Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

Who cares about fuji?

The reference was to Franky -- short for Frankfooter.

Actually, I think you're losing it. I'm not trying to claim anything. I'm just trying to understand what you guys are saying.

I have provided the same answers to both of you. In response:

- Frankfooter insists that I have taken a position that he says is backed by 97% of climate researchers.

- You say only 7% to 9% of climate researchers agree with me.

That's quite a spread. You can't both be right.

So who's got it right? -- You or Frankfooter?

 

[Moviefan-2]

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.

I know what the word "solely" means. So that puts me well ahead of you, doesn't it? :thumb:

 

[fuji]

Keep debating with Franky, you might feel like you are winning. He isn't able to call you on your bullshit, like your asinine claims that variability in temperature versus the model invalidates them. Maybe some people here on terb don't know how stupid that claim was, but it instantly exposed you as a bombast.

Then you started punching yourself in the head over the Nature article which proved AGW and quantified the amount of heat it contributes. Undeniably. But you're stupidly trying to deny it anyway.

You think this debate is a word game. You think you can sound like you have a point by disputing whether it's 3% or 7% of scientists who agree with you, whether the global temperature rise by the predicted amount or a hair less.

But it's just bombast to create the illusion of debate. You have no arguments. You have only straws to grasp au, rhetorical blither to conver up your lack of a real point.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

Overlay that chart with a chart of global temperatures, there is no linkage.
In other words, the global temp doesn't shift with sunspots, its not a major influence on the climate of this planet.

Corbyn is a kook.

 

[Frankfooter]

- Frankfooter insists that I have taken a position that he says is backed by 97% of climate researchers.

No, your kooky troll ideas are not shared by 97% of climate researchers.
But you have taken the first step and admitted that anthropogenic climate change is real and has an effect on the climate.

Now the argument becomes how much of an influence.
So far you have presented absolutely nothing to back your troll like claim that nothing is happening, while I have shown that there is a 99.99% chance that you are wrong.

The questions that has been answered is who has it wrong, clearly that's you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Keep debating with Franky, you might feel like you are winning.

I get the same feeling when I debate a total ignoramus like you. The only frustrating part is dealing with your refusal to even try to learn something about the subject.

Then you started punching yourself in the head over the Nature article which proved AGW and quantified the amount of heat it contributes.

Wrong again. The Nature article only referred to the heat "solely" attributable to CO2, after they removed the calculated energy from sources that can "also" emit energy, such as water vapour and clouds. You still don't know what the word "solely" means.

The direction contribution that comes "solely" from CO2 is too small to worry about. That paper does not prove the AGW hypothesis is valid.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, your kooky troll ideas are not shared by 97% of climate researchers.
But you have taken the first step and admitted that anthropogenic climate change is real and has an effect on the climate.

Say what?

You're saying that my alleged position that "anthropogenic climate change is real" is "not shared by 97% of climate researchers"?

Well, then, how many climate researchers do support the claim that "anthropogenic climate change is real"?

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong again. The Nature article only referred to the heat directly attributable to CO2, after water vapour and the clouds had been separated out of the equation.

The direction contribution from CO2 is too small to worry about. That paper does not prove the AGW hypothesis is valid.

This is yet another paper that you are lying about.
The authors specifically stated that the nature paper does prove AGW is real and the only explanation for what we are experiencing on this planet.


Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791


Your ridiculous troll arguments about CO2 are just that much more noise and disinformation.
The authors have clearly stated your claims are bullshit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is yet another paper that you are lying about.
The authors specifically stated that the nature paper does prove AGW is real and the only explanation for what we are experiencing on this planet.

Nonsense. Just like Fuji, I'm sure you've never even read the paper.

(We're not talking about the Fyfe paper, troll.)

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. Just like Fuji, I'm sure you've never even read the paper.

(We're not talking about the Fyfe paper, troll.)

My mistake, its hard to keep track of which paper you are lying about today.
So far the tally is 2 consensus studies and the Fyfe paper, both of which you lied about their findings.

And now you are claiming this study disproves AGW?
You are on a roll, troll.

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Feb. 25 in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

 

[fuji]

I get the same feeling when I debate a total ignoramus like you. The only frustrating part is dealing with your refusal to even try to learn something about the subject.



Wrong again. The Nature article only referred to the heat "solely" attributable to CO2, after they removed the calculated energy from sources that can "also" emit energy, such as water vapour and clouds. You still don't know what the word "solely" means.

