Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

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

"Climate change" is too vague a term to have any meaning.

Assuming that you're asking whether man-made emissions have at least some small effect on the Earth's temperature, the answer is yes, I believe that. So do Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, etc., etc.

Do I believe the influence is significant? Based on the observed data, of course not.

Do I believe the predictions about how man-made emissions would affect the planet were accurate? Of course not. So far, the predictions for the 21st century have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

Do I think the IPCC has any credibility? Certainly not.

Do I believe there is any reason to worry? Of course not.

Do I think that people who believe the minor changes in the Earth's temperature over the past 150 years are overwhelmingly due to natural factors should be characterized as believers in "anthropogenic climate change"? No, that's pure idiocy.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

Unlike you, I actually do understand what the researchers were saying.

As the full text of the news release confirmed, the statement about the study's results showing the computer model calculations to be on track was specific to CO2 alone.

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

I'm not evading anything. Here's a review:

- You don't understand the science behind the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

- You made outrageous statements about the veracity of the hypothesis that are unsupported by any facts.

- You tried to defend your bogus statements by inaccurately citing a paper in Nature that you didn't understand -- and had never even read.

- When your bogus claims were exposed, you inaccurately referenced a quote in a news release that you also didn't understand.

Assuming your news release has correctly reported the paper's findings, there is nothing in the paper that refutes anything I have said.

 

[eznutz]

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.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

You picked a real loser.

You go to rationalwiki & wikipedia to do your research, instead of doing actual research, you're not very bright are you.
If you had, you would of noticed how much more accurate his weather predictions have been, compared to the MET, for about 10 years now.
The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
I guess you've been drinking the Mann/IPCC Kool-Aid for too long.

Anyway, a correlation between solar magnetism and earthquakes has already been modelled and confirmed.

First Great Earthquake of 2016 Matches SPF-Trigger Pattern
http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ResearchUpdateM7.8Indonesia3.2.16.pdf

You stick to your Kool-Aid, I'll stick to mine.

 

[basketcase]

Once again, you're misrepresenting the numbers ....

Or in the real world, quoting the actual study you posted. You claimed that human CO2 is responsible for significantly less than 25% of global warming. 7% of scientists support that claim. You claimed that there has been no statistical warming during the past decade. 9% of scientists support that claim (and of course you dropped that from the quote above)

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

Then why do only 7-9% of scientists agree with you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Or in the real world, quoting the actual study you posted. You claimed that human CO2 is responsible for significantly less than 25% of global warming. 7% of scientists support that claim. You claimed that there has been no statistical warming during the past decade. 9% of scientists support that claim (and of course you dropped that from the quote above)


Then why do only 7-9% of scientists agree with you?

In "the real world", 6.5 + 9.9 + 8.8 = 7? :biggrin1:

 

[basketcase]

In "the real world", 6.5 + 9.9 + 8.8 = 7? :biggrin1:

In the real world, your stated opinion was "significantly less that 25%". You can't suddenly claim you also think it's between 25% and 50% as well as unknown. And why do you want to avoid that only 9% agree with you about the temperature being stagnant for the past decade?

Once again all you're doing is showing that only the fringes of the scientific community support your claims.

 

[fuji]

Unlike you, I actually do understand what the researchers were saying.

No you don't. You SAY you do, but you say a lot of things, and you routinely demonstrate that you don't understand how science is performed at all. I would like to highlight your asinine claim elsehwere that large residuals invalidate a regression as an example of how you don't understand a single fucking thing about how science is done. You just don't. At all.

As the full text of the news release confirmed, the statement about the study's results showing the computer model calculations to be on track was specific to CO2 alone.

The study was looking specifically at the influence of CO2. It's not *possible* to measure the energy produced by CO2 alone. They measured ALL the energy, and simultaneously measured how much CO2 was present in the atmosphere. They then determined the impact the CO2 was having on the total energy they measured over the 10 year period of observation.

