Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions"

You missed a few sentences, starting with the first one:

- "Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time."

- "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 combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2."

Got that? They're only talking about confirmation of the greenhouse effect as it directly applies to CO2.

The results don't tell us anything about the amplification that's supposed to come from water vapour. In fact, the news release clearly states that CO2 was isolated from water vapour and clouds. Thus, the reported results tell us nothing about the merits of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you accept the results you have to accept that they prove AGW, through proof that CO2 causes the heating we call the greenhouse effect.
That was the finding of the paper.

It specifically says "carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect."

That's not the issue. The greenhouse effect specifically connected to CO2 is too small to worry about.

It's the amplification that's supposed to come from water vapour that's at the heart of the scientific debate. The news release says nothing about that (presumably, the same is true for the published paper).

 

[Moviefan-2]

Skeptical science isn't really advocation....

LMFAO!

By the way, the word you were looking for was "advocacy."

 

[eznutz]

The changes in our star are very, very slow compared to our timescale. Its only kooks like Corbyn who predict ice ages right now, nobody is predicting changes in sunspots or solar output to have nearly the effect on our climate as CO2 at present.

When I look at the data I see a star that is giving off less irradiance, cycle over cycle.

Our ocean's store 1000x more heat, and release it into the atmosphere over a long period.
As the sun's output continues to drop, do you think our ocean's will continue to store heat at the same rate it has in the past.
I guess back radiation will have to save the day.

As for kook's, here's the all-star team...

Kevin Cowtan, statistical model programmer specializing in biology
&
Robert Way, student & long time assistant to super kook John Cook.

for their "contribution" to global temp data by introducing made up data to HADCRUT4

And, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Real Climate for giving these 2 a platform and forever changing the global temp record to fit the current paradigm.

 

[**Sophie**]

Wow, you really nailed him, eh?
A cartoonist.
Wow.

I didn't nail him, somebody else did. All it took was a simple google search.

I do love how you accuse him of covering up his background as a cartoonist, and yet use his publicly posted bio on Skeptical Science to prove it.
Talk about lame.?

Again, I didn't accuse him, I didn't write the article, I was merely trying to give you the information on Mr. Kook. Did you click the link at all? Because if you did, you would see the link is to his old website that was saved on wayback machine.

And what's next in this accusation?
Are you going to claim that AGW is a conspiracy run by cartoonists all over the globe, in order to rake in the big bucks of political cartoons?
Is that your complaint about Cook running Skeptical Science?

Aww come on Frank be honest that's where you get your cartoons from isn't it? :happy:

 

[fuji]

- "Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time."

Proving you wrong.

"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."

Proving you wrong.

"The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2."

You failed to understand the word "combination". It does NOT say they only observed the CO2 generated energy. They observed ALL the energy down welling and then COMBINED that data with the observed CO2 levels to isolate the CO2 impact.

You just fail at understanding that. Or more likely you looked through it for things to intentionally misinterpret si you can persist with your faith based objection to AGW.

You are just pettifogging.

 

[canada-man]

I read the article, the science is shoddy.
His findings are not supported by any other legit paper and there are major flaws in his method.

Did you read the criticisms?
Do you have any responses?



Morner is an embarrassment to the INQUA, who are pointedly stating that Morner doesn't represent them or their views any more.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

But even more entertaining is that Morner thinks he has paranormal powers, the power to divine water.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/04/the-spectators-spectacular-blunder/

Canada-man, you have an amazing paranormal ability to find kooks.
Congrats.

skeptical science is a propagandist websiterunned by a cartoonist that is known to censor posts they don't agree with

Monboit is a propagandist writer and activist with no scientific, and climate science background.


pot meets kettle

 

[fuji]

skeptical science is a propagandist websiterunned by a cartoonist that is known to censor posts they don't agree with

Monboit is a propagandist writer and activist with no scientific, and climate science background.


pot meets kettle

Meanwhile you keep ignoring the evidence that proves you wrong, like the Nature study which was NOT based on computer models.

 

[K Douglas]

More bad news.


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...on-islands-a-study-blames-climate-change.html

Oh good grief. You know who is funding this disinformation right............the Tides Foundation. Truly an objective outfit
There is no study linking this event to AGW. These islands have been under water in the past. Why do you think no one inhabits them?? The sea levels are not rising, there are many peer reviewed studies by ocean experts that attest to that. In many of these cases the land is actually sinking rather than the waters rising and the alarmists use it to their advantage.
Just another propaganda piece to scare folks into believing we are dooming the planet. They got you hook line and sinker Frankie

 

[Moviefan-2]

You failed to understand the word "combination". It does NOT say they only observed the CO2 generated energy. They observed ALL the energy down welling and then COMBINED that data with the observed CO2 levels to isolate the CO2 impact.

