Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Moviefan-2]

.2 watts per meter squared per decade of acceleration in radiative forcing.

It's not a debating point. It's a known, measured quantity.

Yes, for CO2 and "solely" for CO2, as your paper clearly cites.

That tells us nothing about the AGW hypothesis. The AGW debate is about the projections of water vapour feedback, not the small changes produced "solely" by CO2.

 

[eznutz]

From 1850 on all CO2 increases in the atmosphere were from humans, there was no 'natural' warming period then.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/

Seems to me there was a noticeable natural warming trend that happened way before 1850 and continues until today, with the added benefit of human greed and stupidity since the 1950's.

Bad science. Check again.

That was a misstatement, I'll let this press release from NASA explain it better.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence.

For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output

The point I was trying to make was reduced solar output changes the poles temperature, the jet stream shifts towards the equator, all areas between the jet stream and poles are in cold country, if your toward the equator it's hotter and wetter, more water is evaporated at the equator and transported to the poles, more snow is put down reflecting sunlight back to space.

Now, If you notice the picture below of observed sun spots. Sun-spots were observed in the past to inform how active or inactive the sun was, today it's called pseudoscience.

I wonder how all that energy at the peak in 1950, and successive cycles, was absorbed and distributed over the next many years.
Considering our oceans absorb 50% of the sun's energy and store 1000x more heat than our atmosphere,

I wonder if ENSO events gained in magnitude and frequency, by releasing all that stored energy as evaporation.
I will let NOAA explain what the ENSO is

El Niño and La Niña are opposite phases of what is known as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle. The ENSO cycle is a scientific term that describes the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific (approximately between the International Date Line and 120 degrees West). La Niña is sometimes referred to as the cold phase of ENSO and El Niño as the warm phase of ENSO. These deviations from normal surface temperatures can have large-scale impacts not only on ocean processes, but also on global weather and climate.

Here is ENSO surface temp data from NOAA for all events from 1981 -2016. (click link if you want to see data back to 1950)

DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) episodes based on a threshold of +/- 0.5oC for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v3b SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years. For historical purposes cold and warm episodes (blue and red colored numbers) are defined when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive over-lapping seasons.

Seems to me our current ENSO cycle has raised global temps by ~2ºC all by itself.

Its all warming.

Until there's no more stored heat in the ocean.

 

[fuji]

Yes, for CO2 and "solely" for CO2, as your paper clearly cites.

That tells us nothing about the AGW hypothesis. The AGW debate is about the projections of water vapour feedback, not the small changes produced "solely" by CO2.

Again, that is the NET effect of man made CO2. If water vapour feedback were reducing it that would net out. They measured the NET warming. Also known as radiative forcing. Note: MEASURED. Not hypothesized. Not modeled. Measured the NET effect by measuring the ACTUAL warming.

The article couldn't be clearer.

You are in denial.

Others on the thread have taken a more balanced position: maybe there are other factors like solar output or something else that are cooling the planet, offsetting AGW. Maybe warming will turn out to be a good thing. All reasonable questions.

You on the other hand are in straight denial.

 

[Frankfooter]

The only moving goal post is your ever-changing definition of "climate change."

The impact of CO2 is too small to worry about. The AGW hypothesis is based on presumptions about the feedback from water vapour. That is a total unknown, meaning the AGW hypothesis remains unproven.

Bullshit, the latest study confirms the accuracy of the models, including water vapour feedback.
CO2 causes global warming, that is known and proven.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, for CO2 and "solely" for CO2, as your paper clearly cites.

That tells us nothing about the AGW hypothesis. The AGW debate is about the projections of water vapour feedback, not the small changes produced "solely" by CO2.

There are studies that show that water vapour feedback will increase global warming, with 1ºC of warming due to CO2 leading to 3ºC total warming with water vapour feedback.
When I show that these studies have been done and concrete proof of water vapour's feedback mechanism proven, will you concede that AGW is no longer a theory?
Or will you try to move the goal posts again?

 

[Frankfooter]

Seems to me there was a noticeable natural warming trend that happened way before 1850 and continues until today, with the added benefit of human greed and stupidity since the 1950's.

No, the warming started around the dawn of industrialization. That's the effect that gave us the hockey stick graph.

That was a misstatement, I'll let this press release from NASA explain it better.

The point I was trying to make was reduced solar output changes the poles temperature, the jet stream shifts towards the equator, all areas between the jet stream and poles are in cold country, if your toward the equator it's hotter and wetter, more water is evaporated at the equator and transported to the poles, more snow is put down reflecting sunlight back to space.

Those are still minor influences they are talking about, small changes to the toposphere, possible small change in the Pacific, and the possibility that we are at a Maunder minimum right now (which would theoretically be cooling the planet, not warming).
None of those explain what we are seeing now.

Now, If you notice the picture below of observed sun spots. Sun-spots were observed in the past to inform how active or inactive the sun was, today it's called pseudoscience.

There is no evidence to support this statement.

I wonder if ENSO events gained in magnitude and frequency, by releasing all that stored energy as evaporation.

The oceans are storing CO2 and heat from AGW. ENSO events haven't changed that much, this last El Nino seemed bigger only because the planet was warmer.

Here is ENSO surface temp data from NOAA for all events from 1981 -2016. (click link if you want to see data back to 1950)

That just shows the similar ranges of El Nino, and that the 1997 super El Nino was about as big as the 2015 El Nino.
Nothing there.


You are grasping at straws here, nothing you've brought here hasn't been studied before.

 

[K Douglas]

There are studies that show that water vapour feedback will increase global warming, with 1ºC of warming due to CO2 leading to 3ºC total warming with water vapour feedback.
When I show that these studies have been done and concrete proof of water vapour's feedback mechanism proven, will you concede that AGW is no longer a theory?
Or will you try to move the goal posts again?

And I will say those studies are complete bogus.

 

[Frankfooter]

And I will say those studies are complete bogus.

Nice to see someone with an open mind, willing to weigh the evidence objectively.
Oh wait, that's me.

You just failed.
All you did was prove that you are a denier, someone who will stick to their anti-science claims whatever evidence is provided.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Bullshit, the latest study confirms the accuracy of the models, including water vapour feedback.
CO2 causes global warming, that is known and proven.

You're just making shit up.

The study Fuji cited isn't the "latest," it's more than a year old. And it had nothing that addressed the accuracy of the water vapour feedback.

 

[Moviefan-2]

There are studies that show that water vapour feedback will increase global warming, with 1ºC of warming due to CO2 leading to 3ºC total warming with water vapour feedback.
When I show that these studies have been done and concrete proof of water vapour's feedback mechanism proven, will you concede that AGW is no longer a theory?
Or will you try to move the goal posts again?

I take it this is an admission that I'm right about Fuji's paper.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Again, that is the NET effect of man made CO2. If water vapour feedback were reducing it that would net out.

This is hilarious.

You've got it ass backwards, Fuji. The claim is that the water vapour amplifies the warming from CO2. In fact, the majority of the warming predicted in the models is based on the water vapour feedback -- something your paper doesn't address.

 

[fuji]

This is hilarious.

You've got it ass backwards, Fuji. The claim is that the water vapour amplifies the warming from CO2. In fact, the majority of the warming predicted in the models is based on the water vapour feedback -- something your paper doesn't address.

Sorry, but they measured the net effect. That includes any water vapor effect or any other effect of CO2 add what they measured was the heat reaching the ground and how it varied based on the amount of CO2. It's very clear in the paper and your shrill denials are increasingly pathetic.

You really aren't worth debating, you have religious, faith based beliefs that are invulnerable to fact. You are one of those willfully blind people incapable of real debate.

Sorry.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sorry, but they measured the net effect. That includes any water vapor effect or any other effect of CO2....

No, it doesn't:

This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

It has been explicitly stated that the 0.2 figure doesn't include water vapour.

Having a "real debate" means getting your facts right and having a basic understanding of the issues.

You don't know what you're talking about -- water vapour causing warming, water vapour causing cooling, water vapour being part of the "combination" of factors, etc. You keep making it up as you go along, revealing you are a total fraud.

Indeed, it's funny how many times you claimed the paper in Nature definitively backed your views before finally revealing that you had never actually read it (and don't even understand the news release).

It's equally funny that you claim to be so much smarter than Frankfooter. Yet Frankfooter seems to get that the figure cited in your paper was solely for CO2. I don't agree with much of what he's saying, but at least Franky is able to grasp certain things that continue to be completely over your head.

 

[Frankfooter]

You're just making shit up.

The study Fuji cited isn't the "latest," it's more than a year old. And it had nothing that addressed the accuracy of the water vapour feedback.

That was a study on CO2, confirming the greenhouse effect and the primary driver of AGW.
Are you seriously so daft as to think that there are not other existing studies out on water vapour?

The question remains, when I post up links to studies confirming the feedback mechanism of water vapour in AGW, will you concede that AGW is not a theory, but proven?
Or will you try to move the goal posts again?

 

[Frankfooter]

This is hilarious.

You've got it ass backwards, Fuji. The claim is that the water vapour amplifies the warming from CO2. In fact, the majority of the warming predicted in the models is based on the water vapour feedback -- something your paper doesn't address.

fuji's paper set out to prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the planets temperature.
It proved that.

Of course there are other papers out there on water vapour.
Will you shut up when you read these or just move on to claiming that its all about methane, or some other new goal post?

 

[fuji]

No, it doesn't:



It has been explicitly stated that the 0.2 figure doesn't include water vapour.

Having a "real debate" means getting your facts right and having a basic understanding of the issues.

You don't know what you're talking about -- water vapour causing warming, water vapour causing cooling, water vapour being part of the "combination" of factors, etc. You keep making it up as you go along, revealing you are a total fraud.

Indeed, it's funny how many times you claimed the paper in Nature definitively backed your views before finally revealing that you had never actually read it (and don't even understand the news release).

It's equally funny that you claim to be so much smarter than Frankfooter. Yet Frankfooter seems to get that the figure cited in your paper was solely for CO2. I don't agree with much of what he's saying, but at least Franky is able to grasp certain things that continue to be completely over your head.

Sorry but the study CLEARLY looked at the NET impact:

"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."

That means that when more CO2 is present there's an increase in warming measured at the surface.

 

[eznutz]

No, the warming started around the dawn of industrialization. That's the effect that gave us the hockey stick graph.

Oh yes, the famous hockey stick graph

The hockey stick was produced using tree ring data for temperature proxy up to recent times and then grafting on thermometer measurements. The tree ring data was flat for a thousand years in spite of known climate variations. The obvious reason is that temperature does not determine width of tree rings. Growth rate of plants is almost never temperature limited. Usually, it is either light limited or moisture limited. The famous decline after 1960 was probably due to increased overcast limiting light availability for photosynthesis. Physicist may not know this, but ignorance is no excuse for corruption of science.

 

[escortsxxx]

And of the tose 11 % some are being paid not to believe it.

I remember reading about the greenhouse effect in old text books on Venus. The theory and science have been around fro a long time. The effects of CO(2) are well known in theory and practice.

Sure their are some myths around - must people don't know about the robot singularity either. Or that certain math is technically illegal.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh yes, the famous hockey stick graph

Yup, that chart is still in use.
There are now about two dozen other papers that have backed up those initial findings using different methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

 

[**Sophie**]

Yup, that chart is still in use.
There are now about two dozen other papers that have backed up those initial findings using different methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

You mean the chart that Mann is now saying he didn't have anything to with?!

Mann's court deposition:
"In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together… This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous."

Nothing but god damned LIES! All of it!