Just stop posting this blithering nonsense -- you are a catastrophe when it comes to understanding scientific material.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is hilarious. Now, Fuji is saying he doesn't believe the findings in the paper he cited.

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.

It's not *possible* to measure the energy produced by CO2 alone.

The researchers claim they separated out the signals from clouds and water vapour to "isolate" the signals "attributed solely to CO2?"

How? Fuji says that's "not possible."

If Fuji's right, how did they ever manage to get this paper published?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You can't suddenly claim you also think it's between 25% and 50% as well as unknown.

Are you and Fuji part of some sort of comedy act?

I didn't make that claim. The numbers I added up were the researchers whose views are similar to mine -- they either reported the influence as less than 25% or said it's unknown or they don't know what the impact is (which is true -- the researchers have no idea).

It's as legitimate to add up those responses as it is to add up the responses that put the influence over 50%.

 

[Frankfooter]

I didn't make that claim. The numbers I added up were the researchers whose views are similar to mine .

Too bad that's not what the author of the study concluded.

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.

Still trying to work your shoddy troll math skills, eh loser?
You are quoting a study and at the same time calling the author of said study a liar.

Total troll behaviour.

 

[Frankfooter]

You go to rationalwiki & wikipedia to do your research, instead of doing actual research, you're not very bright are you.
If you had, you would of noticed how much more accurate his weather predictions have been, compared to the MET, for about 10 years now.
The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
I guess you've been drinking the Mann/IPCC Kool-Aid for too long.

Speaking of Kool-aid, what flavour is yours?

That article you linked to, showing how excellent your shoddy source is, was from 2010.
Since that time Corbyn bankrupted his company based on bets on his shoddy predictions.

2010.

Talk about shoddy research.
You really should be embarrassed.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Climate change" is too vague a term to have any meaning.

Assuming that you're asking whether man-made emissions have at least some small effect on the Earth's temperature, the answer is yes, I believe that. So do Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, etc., etc.

Do I believe the influence is significant? Based on the observed data, of course not.

That's a start.
You admit that anthropogenic climate change is real, even if you aren't smart or honest enough to be able to define climate change.
(may I suggest you use 'the google'?)

Now to tackle your other nonsense.

Do I believe the predictions about how man-made emissions would affect the planet were accurate? Of course not. So far, the predictions for the 21st century have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

Lets take a look at those projections again, and lets take a look at those by the privately funded scientists at Exxon as well as those publicly funded scientists around the world represented by the IPCC and reality. And lets again note that your verdict of accuracy is not based on IPCC projections being as accurate as they claimed, instead your personal claim of their accuracy is based you claiming that the IPCC median projection must absolutely match reality. Total troll argument.

Note that both public and private researchers came to the same conclusions and both projections are quite good.

Do I think the IPCC has any credibility? Certainly not.

Do I think your troll opinion on the credibility of science is worth anything in this argument? Certainly not.

Do I believe there is any reason to worry? Of course not.

Furthermore, even if February 2016 was 2ºC warmer than the average February temperature from 200 years ago, so what? That doesn't prove that something unusual or unprecedented has occurred.

Troll.

 

[eznutz]

Speaking of Kool-aid, what flavour is yours?

That article you linked to, showing how excellent your shoddy source is, was from 2010.
Since that time Corbyn bankrupted his company based on bets on his shoddy predictions.

2010.

Talk about shoddy research.
You really should be embarrassed.

You should be embarrassed by your own shoddy research, Pier's never filed for bankruptcy.
He exited the alternative investment market (AIM) in 1999. But you fail to point out that for the 10 years before that, he was making money on his predictions.
"His betting attracted much interest in 1990, when his predictions of severe weather were met by a year of the "worst extremes"

Since 1999, he has continued to put the MET to shame with his predictions, without putting his money on the line.

 

[fuji]

The researchers claim they separated out the signals from clouds and water vapour to "isolate" the signals "attributed solely to CO2?"

By measuring all the energy. So do you finally shut up if I pay the $32 and get the full text? You are becoming increasingly evasive which indicates you know you are wrong. You're grasping at straws now.

