Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[escortsxxx]

El Niño is a naturally occurring event in the equatorial region which causes temporary changes in the world climate. Originally, El Niño was the name used for warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America.

Removing El Nino? El nino is a caused by climate change, and is natural in the sense that the ocean getting colder (in an area) from Ice breaking off from the land is normal - when the same ice would not be in the water in the first place if the temperature was not higher than normal.
Of course that above average warming itself can be caused by a variety of factors - one of which is carbon in the air.

 

[Frankfooter]

http://www.c3headlines.com/sunsolarcosmicoscillationorbital-cycles/

Thanks, the chart uses maximum daily temperatures from the US, not global temperatures.
Figured it was something basic like that.

 

[Frankfooter]

And AGW is how far behind?

Human greenhouse gases are the number one influence presently.

 

[eznutz]

From the same source:


you are the kook.

You and your website skeptical science can't even get your charts right and make outrageous claims about solar output.

Solar output is about 1366 W/m2 and for the past 37 years has fluctuated ~2%, on a downward trend.
Your chart goes back to 1880 with solar data that is a total guess, the chart is garbage.
We have no idea what the solar output was for any year before 1978, but before this time science ASSUMED it was constant.
Since 1978, we now know solar output fluctuates, and it's going down.

Do you think less solar energy reaching earth will help keep the planet warm, or that the sun doesn't keep the earth warm at all.

 

[eznutz]

Human greenhouse gases are the number one influence presently.

Yep, AGW is responsible for .2% in added heat to the global average.
That we agree

 

[eznutz]

Thanks, the chart uses maximum daily temperatures from the US, not global temperatures.
Figured it was something basic like that.

But the CO2 is the part i was interested in, didn't you notice how it exploded in the last 35 years.
Might explain the recent warming, all that extra heat trapping gas.
Plus the fact we're experiencing the strongest El Niño since 1997.
El Niño is a transfer of stored heat into atmosphere, total ocean heat capacity is about 1000x greater than total atmosphere.

What do you think heats the ocean?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your claim that the radiative forcing could be less because of offsetting factors is directly proved wrong because they measured all the downwelling energy in concluding that CO2 from human sources (and not from other sources) adds the incremental radiative forcing.

You've still got it wrong.

The energy measurement is for CO2 alone, without the measurements for water vapour and clouds. As I have repeatedly explained to you, the measurement that is "solely" due to CO2 is too small to worry about. That measurement alone tells us nothing about the AGW hypothesis, as the debate is about the effect from water vapour.

As for whether or not you spend the $32, I told you my terms. And they are non-negotiable.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You have accepted that man influences the climate, now you are just denying the real impact.

"Accepted" is a bullshit word. I never disputed that.

But since I don't believe it is the dominant factor, how does that make me a believer in "anthropogenic climate change." I still don't think you know what the word "anthropogenic" means.

 

[Frankfooter]

But since I don't believe it is the dominant factor, how does that make me a believer in "anthropogenic climate change." I still don't think you know what the word "anthropogenic" means.

You accept that man's actions are changing the planet's climate.
Your argument is now down to claiming that the effect of AGW is small, and that all the changes we are experiencing are 'natural'.
This vague claim of 'natural' has no basis in reality, its just the corner of the floor left after you painted over everything else.

Just as every other of your claims has been demolished, this one also has been shown to be nonsense, with there only being a 0.01% chance you are correct.

It was only a few months ago that you were claiming that satellites were the only reliable source of temperature data, but now that the satellite data shows the same increases I'm sure that argument will fade away as well.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/05/troposphere-temperatures-for-april-and.html

The disputed word really is 'accepted'.
You will never accept reality, you are a denier.

 

[fuji]

The energy measurement is for CO2 alone, without the measurements for water vapour and clouds.

When $32 reveals you are wrong will you finally shut up and stop posting your idiotic anti AGW propaganda?

 

[basketcase]

That's not an answer.
....

Your stated opinion on causation is supported by 7% of scientists.
Your stated opinion on recent trends is supported by 9% of scientists.

What that answers is your refusal to accept scientific evidence.

 

[basketcase]

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....

So you're not saying the sun is causing global warming, just that the sun is causing global warming?

There is a reason why the scientific community have estimated the impact as 2%.

 

[basketcase]

I was hoping he was going to show me something like this

Do you have a similar chart for global temperatures (since we're talking about global warming)?

 

[basketcase]

...
Solar output is about 1366 W/m2 and for the past 37 years has fluctuated ~2%, on a downward trend.....

So why haven't we seen a downward trend in global temperatures for the past 37 years?


p.s. You keep flipping back and forth between blaming the energy output from the sun and blaming sunspots. Which is it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your argument is now down to claiming that the effect of AGW is small, and that all the changes we are experiencing are 'natural'.

I don't think you know what the word "now" means. My argument is the exact same as it has always been.

And it remains impossible to see how my position squares with your claim that I "admit" that anthropogenic climate change is real.

I genuinely don't think you know the meaning of the word "anthropogenic." I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean "that all the changes we are experiencing are 'natural'".

(Never mind that I have no idea what "all the changes" are that you're talking about. But I can only handle so much illogic in any single one of your posts.)

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your stated opinion on causation is supported by 7% of scientists.
Your stated opinion on recent trends is supported by 9% of scientists.

What that answers is your refusal to accept scientific evidence.

LMFAO!

Putting aside the fact that your calculation of the number of respondents who share my views is wrong, when did a show of hands become "scientific evidence"? :Eek:

I think you need someone to explain to you how the scientific method works.

 

[Moviefan-2]

When $32 reveals you are wrong will you finally shut up and stop posting your idiotic anti AGW propaganda?

I told you my terms. All that remains is for you to accept them or reject them.

 

[bishop]

So why haven't we seen a downward trend in global temperatures for the past 37 years?


p.s. You keep flipping back and forth between blaming the energy output from the sun and blaming sunspots. Which is it?

The same reason why over the past decade we did not see a consistent rise in global temperature due to increasing CO2.

 

[fuji]

I told you my terms. All that remains is for you to accept them or reject them.

Your "terms" were that you would reject anything that refutes your faith based religious views on climate change. You really mocked yourself with that post.

Sorry but you aren't a credible judge of science, you are a bombast who has been discredited and now you insist that even if the Nature article proves you wrong you won't shut up.

 

[eznutz]

So why haven't we seen a downward trend in global temperatures for the past 37 years?


p.s. You keep flipping back and forth between blaming the energy output from the sun and blaming sunspots. Which is it?

go read my post to frank, #527. That's my answer why.
By the way, I'm not flipping back and forth on anything.
The suns output is decreasing, less sunspots = less solar output.

Do you think less solar output will add more stored heat to the Oceans.