Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[eznutz]

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

And the IPCC doesn't know any actual numbers but has no problem estimating background CO2 based on 1% of all active volcanoes.

 

[**Sophie**]

Your link doesn't work:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

 

[eznutz]

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

Natural radiative forcing will always win out over man made forcing, especially when the IPCC has no idea what the actual natural baseline is and only uses 1% of volcanoes and 1 solar cycle in their future projections. It seems like they couldn't bother using accurate measurements for volcanic C02 and solar cycles, but have no problem blaming humans for everything.

 

[Frankfooter]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Took a quick look, the paper is based off of work from Lindzen and Choi, and that work itself is quite suspect.
Here's what Lindzen said about the paper Bates used as source material:

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=3

Essentially, Bates took a suspect paper by Lindzen, argued that satellite data is more accurate (its not) and came up with his 1ºC warming argument.

That was a waste of 15 minutes of my time.
Thanks for nothing.

 

[**Sophie**]

Took a quick look, the paper is based off of work from Lindzen and Choi, and that work itself is quite suspect.
Here's what Lindzen said about the paper Bates used as source material:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=3

Essentially, Bates took a suspect paper by Lindzen, argued that satellite data is more accurate (its not) and came up with his 1ºC warming argument.

That was a waste of 15 minutes of my time.
Thanks for nothing.

Typical response from a warmist. This paper has been peer reviewed and accepted May 6 2016 or is it you are telling me peer reviewed and accepted papers don't mean anything?

 

[Frankfooter]

Typical response from a warmists. This paper has been peer reviewed and accepted.

Did you read it?
Tell me what it argues.
Tell me why using Lindzen and Choi as basework is acceptable?
Tell me why Bates thinks GCM aren't reliable.
Tell me why his two zone model is a better representation of the earth's climate then that used in other IPCC source works.

Explain what scientific or statistical breakthrough Bates has come up with that makes his work better science then that of the IPCC and NASA.

What I'd like to hear is proof that you actually understand what the paper is about and what the issues are, I fully expect you just did a copy and paste from a site, and frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of checking out the sources that you post and finding basic errors in them.

So this will be the last source from you I waste my time on unless you can give me scientific arguments that show you really understand what this paper argues.

 

[**Sophie**]

Did you read it?
Tell me what it argues.
Tell me why using Lindzen and Choi as basework is acceptable?
Tell me why Bates thinks GCM aren't reliable.
Tell me why his two zone model is a better representation of the earth's climate then that used in other IPCC source works.

Explain what scientific or statistical breakthrough Bates has come up with that makes his work better science then that of the IPCC and NASA.

What I'd like to hear is proof that you actually understand what the paper is about and what the issues are, I fully expect you just did a copy and paste from a site, and frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of checking out the sources that you post and finding basic errors in them.

So this will be the last source from you I waste my time on unless you can give me scientific arguments that show you really understand what this paper argues.

Its not that complicated Frank. It really does irk you alarmists when scientific journals dare to publish peer-reviewed science based on observations which dare question the IPCC ECS range of 1.5-4.5c range lol.

If course I copy and pasted the article, hence the Quotations!!! News Flash!!! It's not my article, and I am not a scientist! The person who wrote it is tho. But of course, you have nothing positive to say about this guy either. What a surprise!

And just for the record, I don't care whether you read what I post or not lol. You don't need to respond to my posts as they are NOT meant for you unless I quote you. I already figured out you are not interested in balanced scientific info, just ones that support your alarmist agenda. You should try being a skeptic for once.

 

[FAST]

You know, your posts get more incoherent ever day.

But in case this what you were asking about:

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

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

Hey,...I can't help it if you have the intelligence of a brain dead squirrel.

The IPCC,...that's too funny, nothing but an employment agency for the Unemployable,...and a mouth piece for the leaches at the UN.

As that counts as ONE,... you need to find at least 999 "experts" who individually collect data and create their own theory's,...you got a little bit more cut'n'pasting to do frankie.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Its not that complicated Frank.

Then show me you understand it by answering those questions.

And just for the record, I don't care whether you read what I post or not lol. You don't need to respond to my posts as they are NOT meant for you unless I quote you. I already figured out you are not interested in balanced scientific info, just ones that support your alarmist agenda. You should try being a skeptic for once.

Note that I took the time to read through a chunk of the article, researched the sources used and then came up with my own conclusions. That's the definition of skepticism.

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.

I've gone through similar steps reading the work of those I quote here as well, reading through papers, checking numbers and confirming what I read through alternate sources.

And that's all I ask of you, to show me that you read the paper, understand the points its trying to make enough that you can answer the basic questions I asked of you. Please show me that you took the time to read the paper you quoted, check the sources and show me why you think that paper's conclusions are more valid then those represented by the findings of the IPCC.

