Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

Ah, you're once again creating straw men by rewriting what I said.

I didn't dispute that CO2 is the driver for the projected increases in the models. I said the majority of the projected warming (about two-thirds of the total) in the models is due to the water vapour feedback.

My point is about the projected size of the impact of each, not which one is the "driver."

The impact of CO2 alone is not worth worrying about. Fuji's paper does nothing to verify the AGW hypothesis.

Of course the impact of CO2 is what you worry about.
As you stated, CO2 is the driver, if CO2 doesn't increase then water vapour greenhouse effects don't increase.

And you still haven't answered, when I show you studies confirming the water vapour feedback effect will you then concede that AGW is real, and not just a theory?

 

[eznutz]

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

Well, at least Mann was man enough to admit his mistake, climate scientists actually don't yet understand how dynamic our climate really is.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/11/mann-paper-pause-was-not-foreseeable/

Paper from climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues asks whether the recent slowdown, or pause as some refer to it, in global warming was predictable? They conclude that the “temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming” earlier this century could not have been foreseen by statistical forecasting methods.

From the early 2000s to the early 2010s, there was a temporary slowdown in the large-scale warming of Earth’s surface. Recent studies have ascribed this slowing to both internal sources of climatic variability—such as cool La Niña conditions and stronger trade winds in the Pacific—and external influences, including the cooling effects of volcanic and human-made particulates in the atmosphere.Several studies have suggested that climate models could have predicted this slowdown and the subsequent recovery several years ahead of time—implying that the models can accurately account for mechanisms that regulate decadal and interdecadal variability in the planet’s temperature.

So much for the hockey shtick.

 

[Frankfooter]

Well, at least Mann was man enough to admit his mistake, climate scientists actually don't yet understand how dynamic our climate really is.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/11/mann-paper-pause-was-not-foreseeable/


So much for the hockey shtick.

Even the slowdown (it wasn't a 'pause', just a slowing of the rate of warming) still fits the hockey stick chart.
In fact the latest temperatures just make that chart look more extreme.

As the National Academy of Scientists said after they looked into it:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."

http://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/2#2

Its only the crackpots and those under the pay of the fossil fuel industry left on your side now.

And as Mann himself says:

As long as fossil fuel interests like ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a massive campaign to disinform the public about climate change, there will be many misguided individuals who will believe their propaganda. But increasingly they are irrelevant. We have moved past this now. The adults in the room know better.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...view-exxon-mobil-investigation-global-warming

 

[Moviefan-2]

Of course the impact of CO2 is what you worry about.
As you stated, CO2 is the driver, if CO2 doesn't increase then water vapour greenhouse effects don't increase.

Yes, but even if CO2 does increase, that doesn't necessarily mean the projections about water vapour feedback will be correct.

What I said is that the impact of CO2 alone isn't worth worrying about. And since the rest of it remains unproven -- and the predictions have been spectacularly wrong -- there is damn good reason to doubt the AGW hypothesis.

And you still haven't answered, when I show you studies confirming the water vapour feedback effect will you then concede that AGW is real, and not just a theory?

There are peer-reviewed papers that support the claim and peer-reviewed papers that dispute it. No single paper settles anything and nothing has been confirmed.

I'll stick with the scientific method and use the same criteria I have always used: Comparing the predictions with the observed data.

 

[**Sophie**]

In light of full disclosure

http://m.azdailysun.com/news/state-...cle_3654cbcf-f6a1-5187-af02-e94e57be904f.html

"PHOENIX — An organization that is questioning the research behind climate change will get another chance to demand to see the emails of two University of Arizona scientists.The state Court of Appeals has overturned the ruling of a trial judge who said the university need not disclose 1,700 emails and other records from Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes. Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner had said the university did not abuse its discretion in concluding that disclosing the documents would not be in the best interests of the state.

But appellate Judge Joseph Howard, writing for the unanimous court, said it’s legally irrelevant what university officials thought was appropriate to disclose. Howard said everyone involved in the case acknowledges the emails are public records. And he said state law has a presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions.

What that means, Howard wrote, is that trial judges must actually examine the records to determine whether making them public really would harm “the best interests of the state’’ as the university is claiming.

- Mann wrote the hockeystick with Jonathan Overpeck & Malcolm Hughes

 

[Moviefan-2]

Even the slowdown (it wasn't a 'pause', just a slowing of the rate of warming) still fits the hockey stick chart.

