Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

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."

February 2016 hit 2ºC warmer then pre-industrial temperatures, that is very unusual.
The stats say that the odds of 15 of the last 16 years being the warmest on record is 0.01%.
Statistically, its near impossible that this is 'nothing unusual'

Which fits the IPCC definition of climate change:

Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer).

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

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 IPCC states:

Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2).

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

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.

Water vapour is a feedback effect, not a driver.
Put too much water vapour in the atmosphere it rains, put too much CO2 there and it stays for decades.
So even if you went all nutso and tried to seed clouds all across the planet you'd make it rain for a couple of days and then things would settle back to the way they were before.
But put more CO2 in the atmosphere and it increases the temperature of the globe which increases the ability of the atmosphere to retain water vapour.
Big difference.

AGW has not been proven. The dispute is over the water vapour feedback, not the direct changes caused by CO2. .

Nope, water vapour is a feedback, it alone can't change the climate of the planet.
Only greenhouse gases can increase the global temperature, which then increases water vapour.

AGW has been proven as a fact, not a theory.

 

[Frankfooter]

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

NASA says the consensus is 97%.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Nothing needs to be sorted out.

 

[K Douglas]

NASA says the consensus is 97%.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Nothing needs to be sorted out.

NASA is wrong. No surprise - it's run by an avowed alarmist. And it was previously run by an avowed alarmist and environmental activist. It's a shame what this organization has been turned into.

 

[**Sophie**]

NASA is wrong. No surprise - it's run by an avowed alarmist. And it was previously run by an avowed alarmist and environmental activist. It's a shame what this organization has been turned into.

Speaking of government run entities
The carbon footprint of war:
690 million tonnes CO2e: a 'limited' nuclear exchange
250–600 million tonnes CO2e: the Iraq war since 2003

"The direct human costs of wars are so great that it might seem flippant to think about their environmental impacts. But modern armed forces are rapacious consumers of energy and kick out vast quantities of carbon – emissions that may contribute towards human harm well beyond the battlefield.
All carbon footprints are virtually impossible to pin down accurately, and this is especially the case for something as complex and chaotic as war. Indeed, the best that can be done in this case is to give some very crude numbers to provide a sense of scale."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/jul/08/carbon-footprint-iraq-war

 

[Moviefan-2]

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.

Let's take another look at that quote from the news release:

"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."

The number you cited is only 10% of the total "combination" for CO2, clouds and water vapour, not 100% as you had claimed. The 0.2 Watts figure is for CO2 alone.

You were wrong. Admit it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

February 2016 hit 2ºC warmer then pre-industrial temperatures, that is very unusual.

The former vice-chair of the IPCC says it had nothing to do with climate change. :thumb:

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter

As for water vapour, I never said "water vapour alone" causes warming. The AGW hypothesis is that while CO2 may be the driver, it's the feedback from the water vapour that is supposed to cause the bulk of the warming.

In fact, the quote I provided to Fuji said only 10% of the energy that was measured was due to CO2.

The issue is the predictions about the water vapour feedback. There's no evidence of that occurring as predicted.

The AGW hypothesis remains unproven and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

NASA is wrong. No surprise - it's run by an avowed alarmist.

You are a total kook.

 

[Frankfooter]

The former vice-chair of the IPCC says it had nothing to do with climate change. :thumb:

He said that El Nino had nothing to do with climate change, not the record temperature of 2015.
Nice try.

As for water vapour, I never said "water vapour alone" causes warming. The AGW hypothesis is that while CO2 may be the driver, it's the feedback from the water vapour that is supposed to cause the bulk of the warming.

In fact, the quote I provided to Fuji said only 10% of the energy that was measured was due to CO2.

9-26% is the number I recall for CO2.
So you now confirm that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, or anthropogenic climate change when its from human activity.

The issue is the predictions about the water vapour feedback. There's no evidence of that occurring as predicted.

That's not the issue at all, that's just you squirming around and trying to change your claims bit by bit.
What has been confirmed is the AGW theory that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, your question only relates to the severity of it due to feedback mechanisms.
The primary driver, CO2, has been confirmed.

That confirms AGW as real, not a theory.
The only question remains as how big the feedback mechanisms are, and those science is quite certain of, based on measurements of the climate compared with models.

 

[**Sophie**]

The former vice-chair of the IPCC says it had nothing to do with climate change. :thumb:

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter

He says that because a difference of 0.2 degrees between estimates of monthly global temperature for two February months (1998/2016) 18 years apart is trivial!

