Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

And as usual you refuse to state your view. Do you think the effect of AGW are unknown or do think the effect is known to be less than 50%? Those two points are mutually exclusive.

Based on the data, I believe both. Climate researchers don't know what impact man-made emissions have but the data suggest it's not significant.

Well, now. It looks like those two views aren't mutually exclusive, after all.

And one might wonder why you're even bothering to argue this stuff after Frankfooter has admitted the whole "consensus" thing is a total crock.

 

[Moviefan-2]

...and the degree of that warming was exactly what was predicted.

That statement continues to be completely baseless and completely wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Really?

Actually, he's right about scientific theories but AGW isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.

And he's definitely wrong about the way that hypotheses work.

 

[Frankfooter]

Based on the data, I believe both. Climate researchers don't know what impact man-made emissions have but the data suggest it's not significant.

False.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9). The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. GHGs contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with further contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, from natural forcings, and from natural internal variability (see Figure 1.9). Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {WGI SPM D.3, 10.3.1}

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php

And one might wonder why you're even bothering to argue this stuff after Frankfooter has admitted the whole "consensus" thing is a total crock.

Still lying your face off, weasel?
I never said or implied any such thing.

When we last discussed the consensus we were left with a score of 8 to nothing, with team science supplying studies, polls and a petition run by deniers all as evidence compared to the total lack of anything other then lies about studies coming from team denial.

Looks like once again you are acting like a troll, you don't debate, bring evidence or respond to comments.
All you do is repeat the same debunked and false claims over and over again.

 

[FAST]

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9). The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed".

Now THAT is some hard science here,...

FAST

 

[FAST]

Correct. What's proven is the warming effect.

To predict the temperature you need to know all factors that influence temperature.

Which the so called experts obviously DON"T know, so the "predictions/guessing is useless.

FAST

 

[**Sophie**]

Now THAT is some hard science here,...

FAST

As likely as me looking into a crystal ball and foreseeing the future lol

 

[fuji]

That statement continues to be completely baseless and completely wrong.

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

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

Now THAT is some hard science here,...

FAST

It is, of course its probably too complicated for you to understand that good science isn't bluster, its trying to state as accurately as possible their findings.
Of course you probably also don't listen to similar findings and language on the risks of smoking cigarettes, do you?
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

You don't listen to science, just bluster, eh SLOW?

 

[canada-man]

If you bothered to read the thread instead of ignorantly spewing nonsense you would know it was proved by precision measurement, not computer models.

You continue to show that you are incapable of discussion. You mindlessly repeat garbage without bothering to see what people are talking about.

pot meets kettle this is man who constantly respond with insults and personal attacks after repeatidly proven wrong and refuse to read the evidence that disagree with him

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?561106-Trump-Manager-Charged-then-not-charged




https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-not-charged&p=5526546&viewfull=1#post5526546

i believe Fuji suffers from a psych disorder. Really. I don't say that with any animosity. However normal folks in his shoes would be too embarrassed to argue at this po


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-not-charged&p=5526592&viewfull=1#post5526592

I'm starting to wonder that too


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-not-charged&p=5526873&viewfull=1#post5526873

This thread has been very revealing about your character (or lack of it), fuji

 

[FAST]

,... its trying to state as accurately as possible their findings.

don't listen to science, just bluster,...

,..."extremely likely,... The best estimate,...

Sure sounds like bluster to me,...you may be correct for once.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Consensus score card - Team Science 8 and Team Denial -2

Team Science - 8
1 new study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

6 previous studies listed by NASA:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

1 Denier funded poll on APS members showing 99.55% consensus.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/only-0-45-of-physicists-sign-denier-petition/

Total = 8 studies and polls

Team Denier - Minus 2

Lead by moviefan who lost Team Denier 2 points for lying about the results of two studies, Team Denier (bishop, FAST, Sophie, Canada-Man and jcpro) are down and out for the count.

For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.

Furthermore, the Netherlands Environmental Agency conducted a similar survey in April 2012 of scientists with expertise in this area that was specific to the post-1950 period. It found 66 per cent support for the hypothesis -- once again, not a consensus.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses

As the author of the AMS study clearly stated:
We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

Clearly you are totally wrong about the findings of this study.

In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
.

No.
That's not what the study found, they said:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
.

 

[bishop]

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

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.

As said before, the article confirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has never been denied in the first place.

 

[fuji]

As said before, the article confirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has never been denied in the first place.

Let's be clear what has been confirmed: human created greenhouse gases are warming up the planet by the exact amount predicted in the models.

That is AGW.

Period

 

[fuji]

pot meets kettle this is man who constantly respond with insults and personal attacks after repeatidly proven wrong and refuse to read the evidence that disagree with him

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?561106-Trump-Manager-Charged-then-not-charged




https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-not-charged&p=5526546&viewfull=1#post5526546

i believe Fuji suffers from a psych disorder. Really. I don't say that with any animosity. However normal folks in his shoes would be too embarrassed to argue at this po


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-not-charged&p=5526592&viewfull=1#post5526592

I'm starting to wonder that too


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-not-charged&p=5526873&viewfull=1#post5526873

This thread has been very revealing about your character (or lack of it), fuji

All sputter. No content.

This is the second thread in a row where you have been evasive, refusing to discuss the topic at hand while going on a broad attack. No doubt you think you can distract from your fuckup

But you fucked up. You replied to a discussion about hard scientific proof of AGW by dismissively calling it computer models, proving that you reply without even reading the content.

You are incapable of debating this point.

 

[bishop]

Let's be clear what has been confirmed: human created greenhouse gases are warming up the planet by the exact amount predicted in the models.

That is AGW.

Period

What part of the synopsis says that? Also when you say models, do you mean the statistical model used by the IPCC?

 

[canada-man]

All sputter. No content.

This is the second thread in a row where you have been evasive, refusing to discuss the topic at hand while going on a broad attack. No doubt you think you can distract from your fuckup

But you fucked up. You replied to a discussion about hard scientific proof of AGW by dismissively calling it computer models, proving that you reply without even reading the content.

You are incapable of debating this point.

AGW is based on computer models. not scientific research in the field. other members here have said this repeatedly too bad you don't read anything you don't like

 

[basketcase]

Incredible. You genuinely believe the Earth's temperature is measured by asking for a show of hands?

Why do only 9% of scientists support your claim then?

 

[basketcase]

Based on the data, I believe both.....

Wow. What in completely incompatible statement. Either you believe that the impact of AGW is between 25 and 50%, you believe it's less than 25%, or you believe its impact is unknown.

The fact that you are too afraid to actually state an opinion shows you are simply a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wow. What in completely incompatible statement. Either you believe that the impact of AGW is between 25 and 50%, you believe it's less than 25%, or you believe its impact is unknown.

The fact that you are too afraid to actually state an opinion shows you are simply a conspiracy theorist.

I'm not afraid of anything. I gave you my answer in more than one post. And my responses were not incompatible -- based on the data, the impact is unknown but my view is it significantly less than 25%.

There's nothing incompatible about both views. You may just have to accept the inconvenient truth that this appears to be too challenging for you to understand.