?????? :der:

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, but even if CO2 does increase, that doesn't necessarily mean the projections about water vapour feedback will be correct.

Goal post moving, typical troll act.

I'll stick with the scientific method and use the same criteria I have always used: Comparing the predictions with the observed data.

We've been over that, the projections are accurate, any reference to that claim is again a reference to the bet you lost over the same claim.

As for water vapour, its been confirmed:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-moisture

“This new work shows that the climate system is telling us a consistent story,” Santer said. “The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally- and physically-consistent way.”

And confirmed to be increasing in the troposphere:
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html

 

[Frankfooter]

In light of full disclosure

And do you support full disclosure of Exxon emails?
How about full disclosure of emails from wattsupwiththat.com?

 

[eznutz]

And do you support full disclosure of Exxon emails?
How about full disclosure of emails from wattsupwiththat.com?

In all fairness, Exxon and wattsupwiththat don't use taxpayer money in order to advance a political agenda.

 

[**Sophie**]

In all fairness, Exxon and wattsupwiththat don't use taxpayer money in order to advance a political agenda.

Exactly

 

[fuji]

Yes, but even if CO2 does increase, that doesn't necessarily mean the projections about water vapour feedback will be correct.

Over an 11 year period the additional CO2 actually did produce the expected warming. Do you think 11 years is not long enough to observe whatever feedback loop?

 

[Moviefan-2]

We've been over that, the projections are accurate, any reference to that claim is again a reference to the bet you lost over the same claim.

The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

And while we're talking about having gone over things before, you know what the punishment is if you start peddling your fairy tales about the bet again.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Over an 11 year period the additional CO2 actually did produce the expected warming. Do you think 11 years is not long enough to observe whatever feedback loop?

Give it up, Fuji.

The time period has nothing to do with my posts. I'm telling you that water vapour feedback wasn't part of the energy figure that you cited because your news release explicitly stated that water vapour and clouds were not included in that number.

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

The "expected warming" that the paper said the researchers measured was for CO2 alone, without the feedbacks. And the impact of CO2 alone is too small to worry about.

 

[Frankfooter]

In all fairness, Exxon and wattsupwiththat don't use taxpayer money in order to advance a political agenda.

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory.
That there is a political agenda in over 100 countries, lasting over 30 years and multiple governments to create political pressure that runs the IPCC.
That's pretty kooky.

But I'm curious, how can you even pretend to be even handed if you don't want to know what political pressures and money pressures have influenced the work of Exxon as well as wattsupwiththat?

 

[Frankfooter]

The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

No, your predictions have been spectacularly wrong, the IPCC projections are quite good.
As you remember, you bet that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, based on IPCC projections, and they hit 0.87ºC.
The IPCC is accurate, you not at all.

 

[Frankfooter]

The "expected warming" that the paper said the researchers measured was for CO2 alone, without the feedbacks. And the impact of CO2 alone is too small to worry about.

Give it up moviefan.


As for water vapour, its been confirmed:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-moisture

“This new work shows that the climate system is telling us a consistent story,” Santer said. “The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally- and physically-consistent way.”

And confirmed to be increasing in the troposphere:
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html

 

[eznutz]

But I'm curious, how can you even pretend to be even handed if you don't want to know what political pressures and money pressures have influenced the work of Exxon as well as wattsupwiththat?

There are no political/taxpayer money pressures that control Exxon and wattsupwiththat, only their own self interest.
Exxon (and every other oil company) employ hundreds of thousands of people and are concerned with keeping their employees employed and their families fed.
wattsupwiththat is a privately run website who have made it their mission to present the other side of the argument.
Politics (taxpayer money) have made it clear that the oil industry & AGW denial in general are both evil and deserve to be shut down at any cost, even jailing them.

Climate scientists on the other hand, they are paid from government grants (taxpayer money), the government will turn off the tap if they don't produce the results they expect. That's why your climate scientists had to go back and revise historical global temp data downward with made up tree ring data just to backup their conclusions of the hockey stick graph you love so much. And even then they we're forced to admit there was a pause in temps and they still have no idea why it happened.

When you listen to other scientists, not just climate scientists, you can learn so much more.

CO2 ONLY affects radiant energy near the ground and only a small amount is man-made. Water H2O affects MORE than the radiant energy near the ground – H2O forms Clouds (Evaporation and condensation unlike CO2), and Oceans store 1,000 times more energy than the atmosphere.

