Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[fuji]

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

You mean like this:

"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. "

You are just stammering now.

 

[fuji]

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.

You are continuing with the fallacy that human caused global warming can't be proved without low residuals. That's just false. Please stop with the innumerate babbling.

It's nice that you have had several hundred page threads with groggy debating the residuals but they don't matter.

 

[GPIDEAL]

One doesn't need colorful or fancy graphs to know the world's climate is fucked. Greenhouse gas is a plausible culprit. If not, give me the best alternative cause!

 

[FAST]

One doesn't need colorful or fancy graphs to know the world's climate is fucked. Greenhouse gas is a plausible culprit. If not, give me the best alternative cause!

Which one,...water vapour, or CO2 ?

FAST

 

[fuji]

Which one,...water vapour, or CO2 ?

FAST

The study in Nature above proved through direct observation that man made greenhouse gases were responsible for exactly the amount of warming predicted by the models. That factor is proven through hard science and direct measurement.

It's true there's a LOT we don't know about the climate, which is why when you put everything we know into a model there are still large error factors (residuals), because of the influence of factors we don't understand and haven't modeled.

But of the factors we know about, the warming contributed by greenhouse gas is scientifically proven. It had been predicted in previous science and now direct empirical measurement has exactly confirmed the predicted warming from greenhouse gas.

 

[Frankfooter]

Which one,...water vapour, or CO2 ?

FAST

You've got to be pretty daft if you're asking such basic questions.


So all legit science backs the findings of the IPCC.
Exxon scientists found the same thing.
Koch brothers hired scientists and they came up with the same results.
The Insurance industry backs the science as they are already paying out for extreme weather damages.

But here's the real kicker, which should really end the argument once and for all.
(except for trolls like moviefan)

The Saudi's are selling off some of their oil assets right now in order to make their economy totally free from oil funding by 2030.
Its a $2 trillion dollar gamble because the richest petro state in the world understands that climate change is real and we need something to do about it.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/web...own-Prince-This-is-the-Saudi-vision-2030.html


Now that the Saudi's are spending $2 trillion to end their dependance on fossil fuels who is left denying the science?


(besides moviefan)

 

[**Sophie**]

The study in Nature above proved through direct observation that man made greenhouse gases were responsible for exactly the amount of warming predicted by the models. That factor is proven through hard science and direct measurement.

It's true there's a LOT we don't know about the climate, which is why when you put everything we know into a model there are still large error factors (residuals), because of the influence of factors we don't understand and haven't modeled.

But of the factors we know about, the warming contributed by greenhouse gas is scientifically proven. It had been predicted in previous science and now direct empirical measurement has exactly confirmed the predicted warming from greenhouse gas.

hello? The graphs are strictly designed to only show human caused global warming don't u know this while they forget to show everyone ALL the factors that play into it.

 

[fuji]

hello? The graph is strictly designed to only show human caused global warming don't u know this while they forget to show everyone ALL the factors that play into it.

The factors that people don't know about aren't on any graph because people don't know about them. Those unknown factors show up as residuals in the prediction, the error between the prediction and observation.

But the contribution of human caused global warming is known, proven, and exactly measured.

 

[**Sophie**]

The factors that people don't know about aren't on any graph because people don't know about them. Those unknown factors show up as residuals in the prediction, the error between the prediction and observation.

But the contribution of human caused global warming is known, proven, and exactly measured.

yes and that contribution is exactly this much Fuji

I

Really? This is what the warmists are soooo worried about that they want to spend 31 Trillion dollars to convert? Are you kidding me? Good grief!!

 

[FAST]

You've got to be pretty daft if you're asking such basic questions.


So all legit science backs the findings of the IPCC.
Exxon scientists found the same thing.
Koch brothers hired scientists and they came up with the same results.
The Insurance industry backs the science as they are already paying out for extreme weather damages.

But here's the real kicker, which should really end the argument once and for all.
(except for trolls like moviefan)

The Saudi's are selling off some of their oil assets right now in order to make their economy totally free from oil funding by 2030.
Its a $2 trillion dollar gamble because the richest petro state in the world understands that climate change is real and we need something to do about it.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/web...own-Prince-This-is-the-Saudi-vision-2030.html


Now that the Saudi's are spending $2 trillion to end their dependance on fossil fuels who is left denying the science?