The direction contribution that comes "solely" from CO2 is too small to worry about. That paper does not prove the AGW hypothesis is valid.

And you continue punching yourself in the head. Showing that no matter how hard and thorough the science you will refuce to accept it.

The study conclusively proved that increasing CO2 levels result in increased heating, and showed that the amount of increased heating exactly matched the prediction made by the AGW hypothesis, confirming that hypothesis.

It measured the additional heating contributed by CO2 by measuring all the heat and isolating the contribution from CO2 by measuring the amount of CO2 present.

You just don't want to accept the facts. You have s religious viewpoint that is hereby refuted with data, but you don't care about data. Your beliefs are faith based.

 

[basketcase]

The reference was to Franky -- short for Frankfooter....

Or him.

Your stated opinion of the causes is supported by 7% of scientists.
Your stated opinion that there has been no change tin the past decade is supported by 9% of scientists.

But sure, continue your word games to distract from your anti-science agenda.

...
So who's got it right? -- You or Frankfooter?

The survey you posted shows it isn't you.

 

[basketcase]

I certainly hope the predictions are wrong, but when NASA puts out a prediction like this, you start to worry.....

Again, what does this have to do with global warming? You suggested that sun spots were the main cause of global warming yet the graphs you post bear no connection to observations.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And now you are claiming this study disproves AGW?
You are on a roll, troll.

I think we know who the troll is -- the guy who has no idea what anyone is talking about (and has never read the paper in question), but accuses me of "lying" regardless.

For the record, I didn't say it "disproves" the hypothesis. I said it tells us nothing one way or other about the merits of the hypothesis. Try to keep up.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The study conclusively proved that increasing CO2 levels result in increased heating, and showed that the amount of increased heating exactly matched the prediction made by the AGW hypothesis, confirming that hypothesis.

It measured the additional heating contributed by CO2 by measuring all the heat and isolating the contribution from CO2 by measuring the amount of CO2 present.

You still don't know what you're talking about. Read the damn news release -- what was isolated was CO2 from water vapour and clouds.

No one disputes that there is warming that is "solely" due to man-made CO2. But that warming is too small to matter.

The dispute is over the alleged amplification that supposedly comes from water vapour. The paper you cited doesn't speak to that -- the energy numbers you cited are only for the part that is "solely" due to CO2 alone.

Again, climate researchers on all sides of the debate will tell you the impact from CO2 alone is too small to matter. The energy numbers you cited tell us nothing about the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The survey you posted shows it isn't you.

That's not an answer.

You and Franky are the ones playing word games. Your "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change" is a load of bullshit, created by constantly changing the meaning of the words to the point of utter meaninglessness.

The proof: One of you says my position is supported by 97% of climate researchers, the other says it's less than 10%. That's quite a spread, my friend.

 

[eznutz]

Again, what does this have to do with global warming? You suggested that sun spots were the main cause of global warming yet the graphs you post bear no connection to observations.

I never suggested Sun spots are the cause of AGW, I'm saying sunspots have a greater influence on the amount of solar radiation that hits the earth.
If our sun spot count falls to the levels it was in the 1800's & 1600's we should expect another cooling period, and it happens about every 200 years.

 

[eznutz]

Overlay that chart with a chart of global temperatures, there is no linkage

And how much CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere since 1985-2016, compared to 1880 - 1976.
I think that answers your question

it's not a major influence on the climate of this planet

You REALLY believe that the sun is "not a major influence on the climate of this planet"

Now who is the kook.

 

[Frankfooter]

Say what?

You're saying that my alleged position that "anthropogenic climate change is real" is "not shared by 97% of climate researchers"?

Nope, your position that AGW is real is shared by pretty much all climate researchers.
Your kooky claim that its not influencing the planet's climate is not shared by many.
For instance, your deniers tried to poll the APS and found only 0.45% shared your beliefs.
http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed

I'd say that's probably more accurate a description of the ratio of scientists who hold similar ideas.
0.45%

 

[Frankfooter]

I think we know who the troll is -- the guy who has no idea what anyone is talking about (and has never read the paper in question), but accuses me of "lying" regardless.

For the record, I didn't say it "disproves" the hypothesis. I said it tells us nothing one way or other about the merits of the hypothesis. Try to keep up.

I've only had time to read the summary, but the summary shows you are lying about this study as well.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

That definitely shows an increase in heat tied directly to increased CO2 levels.
Its no longer a theory, its been proven in the field.