1. CLIMATE CHANGE RESULTS DIRECTLY FROM ENERGY MOVEMENTS FROM THE SUN, THE EARTH, THE OCEANS and THE ATMOSPHERE

2. WATER AS A VAPOUR and a LIQUID IS THE LARGEST GREENHOUSE ‘GAS’ – BUT IT CAN DO FAR MORE THAN CO2

3. CO2 IS A GAS ONLY IN THE ATMOSPHERE: IT AFFECTS ONLY ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY ABSORPTION / EMISSION NEAR THE EARTH’S SURFACE

4. H2O PHASE-CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERE – CO2 DOES NOT

5. EVAPORATION/CONDENSATION PHASE CHANGES OCCUR AT SEA LEVEL AND IN CLOUD FORMATION - CO2 IS ONLY A GAS AND DOES NOT CONDENSE

6. OCEANS ABSORB 1,000 TIMES MORE HEAT THAN THE ATMOSPHERE

7. OCEANS BUFFER MORE THAN 80% OF THE LARGE HEAT/TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATIONS THAT MODERATE CLIMATE/WEATHER CHANGES IF THE WATER and WATER VAPOUR CONCENTRATION IS 20 TIMES HIGHER THAN CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE, AND MOST CO2 IS NATURALLY MADE – WHY BLAME THE SMALLER AMOUNT OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 ON CLIMATE CHANGE ??

IN FACT - CO2 DOES NOT EXIST BY ITSELF, and CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN ISOLATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING WATER SIMULTANEOUSLY

Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy
DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng
http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/s...themyth/CO2andH20CONTRASTEDCLIMATECHANGE6.pdf

 

[Frankfooter]

There are no political/taxpayer money pressures that control Exxon and wattsupwiththat, only their own self interest.
Exxon (and every other oil company) employ hundreds of thousands of people and are concerned with keeping their employees employed and their families fed.

Exxon is concerned with making a profit, not the well being of their employees families or anything else.
And just like the tobacco industry, Exxon did research that found that their products were harmful and then hid that research and paid for disinformation.
There is evidence of fraud that has been revealed and is being investigated.

When you listen to other scientists, not just climate scientists, you can learn so much more.

You mean like when you get your climate science from engineers like Duffy?

He says things like this:

The main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are Fossil Fuels: coal, oil, gas, and
the burning of trees and other crop wastes

...IF THE WATER and WATER VAPOUR CONCENTRATION IS 20 TIMES HIGHER
THAN CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE, AND MOST CO2 IS NATURALLY MADE –
WHY BLAME THE SMALLER AMOUNT OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 ON CLIMATE
CHANGE ??

He admits that most new CO2 is from fossil fuels and misses the fact that about 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere now is from human activity.
He also doesn't understand that water vapour is a feedback mechanism, it doesn't drive climate change as it only stays in the atmosphere for 1-10 days at a time, where as CO2 lasts for decades. Pump the atmosphere full of water vapour and it'll rain and go back to the norm, pump the atmosphere with 30% more CO2 and the globe's temperature goes up a few degrees, and increases water vapour because of the higher temperature.

Basic mistakes.
The same ones you repeat here.

 

[eznutz]

and misses the fact that about 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere now is from human activity.

You said humans are responsible for 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850, so which is it, 30% or 100%.

Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
From 1850 on all CO2 increases in the atmosphere were from humans

You mean like when you get your climate science from engineers like Duffy?

Climate scientists have already been caught using made up proxy data, fudging numbers and other devious tactics.
So yes, I will listen to the opinion of a "chemical engineer" who understands chemical interactions over a "climate scientist" who invents data to fit a political agenda.

more CO2 heat (.02 W/m2) = more H20 evaporation (95% of GHG) = more clouds (blocks the sun) = more rain (cools the ground)

Considering Mann already admitted the last El Nino "paused" the rise in temps, what are you going to say when temperatures inevitably go back down after our current El Nino ends.

 

[fuji]

Give it up, Fuji.

The time period has nothing to do with my posts. I'm telling you that water vapour feedback wasn't part of the energy figure that you cited because your news release explicitly stated that water vapour and clouds were not included in that number.



The "expected warming" that the paper said the researchers measured was for CO2 alone, without the feedbacks. And the impact of CO2 alone is too small to worry about.

The article if very clear that the presence of additional CO2 generated accelerating warming. You really need to stop this clown dance and and admit that human caused global warming is thereby proven fact.