

Do you think you can pull a snow job? Change the topic back to the accuracy of the models, and just ignore that you were entirely refuted?

Maybe groggy will fall for cheap debating tricks like that. I'm going to hold you to the fact that you are wrong. We have direct empirical confirmation that greenhouse gases radiate energy back at precisely the predicted levels.

/debate

 

[fuji]

The science isn't based on computer models.

We have direct scientific proof that greenhouse gases cause warming.

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.

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".

Just for review. We're done.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The ultimate test of the hypothesis about the possible impact of the forcings is how well the observed data compare with the predictions. The reality remains that the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

The models don't understand the climate.

 

[K Douglas]

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

No you need to stop with your lies. Climate sensitivity to CO2 increases are low. Dr Judith Curry explains.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/

 

[wigglee]

because we didn't just live through the warmest fucking winter ever !

 

[fuji]

No you need to stop with your lies. Climate sensitivity to CO2 increases are low. Dr Judith Curry explains.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/

I'll believe the hard science published in Nature.

 

[fuji]

The ultimate test of the hypothesis about the possible impact of the forcings is how well the observed data compare with the predictions. The reality remains that the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

The models don't understand the climate.

The hypothesis was proven definitively when the theoretically predicted radiation exactly matched the hard physical observation.

Your entire argument here is a fallacy. You claim that because there are additional unknown factors that impact climate that no theory about climate is true. That is absolutely asinine to begin with--a very stupid argument.

But in any case we have hard, definitive science published in the most respected scientific journal that definitively proves, beyond any doubt, that greenhouse gases cause warming.

Please don't blither about the models being inaccurate. That just means there are other factors in addition to the proven warming effect of greenhouse gases. Trying to make anything more out of it is innumerate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

But in any case we have hard, definitive science published in the most respected scientific journal that definitively proves, beyond any doubt, that greenhouse gases cause warming.

I thought you were done. :biggrin1: In any event, try looking up the words "statistically significant."

The reality is this: Nothing unusual has occurred in the Earth's temperature. The slight warming that has occurred over the past 135 years is unremarkable and consistent with patterns since the end of the Little Ice Age.

To the extent that man-made emissions may have some impact on the temperature, the current data show it isn't significant and is possibly quite trivial. According to the current data, it's certainly nothing at all like the doomsday scenarios that have been predicted.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The hypothesis was proven definitively when the theoretically predicted radiation exactly matched the hard physical observation.

You're now making up your own AGW hypothesis.

The predictions that were made to test the hypothesis were about changes to the Earth's temperature. For example, here is an IPCC document from the AR4 report in 2007 that predicts temperature increases of 0.2C per decade:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The metric is the Earth's temperature. The predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[wild4sex]

The metric is the Earth's temperature. The predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

Moviefan - It is my opinion that you are full of it and a spectacular troll. That is all

 

[Frankfooter]

Moviefan - It is my opinion that you are full of it and a spectacular troll. That is all

Probably the most accurate statement made on this thread.

 

[Frankfooter]

I thought you were done. :biggrin1: In any event, try looking up the words "statistically significant."

The reality is this: Nothing unusual has occurred in the Earth's temperature. The slight warming that has occurred over the past 135 years is unremarkable and consistent with patterns since the end of the Little Ice Age.

There was a study to see if the fact that 15 of the last 16 years were the warmest ever recorded could have been natural, and the odds that calculated said that there was a 0.01% chance that 15 of the last 16 years record warm was natural, statistically insignificant or unremarkable.

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study

In other words the chances that you are totally full of shit, and just a miserable troll, are 99.99%.