Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[eznutz]

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

Name a denier who has made more accurate predictions.

Piers Corbyn, he's accurately predicted England's climate for years, and keeps putting the MET to shame. https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/
Climate changes all the time, it's cyclical.

Solar forcing will always be the dominant constant driver of our climate, and putting CO2 into the atmosphere to keep us warm when the Sun is going into a quiet cycle might not be such a bad thing. When the earth's temperature cycle's back to what it was in the 1600's, some people are going to very happy we figured out how to burn oil to stay warm.

Unless, of course, you believe we will have run away temperatures for eternity.

 

[Frankfooter]

NONE of the above are new.

FAST

AMOC slowdown is most definitely new and quite scary in its ramifications.
Polar ice melt and glacial melts are new to the history of humanity.
There have been lots of droughts before, but the amount we are seeing and their lengths are different.
The extreme weather we've seen in the last decade or two is quite different according to the insurance industry, the ones paying for it.

 

[wigglee]

Northern Alberta has temperatures in the 30's in early May and the city that gave us dirty oil goes up in flames.... let's not be alarmist however!

 

[Frankfooter]

Piers Corbyn, he's accurately predicted England's climate for years, and keeps putting the MET to shame. https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/
Climate changes all the time, it's cyclical.

Good one, eznutz.
You really know how to pick 'em.

Corbyn thinks you can predict earthquakes through solar activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

Apparently his company, which he bragged was so accurate, went out of business, driven out by his shoddy work.

He also frequently bets on the accuracy of the results, and founded a company to profit off his predictions in 1997. It was later taken private in 1999 due to staggering losses of £70,000 in the first year, and £480,000 in the second

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

You picked a real loser.

 

[fuji]

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.

Squirming around trying to get mileage by misinterpreting the release won't really help you. For $32 I can get the full article and end your silly attempts to evade the facts.

They measured all the energy downwelling and used spectrography to determine the composition of the gases in the atmosphere. The full text will be explicit on the measures with references to the exact predictions, which will end your blithering.

So again, if I do that, will you finally shut up?

 

[fuji]

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

The study above put it in watts per square foot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

This is an interesting question. What happened to your IPCC claims that human emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?

Your definition of "anthropogenic climate change" seems to be going through its own changes on a daily basis.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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.

Once again, you're misrepresenting the numbers to create another one of your fairy-tale conclusions (much like the one I cited in the original post).

Regardless, unlike your views, my opinions are clearly supported by the data.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Squirming around trying to get mileage by misinterpreting the release won't really help you. For $32 I can get the full article and end your silly attempts to evade the facts.

They measured all the energy downwelling and used spectrography to determine the composition of the gases in the atmosphere. The full text will be explicit on the measures with references to the exact predictions, which will end your blithering.

So again, if I do that, will you finally shut up?

So, now you're saying the news release you cited has got it completely wrong.

Nothing is being represented. Your news release explicitly says the data cited only applied to the modelling specific to CO2, and not water vapour. Assuming that's correct, the paper tells us nothing about the merits of the AGW hypothesis.

If your news release is correct, the paper doesn't refute anything that I have been saying.

Waste your money on it, if you like. But you don't get to create a false metric for measuring the hypothesis.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is an interesting question. What happened to your IPCC claims that human emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?

Your definition of "anthropogenic climate change" seems to be going through its own changes on a daily basis.

Nothing has changed in my claims.
I asked you a question, can't you answer it?


Do you believe there is any climate change caused by humans?

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again, you're misrepresenting the numbers to create another one of your fairy-tale conclusions (much like the one I cited in the original post).

You are the one lying about the conclusions of this study, as noted repeatedly they said:

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.

Now you are denying the conclusions of a study you quoted.
tsk tsk


:whoo:


New study is out suggesting that climate change could make the entire middle east uninhabitable.
If you thought dealing with Syrian refugees is a pain, just wait.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/04/clim...rth-africa-and-middle-east-uninhabitable.html

 

[FAST]

1- AMOC slowdown is most definitely new and quite scary in its ramifications.
2 - Polar ice melt and glacial melts are new to the history of humanity.
3 -There have been lots of droughts before, but the amount we are seeing and their lengths are different.
4 -The extreme weather we've seen in the last decade or two is quite different according to the insurance industry, the ones paying for it.

1- Not confirmed.
2- Not correct.
3- Different ?
4- Insurance companies, that bastion of scientific data, only proves that claim is also BS.

FAST

 

[FAST]

The study above put it in watts per square foot.

So no way of applying this theory to establish what % of the so called global warming, is caused by AGW.

Unless we can use this theory to state what % of the so called global warming is caused by AGW, doesn't really accomplish much, if anything.

And some graph depicting the earths temp. rising in lock step with the increase of CO2, theoretically caused by man, which are comical at best, we still have no way of confirming that man is causing the claimed global warming.

FAST

 

[fuji]

So, now you're saying the news release you cited has got it completely wrong.

Nope. You failed to understand it. The study measured all the energy downwelling and also measured co2 levels.

You aren't going to evade this by throwing up sand.

 

[fuji]

So no way of applying this theory to establish what % of the so called global warming, is caused by AGW.

This study confirmed the amount of heat being added to the system by AGW.

 

[FAST]

This study confirmed the amount of heat being added to the system by AGW.

And it is,...???

FAST

 

[fuji]

And it is,...???

FAST

0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.

 

[FAST]

0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.

So no idea what %,...right,...!!!

With out the ability to express what that amount the AGW proponents claim in % of the total added by ALL sources, which must equal 100%,...meaningless.

FAST

 

[fuji]

So no idea what %,...right,...!!!

With out the ability to express what that amount the AGW proponents claim in % of the total added by ALL sources, which must equal 100%,...meaningless.

FAST

This particular study confirmed the rate at which AGW heats the planet. Once you accept that the planet is heating up at a rate of 0.2 watts per square meter per decade because of human activity we can look at other studies to see how that fits in with other factors that are heating or cooling the planet.

But that's a wrap on AGW being a confirmed effect.

 

[FAST]

This particular study confirmed the rate at which AGW heats the planet. Once you accept that the planet is heating up at a rate of 0.2 watts per square meter per decade because of human activity we can look at other studies to see how that fits in with other factors that are heating or cooling the planet.

But that's a wrap on AGW being a confirmed effect.

Why would I accept what that "study" suggests.

Its still meaningless without some way of quantifying it, it has to be put in perspective.

How do all of the other factors that heat up the planet compare with that rate, IF it is fact, I would assume the sun has a little something to do with heating up the planet.

Nobody is debating that CO2 is not a green house gas, but according to YALE, "Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2".

Another thing I would have to have clarified, how did these "experts" determine "exactly" what amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to man ?


FAST