Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

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?

Before you spend your money on anything, clarify something for us:

Do the calculations in your research paper include the feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere, or are they only specific to CO2? You might want to take a closer look at your news release to find the answer.

Once I see your response, I'll tell you my position.

 

[canada-man]

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.

 

[canada-man]

 

[Frankfooter]

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".

FAST

How many were stable at 0º on that chart?
Zero.

According to that chart the planet sits comfortably more often in ice ages then it does at our present temperature, or at least our pre-industrial temperature.
Now that we've started fucking with it we don't know exactly where it will end up, if its going to go to a thermal maximum or just shift a few degrees and stay there.
The climate changes, but its a bit like a teeter totter, we had been balanced nicely in the middle for the last few thousand years, now we've started rocking it.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Frankfooter]

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

As I said, that claim is not correct.
And as noted, 97% of scientists studying the climate believe you are wrong.

You lost the consensus debate 8 to -2.
The consensus is legit, you not so much.

 

[Frankfooter]

Thanks, canada-man, for proving my point with that chart.

The chart I had posted was a more recent timescale, and it showed only a tiny section of the very right hand part of your chart.
As you can see from longer timescale we've had thermal maximums and ice ages that lasted for very long times.
The present interglacial period we are just ending wouldn't even be represented by more then a pixel or so on the very right hand edge of your chart.
And as noted, times where the temperature sat at 0º, where we were up until the industrial revolution, are rare and not that stable.
And we've just started fucking with the temporary stable climate we enjoyed.

 

[fuji]

Before you spend your money on anything, clarify something for us:

Do the calculations in your research paper include the feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere, or are they only specific to CO2? You might want to take a closer look at your news release to find the answer.

Once I see your response, I'll tell you my position.

The results in the paper are observations, not calculations, and measure the actual energy downwelling from the sky from all sources. It showed that the total energy down welling matched the prediction based on the amount of CO2 present and that this held up over a ten year period.

So yes since it is an observation of the actual energy down welling it implicitly includes any factor that would influence the energy downwelling.

 

[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

A complete NONE answer to my post,...and utterly ridiculous at best.

But keep on cutting and pasting somebody else's opinion,...that's what you do,...when you have nothing relative to post.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

As I said, that claim is not correct.

Somebody is suffering from short-term memory issues again. In fact, you said that claim was correct.

If they think there is even 1% of the climate changing through human influence then they accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

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.

You need to decide: Are the researchers who believe the human influence is "only a tiny amount" a part of the "consensus" or not?

Make up your mind.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So yes since it is an observation of the actual energy down welling it implicitly includes any factor that would influence the energy downwelling.

That's not what your news release said. It said the effects of water vapour had been isolated out and the signals you cited only refer to changes that are directly attributable to CO2.

Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

So, my official response to your challenge is don't waste your money.

This goes back to the point that K Douglas was making (I'm sure K Douglas could do a better job explaining it). The paper you cited may be interesting to climate researchers but it tells us nothing about the merits of the global warming hypothesis.

That's because it really doesn't matter whether the modelling runs specific to CO2 alone were right or not. Climate researchers on all side of the debate will tell you the actual warming from increases in CO2 alone is too small to worry about. It's the claims of amplified warming supposedly created by water vapour in the atmosphere that is at the centre of the scientific debate.

If your news release is correct, the paper you cited doesn't speak to the accuracy of the modelling projections for the water vapour amplification. Thus, it doesn't say anything that addresses the issues we're debating.

 

[basketcase]

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

Why do you use 7% of researchers to claim you are right?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Why do you use 7% of researchers to claim you are right?

I don't. Putting aside your flawed math, the PBL report was cited to help prove that the claims of a "97% consensus" are total B.S.

I never cited the results as a source for my opinions. I don't rely on appeals to authority. My views are based on the actual data.

 

[Frankfooter]

A complete NONE answer to my post,...and utterly ridiculous at best.

But keep on cutting and pasting somebody else's opinion,...that's what you do,...when you have nothing relative to post.

FAST

No cut and paste there, SLOW.
And go ahead and find me a 50,000 year period where the climate was stable at our pre-industrial zero line.
If you think its so common it ought to be easy.

 

[eznutz]

After 10 Years, Goracle’s 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient

Not all of the Goracle's predictions came true, but his message awoke a new breed of social warrior.
Here are some of his more glaring failed predictions...

Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow
The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse
The North Pole Still Has Ice
Greenland Melting Hasn't Happened

And to think this one movie spawned a whole industry based around EJW's, sucking at the taxpayer teat.

 

[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.

OK, I must have missed were it has been stated what the actual amount of "recent planet warming", in %, is attributed to AGW ?

As everybody knows, there are other factors that cause the planet to warm.

If we know "exactly" what the amount is caused by AGW, we must be able to express it in a %.

Otherwise, useless information.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't. Putting aside your flawed math, the PBL report was cited to help prove that the claims of a "97% consensus" are total B.S.

I never cited the results as a source for my opinions.

All it proves is that you lie a lot.

Conclusions
How does the PBL-study compare to the often-quoted 97% consensus?
The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpres...arming-is-largely-driven-by-greenhouse-gases/

Typical moviefan troll behaviour, just out and out lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

After 10 Years, Goracle’s 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient

Not all of the Goracle's predictions came true,

Quite a few have.
Drought, Ocean circulation issues, Ice melts, extreme weather.

Name a denier who has made more accurate predictions.

 

[Frankfooter]

You need to decide: Are the researchers who believe the human influence is "only a tiny amount" a part of the "consensus" or not?

Make up your mind.

First, do you believe there is any climate change caused by humans?

 

[basketcase]

I don't. Putting aside your flawed math, the PBL report was cited to help prove that the claims of a "97% consensus" are total B.S.....

Yet it shows instead that your beliefs are overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community.

Your 'significantly less than 25%' claim is supported by a mere 7% of scientists. Your temperature is stagnant claim is supported by only 9% of scientists.

 

[FAST]

Quite a few have.
Drought, Ocean circulation issues, Ice melts, extreme weather.

Name a denier who has made more accurate predictions.

NONE of the above are new.

FAST