 

[Frankfooter]

He says that because a difference of 0.2 degrees between estimates of monthly global temperature for two February months (1998/2016) 18 years apart is trivial!

No, don't think it was because of that, since its not correct.

 

[**Sophie**]

Warmest Months, Global
How much warmer than seasonal norms
Feb. 2016 0.83 C
Apr. 1998 0.74 C
Feb. 1998 0.65 C
May 1998 0.64 C
June 1998 0.57 C
Jan. 2016 0.54 C
Aug. 1998 0.52 C
Mar. 2010 0.50 C
Jan. 1998 0.48 C
Mar. 1998 0.47 C
Feb. 2010 0.47 C

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

P.S Frank stop getting your edited graphs off of Hotwhopper

 

[basketcase]

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.
...

Which has exactly what to do with his opinion on Climate Change? Oh that's right, nothing. A scientists doing an afternoon of googling does not make him anywhere near authoritative. At least the skeptical science guy has spent more than an afternoon on the topic.

 

[basketcase]

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

Amazing. You have so little evidence for your views that you are now using groggy as "THE" authority.

You stated your opinions. The survey you posted shows 7% and 9% support the two claims you made. If your views are based on evidence, why is it that less than a tenth of scientists agree with you?

 

[fuji]

Let's take another look at that quote from the news release:

"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."

The number you cited is only 10% of the total "combination" for CO2, clouds and water vapour, not 100% as you had claimed. The 0.2 Watts figure is for CO2 alone.

You were wrong. Admit it.

More pettifoggery. If AGW causes offsetting factors that reduced the energy, they are ACCOUNTED in the .2 figure, which is the net impact of additional CO2.

 

[Frankfooter]

Warmest Months, Global
How much warmer than seasonal norms
Feb. 2016 0.83 C
Apr. 1998 0.74 C
Feb. 1998 0.65 C
May 1998 0.64 C
June 1998 0.57 C
Jan. 2016 0.54 C
Aug. 1998 0.52 C
Mar. 2010 0.50 C
Jan. 1998 0.48 C
Mar. 1998 0.47 C
Feb. 2010 0.47 C

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

P.S Frank stop getting your edited graphs off of Hotwhopper

There is nothing wrong with the charts from Hottwhopper.
Links to the data are provided.

I can see why you focus on the monthly records and why you look at the University of Alabama's records only.
Because when you look otherwise its quite obvious what's going on.

1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR ANOMALY °C ANOMALY °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97

14 of the 15 warmest years on record happened since 2000, according to NOAA.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513


And why do you keep posting charts from the toposphere?
Do you live in the clouds?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Amazing. You have so little evidence for your views that you are now using groggy as "THE" authority.

Not at all. I just want to understand how one guy says less than 10% of climate researchers support my position and the other guy says it's 10%.

It sounds like you think Frankfooter's claim of a "97% consensus" is completely wrong. If that's the case, say so.

 

[Moviefan-2]

He said that El Nino had nothing to do with climate change, not the record temperature of 2015.

The record temperature was caused by El Nino.

Think this through. With any luck, you might just figure this out.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What has been confirmed is the AGW theory that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, your question only relates to the severity of it due to feedback mechanisms.
The primary driver, CO2, has been confirmed.

That confirms AGW as real, not a theory.

Let's see if I have this right.

The climate researchers say the temperature could increase by 1ºC over the next 100 years or so.

But you're saying the "confirmed" part we should be worried about is the warming directly caused by CO2, which Fuji's paper says is about 10 per cent of that total number. That would be an increase of 0.1ºC over the next 100 years.

That's what you're worried about? A worldwide temperature change of 1/10th of a degree over the next 100 years?

You might want to reconsider your position on the water vapour feedback.

 

[Moviefan-2]

If AGW causes offsetting factors that reduced the energy, they are ACCOUNTED in the .2 figure, which is the net impact of additional CO2.

Nice try. The figure cited is not the "net impact" of additional CO2.

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

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

The 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade figure is 10 per cent of the total from all sources, such as clouds and water vapour -- not the combined "net impact."

It's only 10 per cent because it's only the amount that is "solely" due to CO2, which is what I have been telling you all along.

You got it completely wrong.

But look on the bright side. I helped you save $32. :thumb:

 

[basketcase]

Not at all. I just want to understand how one guy says less than 10% of climate researchers support my position and the other guy says it's 10%....

All you have to do is read the survey you posted.

Other sources might have different levels support but that is the survey you chose to post so I expect you to stand up for it. If the source you posted show only 7 and 9% support for your views, why do you think you are correct?