(besides moviefan)

If you don't know the answer to the question,...don't waste bandwidth.

FAST

 

[fuji]

In fact the amount of warming is given precisely in the study I linked above. It's been measured exactly.

And yes, five to ten percent increase in the greenhouse effect is a lot.

 

[Frankfooter]

If you don't know the answer to the question,...don't waste bandwidth.

FAST

Sorry, FAST, but that's a really stupid and basic question.
If you haven't figured out the basics you really shouldn't enter into the conversation.
Do some research and then ask a question that isn't based on total ignorance and we'll have a discussion.


Meanwhile, the Saudi news is really interesting.
That Saudi Arabia is planning on divesting their economy from fossil fuels really is the marker that the world is ready to move on for real.

 

[FAST]

The study in Nature above proved through direct observation that man made greenhouse gases were responsible for exactly the amount of warming predicted by the models. That factor is proven through hard science and direct measurement.

"Exactly the amount,..."

It's true there's a LOT we don't know about the climate, which is why when you put everything we know into a model there are still large error factors (residuals), because of the influence of factors we don't understand and haven't modeled.

,..."there's a LOT we don't know about the climate".

But of the factors we know about, the warming contributed by greenhouse gas is scientifically proven. It had been predicted in previous science and now direct empirical measurement has exactly confirmed the predicted warming from greenhouse gas.

"But of the factors we know about,..."

Wow fuj,...do you ever read what you post,...???

FAST

 

[FAST]

Sorry, FAST, but that's a really stupid and basic question.
If you haven't figured out the basics you really shouldn't enter into the conversation.
Do some research and then ask a question that isn't based on total ignorance and we'll have a discussion.


Meanwhile, the Saudi news is really interesting.
That Saudi Arabia is planning on divesting their economy from fossil fuels really is the marker that the world is ready to move on for real.

So in other words,...as usual,...you don't know,...and run away like a little scared boy,...!!!

FAST

 

[fuji]

"Exactly the amount,..."



,..."there's a LOT we don't know about the climate".



"But of the factors we know about,..."

Wow fuj,...do you ever read what you post,...???

FAST

Yes. Do you? My post is correct. Yours implies you don't comprehend the facts.

Think about a blackjack game. What are the odds the dealer has blackjack? How does your ability to predict that change when the dealer's first card is an ace? Would you say you are better able to predict a dealer blackjack knowing he has an ace? Would you say you can predict ACCURATELY?

With greenhouse gas we know EXACTLY how much we are warming the planet. Exactly. The exact number is in the quote I provided from nature, above. It's been measured directly.

Does knowing exactly how much warming we are causing allow us to make accurate predictions? No. It allows us to talk about likelihoods, but we don't know what the other cards are.

 

[Frankfooter]

So in other words,...as usual,...you don't know,...and run away like a little scared boy,...!!!

FAST

Here, do your homework and read this.
Then when you still don't understand it I'll explain it in single syllable words for you.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

[Moviefan-2]

You mean like this:

"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. "

No, actually, I don't mean like that.

I was referring to the debate about whether or not the impact of man-made emissions on the Earth's temperature has been statistically significant. It was a response to your previous attempt to try to characterize the debate as all or nothing.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The study in Nature above proved through direct observation that man made greenhouse gases were responsible for exactly the amount of warming predicted by the models.

"Exactly the amount,..."

Unreal. I don't even think Al Gore would have the balls to try to claim the warming was "exactly" what was predicted by the models.

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 was referring to the debate about whether or not the impact of man-made emissions on the Earth's temperature has been statistically significant. It was a response to your previous attempt to try to characterize the debate as all or nothing.

You are making troll claims, not arguments.

I already showed you multiple times that odds statistically that the last 15 of 16 would be the warmest years recorded are 0.01%.
In total troll fashion you ignore that fact and just repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

You are a troll.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are making troll claims, not arguments.

I already showed you multiple times that odds statistically that the last 15 of 16 would be the warmest years recorded are 0.01%.
In total troll fashion you ignore that fact and just repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

You are a troll.

Some day, someone will have to explain to me how ignoring something makes me "a troll." :biggrin1:

Regardless, the study that was cited was by Rahmstorf. 'nuff said.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2011/12/journalist-fights-back-and-wins.html