Tell me what it argues.
Tell me why using Lindzen and Choi as basework is acceptable?
Tell me why Bates thinks GCM aren't reliable.
Tell me why his two zone model is a better representation of the earth's climate then that used in other IPCC source works.

 

[**Sophie**]

Then show me you understand it by answering those questions.



Note that I took the time to read through a chunk of the article, researched the sources used and then came up with my own conclusions. That's the definition of skepticism.


I've gone through similar steps reading the work of those I quote here as well, reading through papers, checking numbers and confirming what I read through alternate sources.

And that's all I ask of you, to show me that you read the paper, understand the points its trying to make enough that you can answer the basic questions I asked of you. Please show me that you took the time to read the paper you quoted, check the sources and show me why you think that paper's conclusions are more valid then those represented by the findings of the IPCC.

Tell me what it argues.
Tell me why using Lindzen and Choi as basework is acceptable?
Tell me why Bates thinks GCM aren't reliable.
Tell me why his two zone model is a better representation of the earth's climate then that used in other IPCC source works.

Frank this is how it works, I post the article, and you get a chance to dispute it, not the other way around. I don't need to waste my time explaining the article to make you happy. so go ahead, dispute it!

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank this is how it works, I post the article, and you get a chance to dispute it, not the other way around. I don't need to waste my time explaining the article to make you happy. so go ahead, dispute it!

I did, I gave you a few basic questions which you seem unable to answer.
I'm just establishing whether you are interested in real discussion and debate about this or if you are more like a moviefan styled troll who can't debate the science articulately but instead just abandons claims and moves on to the next copy and paste article he picked up from wattsupwithat.com or somewhere similar.

Do you really understand the issues here, or are you another copy and paste troll?

This doesn't work with you posting an endless stream of shoddy claims and me wasting my time debunking each and every one.
Its time for you to prove that you aren't just a troll.

 

[Frankfooter]

Hey,...I can't help it if you have the intelligence of a brain dead squirrel.

The IPCC,...that's too funny, nothing but an employment agency for the Unemployable,...and a mouth piece for the leaches at the UN.

As that counts as ONE,... you need to find at least 999 "experts" who individually collect data and create their own theory's,...you got a little bit more cut'n'pasting to do frankie.

FAST

AR4 sourced out about 3500 people from 130 countries.
AR5 used even more.

I have to say that your conspiracy theory is really totally cuckoo now, claiming that 3500 scientists from 130 countries are all forced into faking science by the all powerful UN.

And I just have to ask, who's pulling the strings at the UN to force all of the UN and all climatologists all over the world to go along with this conspiracy of yours?

 

[**Sophie**]

I did, I gave you a few basic questions which you seem unable to answer.
I'm just establishing whether you are a troll or not .

Okay Frank, simply put this paper shows that the climate models which you love referring to could be wrong! This scientist believes the models underestimate the amount of heat radiated in the tropics that can give an overestimation of the climate sensitivity Aka warming.

I should also add that the IPCC widened its climate sensitivity in 2013, maybe it needs more adjusting?!!!

Capisce?

 

[Frankfooter]

Okay Frank, simply put this paper shows that the climate models which you love referring to could be wrong! This scientist believes the models underestimate the amount of heat radiated in the tropics that can give an overestimation of the climate sensitivity Aka warming.

I should also add that the IPCC widened its climate sensitivity in 2013, maybe it needs more adjusting?!!!

Capisce?

Its one paper, but its based on the shoddy work of Lindzen and Choi, and also based on the false premise that satellite data is better then ground station data.
Big problems.

There is a tiny chance Bates is correct, but the odds are very much against it.

CBC just confirmed that April was the 7th record warm month in a row, which has never happened before. It is on the backs of an El Nino, but El Nino can't account for this much warmth.

NASA said over the weekend that last month was the warmest April in statistics dating back to the 19th century, the seventh month in a row to break temperature records.
...

She said national promises for curbing greenhouse gases put the world on track for a rise in temperatures of between 2.5 and 3 C (4.5 to 5.4 Fahrenheit), well above an agreed ceiling in the Paris text of "well below" 2C (3.6F) with a target of 1.5C (2.7F).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/temperature-monthly-records-1.3584249

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sophie:

Don't let Frankfooter bother you with his stupid challenges. He is forever trying to sound clever by challenging people to explain reports that he can't even begin to understand himself.

Not too long ago, he challenged me to come up with the baseline that the Met Office uses in the HadCRUT calculations of temperature anomalies (in fact, it's the average of the period from 1961 to 1990).

