Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[GPIDEAL]

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

FAST

:frusty: Now you deniers are playing dumb. You know what I'm talking about.

 

[GPIDEAL]

yes and that contribution is exactly this much Fuji



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!!

Where did you get this chart/graph?

What if man-made CO2 is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Your simplistic graph, if true, doesn't explain sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to C02 levels, nor does it point to another source for rising temperatures. Higher water vapour is symptomatic too of higher temperatures which in turn can be a result of higher man-made emissions.

But if it gives you comfort that it's not the burning of fossil fuels formed over tens if not hundreds of million of years ago, then you should be worried that it might be something for which you have no idea how caused, or control over it.

 

[canada-man]

:frusty: Now you deniers are playing dumb. You know what I'm talking about.

CO2 is 0.039% of Air that's a trace gas

 

[**Sophie**]

Higher water vapour is symptomatic too of higher temperatures which in turn can be a result of higher man-made emissions

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
The role of water vapor in the atmosphere has been studied extensively. As summarized by in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC

"Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.

 

[Frankfooter]

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

And a link to a dead blog.

That's a troll reply.

The stats say there is a 99.99% chance that you are wrong.
And the best you can come up with is a dead link from years ago?

 

[Frankfooter]

CO2 is 0.039% of Air that's a trace gas

But its responsible for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

Read up on the basics, please.

Then, if you're sure that trace gases and trace elements can't harm you, drink 4 shots of tequila, go for a drive and tell the officer that its only a trace element, it can't possibly effect your driving.
Good luck with that.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And a link to a dead blog.

That's a troll reply.

The stats say there is a 99.99% chance that you are wrong.
And the best you can come up with is a dead link from years ago?

The link works fine for me. In any event, the stat is more Rahmstorf hokum.

And that's not how you test a hypothesis.

You test a hypothesis by measuring observed data -- in this case, the Earth's temperature -- against the predictions.

 

[**Sophie**]

As you can see the climate predictions vs reality is way off so how am I supposed to trust what they say when they keep showing with empirical evidence that their prediction models suck and are way off the mark?!

 

[IM469]

Some very colourful charts but I think this chart points toward a warming factor..

 

[fuji]

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

Nature did though. I quoted it above. Trying to change the topic to the models is a cheap, invalid debating tactic.

How long until you concede? Or do you plan on disconnecting from reality?

Fact, proved, with hard science: greenhouse gases cause global warming, wet have measured the exact amount, and it was exactly the amount predicted.

The link is above.

 

[Frankfooter]

The link works fine for me. In any event, the stat is more Rahmstorf hokum.

And that's not how you test a hypothesis.

You test a hypothesis by measuring observed data -- in this case, the Earth's temperature -- against the predictions.

We were talking stats here, not your hypothesis that 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right.

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.

The fact that 15 of the 16 warmest years happened this century is statistically incredibly unlikely, and indeed totally unexplainable without AGW.
Your refusal to answer to that statement and instead just repeat the same debunked statement over and over again marks you as a troll.

No evidence, just ridiculous claims.
Troll.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Fact, proved, with hard science: greenhouse gases cause global warming, wet have measured the exact amount, and it was exactly the amount predicted.

This is just too funny.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is just too funny.

http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/Nature graph_zps76nf0wpe.png

You are still lying about this study, aren't you?
Troll move.

 

[fuji]

This is just too funny.

Take it up with Nature and its peer reviewers, who published the study above which exactly measured the heat from greenhouse gases and confirmed that it exactly equaled the predicted heat.

If you don't concede then effectively you are admitting that your position is an emotional, religious viewpoints and you have no interest whatever in objective truth.

 

[**Sophie**]

Meanwhile in 'nature' rising carbon dioxide is making the earth greener

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...nt-growth-greenhouse-gas-cover-USA-twice.html

 

[fuji]

Meanwhile in 'nature' rising carbon dioxide is making the earth greener

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...nt-growth-greenhouse-gas-cover-USA-twice.html

That's true, it's an interesting effect of global warming.

 

[**Sophie**]

That's true, it's an interesting effect of global warming.

Interesting effect that's making the earth greener.

 

[**Sophie**]

some very colourful charts but i think this chart points toward a warming factor..

lol!!

 

[PornAddict]

Interesting effect that's making the earth greener.

I agree.

What if higher CO2 concentrations are actually good for plant growth?
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

[/QUOTE]

 

[Moviefan-2]

Take it up with Nature and its peer reviewers, who published the study above which exactly measured the heat from greenhouse gases and confirmed that it exactly equaled the predicted heat.

If you don't concede then effectively you are admitting that your position is an emotional, religious viewpoints and you have no interest whatever in objective truth.

So, now you're claiming that only people with emotional, religious viewpoints think there might be a difference between the coloured lines and the solid black line in the 21st century section of the graph below (which was published just last month in Nature).

Do you know what the word "mismatch" means?

“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.”

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

The one thing I'll concede is that I think it's time for you to get your eyes checked.