 

[Frankfooter]

You should be embarrassed by your own shoddy research, Pier's never filed for bankruptcy.

Right.

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.[1] Corbyn claimed that the failure was because of his company's small size compared to high overhead, which is bizarre after public statements that the business was doing great, "turning over" £250,000 compared to overhead costs of ~£70,000.

And

Most scientists on the other hand completely ignored him, as his estimates are so vague the weather needs to be well off to be wrong. Taking into account how vague he can be, like giving high winds and heavy rain as a prediction, he is still largely wrong when compared to actual.[2] In 2007 some people who had tired of his whining took a look at his forecast for killer storms to lash Britain on the 17th of October, and the last week of November[3]... which never happened. Undeterred by his abject failure he predicted January 2008 to be a period of intense cold (-17C)[4] - it turned out to be one of the warmest Januarys on record. Corbyn has made it a bit difficult after those highly-mocked failures to criticize his inaccuracies due to him banning the use of extracts of his works, and suing most anyone who tries.

Keep digging.
Tell me more about how accurate you think he is and how much money you put on his predictions.

opcorn:

edit.

eznuts, you better go order a new parka.
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/WANews13No5_The_new_Mini_Ice_Age_is_upon_us_IdesMarch.pdf

That is what you claim is more accurate then the MET Office?
stooooooopid!

 

[eznutz]

you better go order a new parka.
That is what you claim is more accurate then the MET Office?
stooooooopid!

So you post quotes with no sources, is that how you do your own research.
Anybody can post garbage on Rationalwiki & Wikipedia, and have people like you believe every word.
Unless you do your own research of his actual work, instead of copy & pasting garbage, you have no idea.

Personally, I'll take his research and opinion over your baseless accusations, because he has a success rate of 85% in forecasting.
Here is an Audited Assessment report of his forecasts for the period October 2008 to April 2009
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAcoverletter.pdf & http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAaudit2.pdf

Here is testimony to UK's Parliament commending his work, and destroying yours.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/254/254vw28.htm

Keep drinking the Mann/IPCC Kool-Aid and get yourself some sunblock SPF2000 while your at it.

 

[FAST]

Still waiting

By measuring all the energy. So do you finally shut up if I pay the $32 and get the full text? You are becoming increasingly evasive which indicates you know you are wrong. You're grasping at straws now.

FUJI,...your still avoiding my question as to what is the % of "all the energy" that can be attributed to ONLY made made CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plus, what "exactly" is the effect of ONLY man made CO2 on the so called "global warming", in %.

FAST

 

[FAST]

You admit that anthropogenic climate change is real,...

No proof, and if there was, just how much can it be "exactly" attributed to man made CO2,...???

Lets take a look at those projections again, and lets take a look at those by the privately funded scientists at Exxon as well as those publicly funded scientists around the world represented by the IPCC and reality.

So what,...unless you can state "exactly" how much the so called "global warming" can be attributed to man made CO2,...useless.

FAST

 

[fuji]

FUJI,...your still avoiding my question as to what is the % of "all the energy" that can be attributed to ONLY made made CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plus, what "exactly" is the effect of ONLY man made CO2 on the so called "global warming", in %.

FAST

I don't know the answer to your question, though once we agree that AGW exists and contributes .2 watts per square meter per decade of additional heat we can look into further studies.

Let's proceed point by point, starting with AGW is experimentally confirmed and its impact well measured.

Your question requires looking at ALL sources of heat and cooling many of which are much less well understood.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By measuring all the energy. So do you finally shut up if I pay the $32 and get the full text? You are becoming increasingly evasive which indicates you know you are wrong. You're grasping at straws now.

You don't understand the paper that was in Nature (that you've actually never read) and you don't even understand the news release.

Apparently, a large part of the problem is that you don't know what the words "isolate" and "solely" mean. Try looking them up.

Pointing out that you are completely ignorant is not being "evasive."