Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

Fuji:

I really have no idea what you're saying.

The AGW hypothesis is that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. If that's what you mean by "human-caused global warming," then there's no way you can claim that has been predicted with a high degree of precision. The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

If all you're saying is that man-made emissions affect the climate but it's entirely possible the effect is small or perhaps even minuscule, you would get no argument from me. That's entirely plausible.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's the source for the data, though hotwhopper published that copy they used Mann's data.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep.../hottest-february-by-far-at-whopping-135.html
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/hottest-february-by-far-at-whopping-135.html

The hotwhopper post is good, mentions Mann discussing how he thinks we hit 2.0ºC above pre-industrial temperatures last month.


I look forward to your analysis of those two charts.
Hahahahahahahahaha!

:bounce:
:clock:
opcorn:

The explanation is exactly what I predicted it would be. They went back and recalculated the effect of the forcings after they had seen the actual results.

In other words, they rewrote the predictions to correct for the fact that the actual predictions were spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

So, it wasn't Mann, it was known propagandist Hotwhopper.

No, the chart is from Mann's paper, posted on Hotwhopper.

Figure 8 | Global mean surface temperature and CMIP5. The CMIP5 multi-model mean has been updated with recent forcings and GISTemp data includes 2015 observations. Source: Stefan Rahmstorf, updated fromMann15 article in Nature's Scientific Reports.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/hottest-february-by-far-at-whopping-135.html

That's the accreditation, properly done with links to the original sources of the numbers.
Why am I not surprised that you can't tell the difference between proper accreditation and sources that are total bullshit?

Oh yeah, I remember.
When it was pointed out before that you were using a bullshit chart you claimed was published by the IPCC, you considered it 'immaterial' whether it was bullshit or not.
That's why.

You are a troll.

 

[Frankfooter]

The explanation is exactly what I predicted it would be. They went back and recalculated the effect of the forcings after they had seen the actual results.

In other words, they rewrote the predictions to correct for the fact that the actual predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Lets see the evidence for this claim, troll.
Is it just another bullshit opinion from you or can you back it up?

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, the chart is from Mann's paper, posted on Hotwhopper.

Your link went to a dead page. I corrected my post after I found Mann's paper for myself.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets see the evidence for this claim, troll.
Is it just another bullshit opinion from you or can you back it up?

You could have tried reading the paragraph above the graph on Hotwhopper's site.

Not only that, but for the period from around 2005 onwards, the climate models overstate the forcings. They used estimates that meant that the models were overestimating what the warming would be. Below is a chart showing the models vs observations using actual forcings instead of estimated

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/hottest-february-by-far-at-whopping-135.html

I was right.

By the way, how come so you're quick to applaud when Mann says the modellers got it wrong, but you get bent out of shape whenever I say it?

 

[fuji]

Fuji:

I really have no idea what you're saying.

Use a dictionary if it helps.

The AGW hypothesis is that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950.

That seems likely to be the case. The article I quoted proved a much narrower claim, but proved it absolutely, beyond dispute.

It proved by direct observation that AGW heats the planet by the exact amount predicted by the models. It measured exactly how much heat AGW adds to the system by directly observing and measuring that heat.

To go from there to claim that AGW is the primary source of warming you need to look at it together with other factors about which much less is known.

And to make accurate predictions about the net temperature in the future, you need accurate forecasts of those other factors too. We don't even know what all those factors are, much less have accurate forecasts for them. Hence our predictions are expected to have a large error term.

What's known definitively is how much we are warming up the planet. What's not known definitively is what else might be cooling the planet, and what else might be warming it.

But among those factors were are ABSOLUTELY warming the planet, and by exactly the amount the AGW hypothesis says.

To put it in simpler terms, suppose we know we raised the temperature by, say, 1 degrees. But we don't know that something unrelated lowered it by a degree and that yet another unknown raised it by a half. So we observe in that example 1-1+0.5 equals only a half degree change in temperature even though we did raise it by the predicted amount. That's what I mean by the large error term: the unknown pluses and minuses on top of the known effect of AGW.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Fuji:

If the researchers can't make accurate predictions about temperature trends, then the AGW hypothesis is not supported by evidence. That's how the scientific method works.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It proved by direct observation that AGW heats the planet by the exact amount predicted by the models.

No, it did not say that.

 

[nobody123]

Teach the controversy!

<edited and deleted> whoops! Shit! Franky already posted this comic. Don't I feel the fool now!

 

[fuji]

No, it did not say that.

Yes, it did: "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."

 

[**Sophie**]

Teach the controversy!

whats he is trying to do is compare climate science to medical science now lmao

 

[bishop]

Yup, and for you I'll also post up a chart of CMIP3, an older projection, because it has more years you can judge it by.
And this is about the 9th time I've done this for you.

Hope you enjoy it this time as well.

Stop posting CIMP5 because it is not a projection. Do not act like you are doing me a favor posting CIMP3 because you should have never posted CIMP5 in the first place. Stop posting CIMP5, how many times do I have to tell you, are you that stupid or that deceitful?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes, it did: "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."

It doesn't say anything about warming being exactly what the models predicted.

However, I would like to get a better understanding of your response yesterday that it is "likely to be the case" that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. Does the wording of your reply signal that you are open to the possibility that human emissions aren't the dominant cause?

It's not a trick question or an attempt to be clever. I'm interested to know just how much of a difference actually exists between your position and mine (it may be less than you think).

 

[Frankfooter]

Stop posting CIMP5 because it is not a projection. Do not act like you are doing me a favor posting CIMP3 because you should have never posted CIMP5 in the first place. Stop posting CIMP5, how many times do I have to tell you, are you that stupid or that deceitful?

Stop whining about how the science works.
Stop complaining when legit sources show you are wrong.
Stop complaining that posting legit sources is 'deceitful'.
Stop denying science.
Stop telling me what I should do just because you don't accept reality.

 

[Frankfooter]

It doesn't say anything about warming being exactly what the models predicted.

The projections aren't meant to be 'exactly' accurate.
They project ranges, its just a troll argument that you claim they have to exactly match the mean of the all the models.

And as you noted:

The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.

That is all they were supposed to do.
Which confirms that they are accurate.

 

[Frankfooter]

whats he is trying to do is compare climate science to medical science now lmao

As a sceptic, don't you apply the same set of reasoning when you visit the doctor?
Shouldn't you be investing fully in homeopathic medicines?

 

[**Sophie**]

As a sceptic, don't you apply the same set of reasoning when you visit the doctor?
Shouldn't you be investing fully in homeopathic medicines?

If we go by that reasoning Frank, you should NOT be on a computer, you should not be using a vehicle, should not be heating your home I could go and on. You should be rubbing sticks!

 

[Frankfooter]

If we go by that reasoning Frank, you should NOT be on a computer, you should not be using a vehicle, should not be heating your home I could go and on. You should be rubbing sticks!

Not me, I fully support the work of scientists, medical, climatologists and others.
When 97% of them tell me the medicine is good or my computer will work, I'll trust them.

You, on the other hand seem to think that's not enough of a consensus.
Do you support the use vaccines?
Do you use homeopathic remedies or that of medical researchers?

 

[**Sophie**]

Not me, I fully support the work of scientists, medical, climatologists and others.
When 97% of them tell me the medicine is good or my computer will work, I'll trust them.

You, on the other hand seem to think that's not enough of a consensus.
Do you support the use vaccines?
Do you use homeopathic remedies or that of medical researchers?

Frankie Frankie, 97% out of how many scientists was that again? Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining ok