Dream Spa
Toronto Escorts

Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

Status
Not open for further replies.

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
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.
Let's be clear that these various factors are additive. If there's been a change in solar output you can express that in terms is watts per square meter and add that to the watts contributed by AGW.

Pointing out that factors besides AGW also influence temperature is orthogonal to the proof of AGW.

Solar output is likely to by cyclical as well, while AGW is linear, at least, until we limit CO2 production.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,097
19,111
113
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'". :p

(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.)
Lets start with this as the changes:
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.
The change in global temperature since the industrial revolution has been clearly linked to CO2 increases by humans.
Thats anthropogenic climate change.

Yes, Feb 2016 saw 2C warmer-than-preindustrial "dangerous" warming: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/708811624891613185

7:37 PM - 12 Mar 2016 · San Diego, CA, United States
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,097
19,111
113
Since 1978, we now know solar output fluctuates, and it's going down.
And since then the planet has warmed up.
Which kills your theory that climate change is primarily caused by sunspots or change in output from a star.

Stupid theory, easily disproven.
 

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
Let's be clear that these various factors are additive. If there's been a change in solar output you can express that in terms is watts per square meter and add that to the watts contributed by AGW.

Pointing out that factors besides AGW also influence temperature is orthogonal to the proof of AGW.

Solar output is likely to by cyclical as well, while AGW is linear, at least, until we limit CO2 production.
I'm not disputing that AGW is linear and is on a upward track, man is definitely chemically altering the atmosphere.
What I'm disputing is that temperatures will continue to increase forever.
Solar energy averages about 164 watts/m2 globally over a 24 hour period, while AGW accounts for .2 watts/m2/decade.
We have only been able to accurately measure the sun since 1978, and our oceans store 1000x more heat than our atmosphere.
Our oceans only release this stored heat in cycles (El Nino), which is why we are experiencing the strongest El Nino since 1997 and the 2nd strongest in 100 years.

If the sun's energy output has been declining since 1978, do you think the oceans will continue to absorb, store and release heat at the same rate it has in the past?
 

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
And since then the planet has warmed up.
Which kills your theory that climate change is primarily caused by sunspots or change in output from a star.

Stupid theory, easily disproven.
You obviously have no clue about our sun's relationship to El Nino and our oceans, or the fact we have been pumping heat trapping gases into atmosphere at a greater rate in the last 35 years., which artificially traps more heat in the atmosphere.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,326
6,464
113
LMFAO!....
Are you now saying your opinions are different from what you have repeatedly stated?

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

If the science is so strongly behind your views, why do so few scientists actually support you?

I know you see yourself as some modern day Galileo, fighting against the corrupt system in your quest for truth but reality couldn't be further from the case. If you were alive in the 16th century, you would be the one complaining that since the motion of the stars and planets couldn't be perfectly predicted then the sun must revolve around the Earth.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,326
6,464
113
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.
You should really read up on sun spots vs. solar irradiance.

And where in that post do you explain why there is absolutely no evidence connecting the downward trend to global temperatures? You say there is a 37 year trend of solar cooling yet those 37 years shows global temperature increases.
 

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
And since then the planet has warmed up.
Which kills your theory that climate change is primarily caused by sunspots or change in output from a star.

Stupid theory, easily disproven.
And when discussing "Climate Change", I prefer to look at the historical data, not just the last 35 years.

 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,326
6,464
113
p.s.

Natural cooling of the Sun will not be enough to save Earth from global warming, warn scientists

There is about a one-in-five chance of the Sun entering the same kind of cooling phase that allowed “frost fairs” to be held on the frozen River Thames 300 years ago – but scientists warned that the next solar transition will not be enough to save the world from global warming.

A rapid decline in the Sun’s activity is making it increasingly likely that within the next half century the world will experience a “grand solar minimum”, which is thought to have contributed to the so-called Little Ice Age in Europe and parts of North America in the 17th and 18th Centuries.

However, a study has found that the expected fall in global average temperature resulting from the natural, long-term fluctuations in solar activity will be dwarfed by the projected rise in temperatures due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html


And scientists see only a 20% chance of a grand minimum in the next 50 years.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
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.
LMFAO!

What I said was the final decision would rest with me because you're a total ignoramus who can't even read a news release correctly.

It defies logic how you concluded that anyone who is bothered by your total ignorance must be "religious." :Eek:
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Lets start with this as the changes:


The change in global temperature since the industrial revolution has been clearly linked to CO2 increases by humans.
Thats anthropogenic climate change.
After you quoted me, all you did was follow up with your own opinions and a statement by fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann. You presented nothing that shows any change in my position.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out how you can call me both a believer and a denier at the exact same time (in the exact same post).
 

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
You should really read up on sun spots vs. solar irradiance.

And where in that post do you explain why there is absolutely no evidence connecting the downward trend to global temperatures? You say there is a 37 year trend of solar cooling yet those 37 years shows global temperature increases.