After I quickly came up with the answer, he responded with one of his "greatest hits" -- his claim that the average for the period from 1961 to 1990 is a "different baseline" than the average for the period from 1961 to 1990:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531216&viewfull=1#post5531216

He's all bluster.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sophie:

Don't let Frankfooter bother you with his stupid challenges.
...
After I quickly came up with the answer, he responded with one of his "greatest hits"

Like your latest 'greatest hit' in which you stated you thought Michael Mann's hockey stick chart, a chart on historical climate, had 'predictions' from it?

First claiming you never said the chart had 'predictions'.

I never said that Mann's graph had "predictions" on it.
"

You are such a liar, caught red handed, all of those 'greatest hits' are just as pathetic as this one:

- 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

 

[Moviefan-2]

Like your latest 'greatest hit' in which you stated you thought Michael Mann's hockey stick chart, a chart on historical climate, had 'predictions' from it?

First claiming you never said the chart had 'predictions'.


You are such a liar, caught red handed, all of those 'greatest hits' are just as pathetic as this one:

Two things:

1) I wasn't stating my views. I was summarizing what Frankfooter had posted.

2) I said the predictions were made "from" Mann's graph, not "on" it (and, in fact, included a link that clearly showed the graph clearly went to the year 2000).

Although no one can understand exactly what Franky's objection is, I nonetheless amended that line in his greatest hits to make him happy. I haven't heard him raise any complaints about the amended line, even though what he is saying continues to sound incredibly stupid.

Indeed, here's the real point: Franky has studiously avoided explaining how he calculated that the current temperature trend "still fits" Mann's graph.

He posted one comment about current temperatures but nothing about how that supposedly "fits" with a graph that only goes to the year 2000.

 

[basketcase]

Natural radiative forcing will always win out over man made forcing, ....

Then why do so few scientists support that claim?

 

[FAST]

Those who can,... do,...those who can't,...become "climate scientists",...

AR4 sourced out about 3500 people from 130 countries.
AR5 used even more.

I have to say that your conspiracy theory is really totally cuckoo now, claiming that 3500 scientists from 130 countries are all forced into faking science by the all powerful UN.

And I just have to ask, who's pulling the strings at the UN to force all of the UN and all climatologists all over the world to go along with this conspiracy of yours?

Again with your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

Over 3500 "climate scientists",...what ever the hell they are,...that alone should tell you that something is very wrong with that picture,...frankie,...THREE THOUSAND + CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,...holy shit.

Talk about lunacy,...best example yet.


FAST

 

[eznutz]

Then why do so few scientists support that claim?

Cause your scientists (computer simulator technicians really) are scared, they can't even admit volcanoes degas CO2 in AR5.

This is from chapter 12 of AR5...

SRES and RCPs account for future changes only in anthropogenic forcings.
Neither projections of future deviations from this solar cycle, nor
future volcanic RF and their uncertainties are considered.

Natural forcings (arising from solar variability and aerosol emissions
via volcanic activity) are also specified elements in the CMIP5 experimental
protocol, but their future time evolutions are not prescribed very precisely.
A repeated 11-year cycle for total solar irradiance (Lean
and Rind, 2009) is suggested for future projections but the periodicity
is not specified precisely as solar cycles vary in length. Some models
include the effect of orbital variations as well, but most do not. For
volcanic eruptions, no specific CMIP5 prescription is given for future
emissions or concentration data, the general recommendation being
that volcanic aerosols should either be omitted entirely both from the
control experiment and future projections or the same background
volcanic aerosols should be prescribed in both. This provides a consistent
framework for model intercomparison given a lack of knowledge
of when future large eruptions will occur. In general models have
adhered to this guidance, but there are variations in the background
volcanic aerosol levels chosen (zero or an average volcano background
in general) and some cases, for example, Australian Community
Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS)1.0 and ACCESS1.3
(Dix et al., 2013), where the background volcanic aerosol in future
differs significantly from that in the control experiment, with a small
effect on future RF.

It seems to me the IPCC has gone out of their way to confuse volcanoes with only cooling aerosols and make sure no one knows that volcanoes degas CO2 at all.
Tell me why I should believe anything your scientists have to say considering they can't be honest about where CO2 comes from.

Here's an actual study from someone who bothered to measure how much CO2 degasses from volcanoes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL019480/full

[1] We present the first regional map of CO2 Earth degassing from a large area (most of central and south Italy) derived from the carbon of deep provenance dissolved in the main springs of the region. The investigation shows that a globally significant amount of deeply derived CO2 (10% of the estimated global CO2 emitted from subaerial volcanoes) is released by two large areas located in western Italy. The anomalous flux of CO2 suddenly disappears in the Apennine in correspondence to a narrow band where most of seismicity concentrates. Here, at depth, the gas accumulates in crustal traps generating CO2 overpressurized reservoirs which induce seismicity.