I know exactly what the word "combination" means. I also know what the word "solely" means.

"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."

Water vapour feedback is not the same thing as warming that is directly caused by CO2.

What the quoted sentences say is that the "combination" of measurements were used to "isolate" the signals that were "solely" due to CO2, and it was the signals that were "solely" attributed to CO2 alone that were reported.

In fact, that's made even more clear in the paragraph that includes the "0.2 Watts per square meter per decade" that you like to talk about.

"Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor."

It's unclear if you're bigger problem is that you don't understand the science or whether you just don't know how to read (or quite possibly, both). Whatever the case, you've got it completely ass backwards.

 

[basketcase]

The truth about skeptical science;
"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed...

Considering you posted an 'expert' who studied quantum mechanics in the 70's and admits his climate expertise is a couple hours on google....

 

[basketcase]

You missed a few sentences, starting with the first one:....

Sorry but I must have missed the post where you explained why only 7% of the scientific community supports you claims?

 

[**Sophie**]

Considering you posted an 'expert' who studied quantum mechanics in the 70's and admits his climate expertise is a couple hours on google....

At least my expert is a scientist and was awarded a "Nobel Prize" in his role regarding discoveries in tunnelling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

 

[Frankfooter]

The results don't tell us anything about the amplification that's supposed to come from water vapour. In fact, the news release clearly states that CO2 was isolated from water vapour and clouds. Thus, the reported results tell us nothing about the merits of the AGW hypothesis.

Ok, lets start with agreeing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and CO2 changes are the primary driver of the present climate change. And lets also note that CO2 levels are the primary concern of the IPCC and climatology.

And lets also note that you appear to be now talking about the amplification of the greenhouse effect through the increased water vapour in the atmosphere as a result of the increased temperature.

This marks a departure from your claims, previously you've described AGW as a 'theory', based on their being no concrete evidence linking CO2 to real temperature changes measured in the world. This latest paper takes care of that, with specific measurements of .2 watt/sq m based on 22ppm more CO2 in the atmosphere (this is from memory from reading the paper a couple of days ago, correct me if I'm off).

It appears you are ready to concede that CO2 increases in the atmosphere do result in increased temperatures in the planet, and now you are trying to claim that AGW is still a theory because they haven't confirmed amplification of other elements or forcings in similar manner. But this claim is nonsense.

We are talking about CO2 levels in the atmosphere as being the primary driver, water vapour will amplify this effect, but the primary driver of AGW is CO2 (with methane, water vapour, albedo and a few other effects also effecting the climate). It is no longer a theory that CO2 increases the global temperature.

AGW is not a theory any more, its now been proven experimentally.

Trying to change the subject to water vapour only confirms that you have ceded all claims about CO2 and climate change.

 

[Frankfooter]

skeptical science is a propagandist websiterunned by a cartoonist that is known to censor posts they don't agree with

Monboit is a propagandist writer and activist with no scientific, and climate science background.

Your personal opinions are not reason enough to discount either Skeptical Science or Monbiot.
Wattsaupwiththat also blocks comments, are they also just as suspect?

 

[Frankfooter]

At least my expert is a scientist and was awarded a "Nobel Prize" in his role regarding discoveries in tunnelling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

And I'm sure you'd also book him for plastic surgery, based on his nobel.
Correct?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry but I must have missed the post where you explained why only 7% of the scientific community supports you claims?

Franky says it's 97%. You two need to sort this out.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.

Thus confirming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing its part in the atmosphere increases the globe's temperature.
Case closed.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok, lets start with agreeing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and CO2 changes are the primary driver of the present climate change.

We can agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. After that, things go amiss.

I have no idea what you mean by "present climate change." The climate is always changing. Nothing unusual has happened in "the present."

The AGW hypothesis (in scientific terms, it is a hypothesis, not a theory) does not state that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary cause of temperature increases.

The hypothesis is that man-made emissions are the driver but the bulk of the predicted warming in the models actually comes from the calculations of positive feedback from water vapour in the atmosphere. The warming that is directly attributable to man-made CO2 (without any feedback) is too small to worry about. Even climate researchers who support your position will agree with that point.

AGW has not been proven. The dispute is over the water vapour feedback, not the direct changes caused by CO2. None of the observed data support the calculations and the predictions that were made based on the models have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

 

[fuji]

AGW has been proven despite your pettifoggery and despite your religious objections.

It's indisputable and the fact that you do dispute it despite the hard scientific evidence just discredits you.

The open questions are all around the impact, what effect it will really have, and whether that effect will be for the worse or the better.

But to say AGW isn't proven makes you a kook.