Frankie brought up the "Cooling" trend when he used skeptical science's chart.
Solar output has measured between 1368 W/m2 - 1366 W/m2 in 37 years, on a downward trend.
In the grand scheme of things, does 2 w/m2 seem like it would make a difference, considering we've only had 37 years of data.

I'm going to try a break it down simply...

Sun heats planet
Atmosphere absorbs heat.
Ocean absorbs 1000x more heat.

The Oceans transfer heat to the atmosphere over long periods.
The Atmosphere responds to the heat immediately, Man-Made C02 "amplifies" the heat.

The question is, will solar output continue to decrease to the point it disrupts our stored heat balance with our oceans.
Remember, our atmosphere feels the effects of solar energy immediately and Man Made CO2 is adding .2 w/m2 of additional heat.
 

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
You should really read up on sun spots vs. solar irradiance.
Solar irradiance is the power output of the sun, something we haven't been able to accurately measure until 1978.
Sun spots gave our fore father's the ability to see how active (more irradiance) or less active (less irradiance) the sun was at any given moment.
 

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
And scientists see only a 20% chance of a grand minimum in the next 50 years.
That's good news, at least 20% of scientists actually take solar physics seriously.
And see, man-made CO2 might save the world if it comes true.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,326
6,464
113
...
In the grand scheme of things, does 2 w/m2 seem like it would make a difference, considering we've only had 37 years of data.
...
So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence to back your claims about solar activity, just speculation. You said it should have a much bigger impact than CO2 yet that has not been seen.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,326
6,464
113
That's good news, at least 20% of scientists actually take solar physics seriously.
And see, man-made CO2 might save the world if it comes true.
Umm. It's not 20% of scientists, it is a 20% probability.


p.s. I see that you choose not to comment on the article I posted. The scientists mentioned believe that any cooling from the sun will more than be countered by AGW.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,097
19,111
113
Globe has an interesting article on the combo of El Nino and climate change and its effects globally.
Across eastern and southern Africa, where harvest season has just begun, the Pacific current is having devastating effects. An extraordinary drought in South Africa has all but wiped out the country’s corn crop. Ethiopia’s grain production has fallen by 75 per cent, leading the Agency for International Development to warn that 10 million people there “may be in food crisis” later this year; Malawi has already declared a food emergency; Zimbabwe will be spending $200-million on grain imports to cover lost harvests. In many of these countries, grain prices have more than doubled.

In India, where several states are hit with drought, the government has implemented emergency measures to sustain food supplies.

Thailand, Vietnam and India, together responsible for 60 per cent of the world’s rice supply, expect to see their inventories fall by a third – the biggest drop since 2003.

China has just announced a 9.9 million tonne gap between the grain it produces and consumes. Indonesia is struggling to recover from simultaneous droughts and wildfires, both symptoms of El Nino. And North Koreans have now been warned by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization that their already-low rice yields have fallen by 26 per cent.

An El Nino drought is not itself climate change (though this one is occurring in the midst of the warmest decade in recorded history). But it shows us what a warming climate will do to our livelihoods and economies, and where the most vulnerable people will be.

The most recent time this happened, in 2008, the result was food riots and starvation crises that fed political instability across the developing world. The sudden sharp rise in grain prices (after food prices had plummeted for decades) had one benefit: It caused billions to be invested in suddenly profitable agriculture, and millions of hectares of land to be made productive, thus ending the crisis.

But it’s all too apparent this year that it was not enough. And what the year-long drought is showing us is that global warming is a predominantly rural crisis, and that the hardest-hit areas are those where rural life is poor, under-invested, non-commercial and lacking connections to the wider economy.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a-world-ill-prepared-for-warming/article29920633/
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I'm not disputing that AGW is linear and is on a upward track, man is definitely chemically altering the atmosphere.
What I'm disputing is that temperatures will continue to increase forever.
I think that's a fair comment. We have effectively proven that AGW exists and has had a dramatic effect on our climate. We know it has and will change our climate.

We DON'T know whether that will be for the better or for the worse, and we DON'T know whether it will stabilize or snowball.

It's possible the increase in plant growth will actually be a good thing for us and enable an agricultural expansion. It's also possible it'll be a catastrophe. We really don't know.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
LMFAO!

What I said was the final decision would rest with me because you're a total ignoramus who can't even read a news release correctly.

It defies logic how you concluded that anyone who is bothered by your total ignorance must be "religious." :Eek:
The final decision will not rest with you. You been refuted, that means you have no credibility.

You initially denied AGW had been proven, claiming it was all based only on computer models with no statistical significance. You were wrong that the models had no significance--you stupidly misunderstood the relationship between a residual and a regressor in arguing that the error term being large somehow invalidated the results. You were doubly wrong when it was shown that AGW has been directly observed and measured.

Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting these facts, updating your views to integrate the information, you did the dishonest, evasive things and threw up increasingly shrill and bombastic attempts to deny the facts.

You haven't demonstrated the integrity necessary to be trusted to judge anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts