Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

This thread is childish and adds nothing to the debate about climate change.

Personally I think the entire debate has jumped the shark.

There is a massive energy revolution coming that will change everything about this debate.

When this debate is dust and a historical footnote like the Ozone Layer threat, habitat loss will still be, and has been the greatest enviromental threat we face. Climate change is a technological challenge and all such challenges, it will be over come by humanity in the end.

But Habitat loss, that far more then just a technology challenge, its far more complex and we are no where near to solving it.

True enough about this thread and energy revolution.
Most new generation around the world going in is green.

Habitat loss is the other side of the mass extinction event we are living through as well.

 

[fuji]

The future is unknowable and cannot be predicted, regardless of whether the climate researchers are right or not.

That does pretty well sum you up.

 

[basketcase]

... The future is unknowable and cannot be predicted, ...

Sure sounds scientific. Professor Ostrich from the Department of Sticking Fingers in One's Ears.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sure sounds scientific. Professor Ostrich from the Department of Sticking Fingers in One's Ears.

You're old enough now that I think I can break this news to you.

Back to the Future was only a movie. Marty McFly and Doc Brown were fictional characters. They're not real people, Basketcase.

In the real world, scientists can't see 100 years into the future.

And predictions that assume that life on this planet will be the exact same as it is today are guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

And predictions that assume that life on this planet will be the exact same as it is today are guaranteed to be wrong.

Yup.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yup.

Are you kidding?

You genuinely believe that there will be no changes at all over the next 100 years -- no new technology, no innovations, no change at all in how people live their lives.

Are you for real?

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you kidding?

You genuinely believe that there will be no changes at all over the next 100 years -- no new technology, no innovations, no change at all in how people live their lives.

Are you for real?

Of course there will be changes, and much as I'd love to hear your predictions about future tech, which are bound to be as accurate as your prediction on 2015's global temperature, save it.

This thread is about climate change, and your ridiculous claims that:
a) its natural
b) its not happening
c) so what if its happening
d) all of science is wrong and Exxon's lobbyists are correct
e) all of science isn't as smart as you think you are
f) this chart represents a flat horizontal line after 2000

 

[Moviefan-2]

Of course there will be changes....

Of course.

Just like the changes that we've seen over the past 100 years, the changes over the next 100 years will be huge and beyond our imagination. That makes it impossible to predict the future.

 

[Moviefan-2]

...and much as I'd love to hear your predictions about future tech...

Unlike Michael Mann and his buddies, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.

I can't predict the future. Neither can Mann. That's the point.

 

[Frankfooter]

Of course.

Just like the changes that we've seen over the past 100 years, the changes over the next 100 years will be huge and beyond our imagination. That makes it impossible to predict the future.

While we know that's true for you, who couldn't even predict 2015's temperature, we also know that the sum knowledge of thousands of scientists working on the matter is much, much more.

Your guesses, totally clueless.

Science, not bad at all.

 

[Frankfooter]

Unlike Michael Mann and his buddies, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.

You forget the bet that you lost on whether you could predict 2015's temperature?

The bet was whether or not the temperature increase in 2015 would fulfil the IPCC's predictions of per-decade increases.

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

Your predictions are useless.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You forget the bet....

Frankfooter, the Fairy Tale Queen, is insisting that he be punished again with another look at the updated list of his greatest hits.

So be it.

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said the NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" for 0.89 to equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

- March 27, 2016 -- He said it was "incredibly stupid" to conclude that half of 2ºC is 1ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Early-April&p=5509136&viewfull=1#post5509136

- April 23, 2016 -- He tried to claim that 0.75 and 0.87 are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531128&viewfull=1#post5531128

- April 23, 2016 -- He claimed the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990 is a "different baseline" than the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531216&viewfull=1#post5531216

- May 1, 2016 -- He said that a climate researcher who thinks warming is 99% due to natural causes believes that "anthropogenic" climate change is happening: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5537250#post5537250

- May 11, 2016 -- He said all of the warming since 1850 was caused by humans (even the IPCC doesn't support him on this one): https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5546112#post5546112

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "still fits" Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

 

[eznutz]

Do the Climatista's have their calculations wrong about natural & man-made CO2, sure looks like it.

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.

We now know that the CO2 released during volcanic eruptions is almost insignificant compared with what happens after the camera crews get bored. The emissions that really matter are concealed. The silent, silvery plumes which are currently winding their way skyward above the 150 or so active volcanoes on our planet also carry with them the bulk of its carbon dioxide. Their coughing fits might catch the eye — but in between tantrums, the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year.

We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.

Carbon dioxide is always invisible, but its presence can be inferred in volcanic plumes — betrayed by the billowing clouds of water vapour released alongside it. Without the water, though, it's a different story. The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

Here is a shot of all currently active volcanoes, yellow=unrest - orange=warning/minor activity - red=eruption
http://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/

Here is a chart of all volcanic activity for the last 400 years, using data provided from the following site.
http://volcano.si.edu/

Does it seems fair to blame humans for 100% of the rise in CO2 since 1850 when the IPCC/Climatista modellers don't even care to measure how much CO2 volcanoes actually degas each year.


http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

The second most erupted gas on the planet next to steam has a significant magmatic source in which it is preferentially fractionated towards the surface. On the scale of atmospheric composition, the isotopic composition of volcanogenic CO2 is effectively indistinguishable from fossil fuel CO2 due to the complete lack of statistically significant carbon isotope determinations for each of the contributing volcanic and tectonic provinces. Moreover, molar oxidation estimates cannot be used to constrain volcanogenic CO2 output because such estimates neglect the fact that carbon is not the only abundant element on the planet that preferentially combines with oxygen. It is only through emission monitoring taken in statistically significant empirical samples for each volcanic province that we may calculate a scientific estimate of total worldwide volcanic CO2 emission and perhaps, with statistically significant carbon isotope data for each volcanic province, we may one day be able to distinguish volcanic and industrial CO2 contributions in the atmosphere.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter, the Fairy Tale Queen, is insisting that he be punished again with another look at the updated list of his greatest hits.

So be it.
- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

Lets just point out that the latest of your 'greatest hits' includes a statement that Michael Mann's chart on 'historical projections' had 'predictions' on it.
Your 'greatest hits' accusations are so full of errors that if you weren't a troll you'd be hiding your head in shame.

 

[Frankfooter]

Do the Climatista's have their calculations wrong about natural & man-made CO2, sure looks like it.

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html


Here is a shot of all currently active volcanoes, yellow=unrest - orange=warning/minor activity - red=eruption
http://earthquakes.volcanodiscovery.com/


Here is a chart of all volcanic activity for the last 400 years, using data provided from the following site.
http://volcano.si.edu/


Does it seems fair to blame humans for 100% of the rise in CO2 since 1850 when the IPCC/Climatista modellers don't even care to measure how much CO2 volcanoes actually degas each year.


http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

From your link:

The estimation of worldwide volcanic CO2 emission is undermined by a severe shortage of data. To make matters worse, the reported output of any individual volcano is itself an estimate based on limited rather than complete measurement.

Buddy goes on to make up some numbers, since he couldn't find any real ones.
Nice.

 

[**Sophie**]

New paper published on the equilibrium of climate sensitivity should be as low as 1c
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models
"Estimates of 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C. These low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values have been questioned because (a) they disagree with higher observational EfCS/ZDM values, and (b) the EfCS/two-zone EBM values given by GCMs are poorly correlated with the standard GCM sensitivity estimates. The validity of the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values is here explored, with focus on the limitations of the observational EfCS/ZDM approach, the disagreement between the GCM and observational radiative responses to surface temperature perturbations in the tropics, and on the modified EfCS values provided by an extended twozone EBM that includes an explicit parameterization of dynamical heat transport. The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered. It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity."

 

[basketcase]

Do the Climatista's have their calculations wrong about natural & man-made CO2, sure looks like it....

Ahh, so it isn't solar activity like you were suggesting, it was really volcanoes all along.

 

[FAST]

While we know that's true for you, who couldn't even predict 2015's temperature, we also know that the sum knowledge of thousands of scientists working on the matter is much, much more.

Your guesses, totally clueless.

Science, not bad at all.

If you actually think there are "thousands of scientists", individually gathering data and creating "climate modles", your either really dumb, or so wound up in hoping that the UN de-industrailises the world, shuts down everybody's air conditioning, and returns to the dark ages,... that you are blinded to any common sense.

I'd bet on both.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

New paper published on the equilibrium of climate sensitivity should be as low as 1c

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015EA000154/asset/ess278.pdf?v=1&t=io9beq63&8c902e5c

Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models
"Estimates of 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C. These low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values have been questioned because (a) they disagree with higher observational EfCS/ZDM values, and (b) the EfCS/two-zone EBM values given by GCMs are poorly correlated with the standard GCM sensitivity estimates. The validity of the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values is here explored, with focus on the limitations of the observational EfCS/ZDM approach, the disagreement between the GCM and observational radiative responses to surface temperature perturbations in the tropics, and on the modified EfCS values provided by an extended twozone EBM that includes an explicit parameterization of dynamical heat transport. The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered. It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity."

Your link doesn't work, so can't read the report.
This sentence rings out to me:

When applied using satellite radiation data,

 

[Frankfooter]

If you actually think there are "thousands of scientists", individually gathering data and creating "climate modles", your either really dumb, or so wound up in hoping that the UN de-industrailises the world, shuts down everybody's air conditioning, and returns to the dark ages,... that you are blinded to any common sense.

I'd bet on both.

FAST

You know, your posts get more incoherent ever day.

But in case this what you were asking about:

For the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007, over 3,500 experts coming from more than 130 countries contributed to the report (+450 Lead Authors, +800 Contributing Authors, and +2,500 expert reviewers providing over 90,000 review comments).

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml

Or was your attempt at making a point really about 'modles'?