Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

According to me, the definition of "anthropogenic climate change" includes the possibility that temperature changes are overwhelmingly due to natural causes and man-made emissions are of no significance.

I don't think I know what "anthropogenic" means.

Fixed your post.

Lets take this step by step.

Step 1 - Anthropogenic climate change = climate change caused by human actions.
Step 2 - you admit that Anthropogenic climate change is real
Step 3 - you admit that the odds that your claim that its natural is correct are only 0.01%.
Step 4 - you admit whether or not you believe in science
Step 5 - you admit that science has found AWG to be real and its impact to our climate major
Step 6 - you admit there is no alternate theory to explain the present climate change
Step 7 - you apologize for being a troll

So far you've only hit step 2, but that's a start.
Good luck in your seven step solution.

 

[Frankfooter]

Putting aside the "exactly as predicted" idiocy, the big unknown is whether man-made emissions are even a significant factor.

That doesn't matter to Frankfooter. His take on "anthropogenic" warming is that it may not have anything to do with human beings (give or take 1%).

99.99% chance that you are wrong on this one, moviefan.
That's not a big unknown, that's you putting all your arguments on a 0.01% chance that they are correct.

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

 

[Frankfooter]

Really? And what is the optimum level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Surely you know the answer to this simple question.

We had thousands of years of fairly stable temperature at around 260-270 ppm, up until the industrial revolution.
That would have been a fine level to keep it at.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Fixed your post.

You suffer from some short-term memory issues (actually, Groggy, you're long-term memory is nothing to brag about, either).

Let me remind you what you said:

If they think its not happening then they would know the percentage, they would say its zero.
If they think there is even 1% of the climate changing through human influence then they accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

The respondents were asked how much of the warming since 1950 was attributable to human emissions. If a researcher says that only 1% of the change in the temperature was due to human emissions, then that researcher doesn't believe climate change was "caused by human actions."

You still don't know what "anthropogenic" means.

 

[FAST]

We had thousands of years of fairly stable temperature at around 260-270 ppm, up until the industrial revolution.
That would have been a fine level to keep it at.

,..." thousands of years of fairly stable temperature",...are you fricken nuts,...???


FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

According to you, a researcher who believes the human influence is only 1% and that the overwhelming influence (99%) is natural is a believer in "anthropogenic climate change."

If humans are influencing the climate then that's anthropogenic climate change, isn't it?
Even if its only a tiny amount, its still humans changing the climate.

Definition of anthropogenic
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic

 

[Frankfooter]

,..." thousands of years of fairly stable temperature",...are you fricken nuts,...???


FAST

Here, read this chart.
If you can.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If humans are influencing the climate then that's anthropogenic climate change, isn't it?

No, it isn't.

You don't know the difference between the words "causing" and "a minor influence." If natural factors are overwhelmingly responsible for "causing" changes in the climate, then the changes aren't "anthropogenic."

The claims of a "consensus" are B.S.

 

[FAST]

Here, read this chart.
If you can.

That's your idea of "fairly stable",...

As far as reading a graph,...each division is 50,000 years,...just what the hell has that got to do with the AGW crowd singling out 50 or even 100 years now,...???

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

No, it isn't.
If natural factors are overwhelmingly responsible for "causing" changes in the climate, then the changes aren't "anthropogenic."

If that were true then you would have to say that most of the changes weren't anthropogenic, but there was still anthropogenic changes happening, but that claim is not correct.
As you know, the chances that the changes we are experiencing are natural are 0.01%.

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

And as science has found:

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

You do believe in science don't you?

 

[**Sophie**]

If that were true then you would have to say that most of the changes weren't anthropogenic, but there was still anthropogenic changes happening, but that claim is not correct.
As you know, the chances that the changes we are experiencing are natural are 0.01%.


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

And as science has found:

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

You do believe in science don't you?

How much global warming was caused by AGW before 1951?

 

[basketcase]

...
The respondents were asked how much of the warming since 1950 was attributable to human emissions. ....

So you're going to stick with that survey where only 7% support your view that far less than 25% of warming was AGW? The same survey where only 9% support your claims that the temperature hasn't increased in the preceding decade?

 

[Frankfooter]

That's your idea of "fairly stable",...

As far as reading a graph,...each division is 50,000 years,...just what the hell has that got to do with the AGW crowd singling out 50 or even 100 years now,...???

FAST

The last few thousand of years, or this present interglacial period, were relatively stable compared to the the rest of that chart.
It shows you that yes, the climate changes and can change drastically. We've been lucky (or it was only possible for humans to have been able to build civilizations) during this interglacial period. Humans came into existence about 200,000 years ago, but civilization or the holocene (though this term isn't in favour at present) didn't really start until about 10,000 years ago, same as this present interglacial.

Humans existed but didn't thrive under a different climate.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

 

[Frankfooter]

How much global warming was caused by AGW before 1951?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Check it out.

 

[fuji]

"What we do not have is a clear understanding of all the other things that impact climate,...but we know how AGW effects it exactly"

That's a true statement. You're welcome.

 

[fuji]

Putting aside the "exactly as predicted" idiocy, the big unknown is whether man-made emissions are even a significant factor.

In fact, exactly as predicted. We know exactly how much heat AGW contributes. It's fairly straight forward Feb a physics perspective and now it's been measured.

I note that you ran from the challenge, so I will repeat it:

If I pony up $32 for the full text and the references to the prediction in question turn it to be the prediction used in the computer models you disparaged, will you finally shut up?

 

[FAST]

That's a true statement. You're welcome.

Glad you agree that,..."What we do not have is a clear understanding of all the other things that impact climate,...but we know how AGW effects it exactly",...confirms that what the Climate Chaos Clowns are spewing is ridiculous.

"We don't how it got there,...but we know exactly were it is,...so the science of how it got there,...is confirmed"

FAST

 

[FAST]

The last few thousand of years, or this present interglacial period, were relatively stable compared to the the rest of that chart.

BULL SHIT,...there are a number of areas on you "chart" with 50,000 year increments, that are just as "stable " as the last segment on your "chart".

Which also confirms that what C.C.C are preaching is also BULL SHIT,...since as you stated,...the present period is relatively stable.

FAST

 

[fuji]

Glad you agree that,..."What we do not have is a clear understanding of all the other things that impact climate,...but we know how AGW effects it exactly",...confirms that what the Climate Chaos Clowns are spewing is ridiculous.

"We don't how it got there,...but we know exactly were it is,...so the science of how it got there,...is confirmed"

FAST

On the contrary, AGW is confirmed. It's empirical fact.

Is human activity warming the planet? Yes.

Do we know how much warming? Yes.

Are there other factors? Yes.

There are indeed studies on how much of recent warming AGW is responsible for, and we can move on to that once you guys concede that AGW is proved fact.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If that were true then you would have to say that most of the changes weren't anthropogenic, but there was still anthropogenic changes happening, but that claim is not correct.

Really? If that's how you feel, why are researchers who believe that included in your calculation of the "consensus"?