Be sure to let us know if you ever find any evidence to support that statement. :thumb:
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
Well, this is interesting.
Frankfooter says my position represents an admission that "anthropogenic climate change is real."
And Basketcase insists that only 7% to 9% of climate researchers agree with that position.
Thus, if Frankfooter and Basketcase are right, that must mean only 7% to 9% of climate researchers believe that "anthropogenic climate change is real."
Either that or the global warming alarmists are once again battling among themselves.
Quotes were from rationalwiki, and I note that you are only shooting the messenger here, not addressing them.
And the link to the ice age post was a Corbyn prediction from 2013.
Three years ago he predicted a mini ice age, instead we got record warm years.
Still think his record is good?
Yes.
Your only claim is now that its effect is minor.
And we've shown that there is a 99.99% chance that claim is also wrong.
Funny how you claim to understand that paper better then then authors who wrote it.
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791
Over the long term, his record is exceptional. And when he made his "Mini-Ice Age" call, he did so based on the historical evidence of sun-spot cycles.
As I said previously, I'm firmly with him in the "sun drives our climate" camp, and I believe the Sun is going into another Maunder Minimum period.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Oh really now?
7% of scientists agree with you. Just like only 9% agree with you about temperature increase in the past decade being stagnant.
So when you compare that graph to the graph of measured temperature variation do you think it matches?Over the long term, his record is exceptional. And when he made his "Mini-Ice Age" call, he did so based on the historical evidence of sun-spot cycles.
As I said previously, I'm firmly with him in the "sun drives our climate" camp, and I believe the Sun is going into another Maunder Minimum period.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
If the current warming is the result of the peak of 2014, why didn't we see a much larger warming after the 2001 peak?
So when I pay the $32 to get the full text and post in detail exactly what they did, when it does show they measured all the energy downwelling and related it to the measured composition of atmospheric CO2, will you finally shut up?
You think you can wiggle around misreading words but I have $32. Do you have the integrity to commit to revising your view when the full text shows you misreading is wrong?
Not at all. Go back and read Franky's characterization of my position.
Are you saying he's wrong? :beguiled:
I'll tell you what, Fuji.
You want to spend the money. Go ahead. And I'll even commit that I'll accept that you're right if the paper actually confirms what you're saying. But I'll only agree to this on one condition:
Since it's a matter of public record that you don't understand any of this stuff (you don't even understand the news release), the final ruling about whether the paper's data supports what you're saying rests with me, and me alone. Not you.
You agree to that eminently reasonable -- and non-negotiable term -- and I'll agree to your terms.
No, all this says is that sun-spots are decreasing, and solar minimums have happened before.
The current warming has nothing to do with the low peak in 2014, I think it's because of the study released that everybody is arguing over.
CO2 today is at 400ppm, I'm not sure what it was in 1990 when globalization exploded, but I would expect that CO2 exploded in this time frame as well.
The way I understand the study, from 2000-2010 22ppm of added CO2 resulted in a net increase of 0.2 watt/meter²/decade of radiative heat.
Seems to me that time + ppm CO2 = heat and 1990 seems like an eternity ago, so that may be the cause of current temps.
But our Sun contributes 342 W/m2 (1366 W/m2 directly overhead if your in Kenya) and if that falls then we all have problems.
No, nothing rests with you. You don't comprehend science, you misread the article, and you routinely say asinine things like AGW must be wrong because the models have large residuals. You are a kook, you are innumerate, and you have willfully blinded yourself to the facts.
The point of this exercise is to mock your aversion to reason, not elevate an ignorant person like you to the position of judge.
All you are doing here is proving that you will reject the study NO MATTER WHAT.
That says it all.
fugi, I believe you should read this article, no need to ridicule anyone. Even when you think your right.
http://www.succeedsocially.com/intellectual
Who cares about fuji? Your own characterization of your opinion is:
Only 7% of scientists agree with you. You posted that survey so you must find their results reliable. You also claimed that there was statistically no warming in the past decade. Only 9% of scientists agree with that statement.Moviefan-2 said:
But sure. Keep on pretending your claims are supported by the evidence.
So in other words, posting about sun spot cycles is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with explanations of global warming. Thanks.No, all this says is that sun-spots are decreasing, and solar minimums have happened before.
The current warming has nothing to do with the low peak in 2014, I think it's because of the study released that everybody is arguing over.
CO2 today is at 400ppm, I'm not sure what it was in 1990 when globalization exploded, but I would expect that CO2 exploded in this time frame as well.
The way I understand the study, from 2000-2010 22ppm of added CO2 resulted in a net increase of 0.2 watt/meter²/decade of radiative heat.
Seems to me that time + ppm CO2 = heat and 1990 seems like an eternity ago, so that may be the cause of current temps.
But our Sun contributes 342 W/m2 (1366 W/m2 directly overhead if your in Kenya) and if that falls then we all have problems.
Right, so you think we are three years into the mini ice age as well?
Think I might have to bookmark your prediction, its going to come back to haunt you.
In other words, you will claim you are right no matter what happens and what fuji finds.
Just like you claimed you didn't lose the bet.
Don't take bets with trolls, they lie and cheat.
I certainly hope the predictions are wrong, but when NASA puts out a prediction like this, you start to worry.
Here is NASA's prediction for cycle 25 from 2006, you should pay attention to their cycle 24 prediction and compare to the actual I posted below.
≈210-yr exists between Grand minima, the Dalton minimum occurred in the early 1800's
The Maunder minimum happened in the 1600's, and was much worse (practically no sunspots for 22 years)
It's been about 200 year's since the Dalton minimum.
But if we keep pumping CO2 at the current rate, could we trap enough heat to weather the storm.
- Status
