Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[eznutz]

he doesn't understand that water vapour is a feedback mechanism, it doesn't drive climate change

It seems you're the one who doesn't understand climate change.

The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver

Increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climate
disruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming
(AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood
by any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptions
within the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block too
much infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo)
energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic.
A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should
lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the
climate simulations.

The global surface warming of about 0.7°C that has been experienced over the last 150 years and
the multi-decadal up-and-down global temperature changes of 0.3-0.4°C that have been observed
over this period are hypothesized to be driven by a combination of multi-century and multi-decadal
ocean circulation changes. These ocean changes are due to naturally occurring upper ocean salinity
variations. Changes in CO2 play little role in these salinity driven ocean climate forcings.

William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

And since you hate actual scientists and only listen to climatists, here are some pictures of actual CO2 readings when real scientists went out an actually measured.
Chemical analysis ends in 1960, since then it changed to IR spectral on Mauna Loa and then the IPCC used Vostock ice cores for the baseline.

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

 

[Moviefan-2]

As you remember, you bet....

At Frankfooter's insistence, here is the most recently updated version of Frankfooter's greatest global-warming hits.

- 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 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]

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.

That's total nonsense.

The bulk of the warming in the AGW hypothesis is due to water vapour feedback, not the small amount of warming directly attributable to CO2.

There are conflicting papers about the effect of water vapour feedback and nothing has been determined as "proven fact." In fact, the predictions based on the models have been spectacularly wrong.

I can understand why you're struggling with this, though. You still haven't figured out whether water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling.

 

[K Douglas]

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

You realize that the Exxon scientists had significant contributions to past IPCC reports right? They weren't hiding anything. More smoke and mirrors from the radical environmentalist movement. Those 3 AG's are perilously close to violating the 1st Amendment.

 

[K Douglas]

Who would disagree?
How about the scientists who wrote the two dozen other papers backing the same findings?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

Steyn is a hack, a paid troll who has given speeches at the Heartland Institute.

Scientists who are part of the cabal. They should be as just ashamed of themselves as Mann should be. Perverting science to further an agenda. Sickening.
If he's got nothing to hide why does Mann refuse to release the data for scrutiny?
Why does he keep stalling on the Steyn case? Because he knows he will be exposed for the lying piece of shit fraud artist he is.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Scientists who are part of the cabal. They should be as just ashamed of themselves as Mann should be. Perverting science to further an agenda. Sickening.
If he's got nothing to hide why does Mann refuse to release the data for scrutiny?
Why does he keep stalling on the Steyn case? Because he knows he will be exposed for the lying piece of shit fraud artist he is.

Mann's whole strategy was to try to silence Steyn and the many other critics of his discredited research by running up a massive legal bill (most likely, while activists cover his own costs). No one has ever seriously believed that Mann intended to go to court.

That's what makes Steyn's counter suit so interesting. Although the case is dragging on forever, it looks like Mann could end up in the courtroom, regardless of his own scheme.

If that happens, it should be very entertaining.

It will be fun to see how Mann tries to argue that it's libellous to call his hockey stick graph "fraudulent" when there are climate researchers -- including researchers who believe in AGW -- who have said the same thing (in at least one case, using that exact word).

 

[fuji]

That's total nonsense.

The bulk of the warming in the AGW hypothesis is due to water vapour feedback, not the small amount of warming directly attributable to CO2.

There are conflicting papers about the effect of water vapour feedback and nothing has been determined as "proven fact." In fact, the predictions based on the models have been spectacularly wrong.

I can understand why you're struggling with this, though. You still haven't figured out whether water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling.

It's all attributed to the effects of the CO2, direct and indirect. You just need to acknowledge that those effects have been proven, confirming human caused global warming is real. Then we can move on to the subsequent discussion of what percent of the change that represents.

 

[**Sophie**]

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.

Frank do you not remember saying the increased CO2 post Industrial Age accounted for ALL human induced CO2 ONLY?! I do, because I remember shaking my head when I read it lol.

Incase you don't remember, here is a quote from yours truly:

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

You change your mind now? Lol

**Moviefan - you've got yourself another add for the greatest hits list lmao.
Great read btw

 

[Moviefan-2]

It's all attributed to the effects of the CO2, direct and indirect.

No, your news release explicitly says that indirect effects such as water vapour feedback were not included in the figure you cited.

The quote has been provided to you numerous times. You don't need me to provide it again.

 

[Moviefan-2]

**Moviefan - you've got yourself another add for the greatest hits list lmao.
Great read btw

Excellent. If Franky has to be spanked again for peddling fairy tales, I'll be sure to add it.

 

[fuji]

No, your news release explicitly says that indirect effects such as water vapour feedback were not included in the figure you cited.

The quote has been provided to you numerous times. You don't need me to provide it again.

How long are you going to do this clown dance? See up thread.

 

[Frankfooter]

It seems you're the one who doesn't understand climate change.

And since you hate actual scientists and only listen to climatists, here are some pictures of actual CO2 readings when real scientists went out an actually measured.
Chemical analysis ends in 1960, since then it changed to IR spectral on Mauna Loa and then the IPCC used Vostock ice cores for the baseline.

http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

Another kook.
I can see why he wants his chart to end in 1960, as his arguments are total nonsense when you add in those numbers.

 

[Frankfooter]

That's total nonsense.

The bulk of the warming in the AGW hypothesis is due to water vapour feedback, not the small amount of warming directly attributable to CO2.

You are wrong.
CO2 is the primary driver, without the changes from CO2 levels water vapour stays at the same levels.

You are still trying to move the goalposts.

 

[Frankfooter]

You realize that the Exxon scientists had significant contributions to past IPCC reports right? They weren't hiding anything. More smoke and mirrors from the radical environmentalist movement. Those 3 AG's are perilously close to violating the 1st Amendment.

Those scientists weren't hiding anything, you are correct.
It was Exxon that buried their research and paid for denier sites and organizations to try to sow doubt despite what they knew from their own research.
Which is why they are now under investigation.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank do you not remember saying the increased CO2 post Industrial Age accounted for ALL human induced CO2 ONLY?! I do, because I remember shaking my head when I read it lol.

Incase you don't remember, here is a quote from yours truly:


You change your mind now? Lol

**Moviefan - you've got yourself another add for the greatest hits list lmao.
Great read btw

Sophie, lets review the math for you.
Pre industrial CO2 levels were about 275 ppm
We are now at about 400 ppm.

That means about 125ppm of 400ppm in the air is from human activities, or about 30%.

And sure, get moviefan to add to the greatest hits list, that entire list is full of similar moviefan mistakes.
Each and every one of those quotes are nonsense, just like your failed math.

 

[Frankfooter]

Excellent. If Franky has to be spanked again for peddling fairy tales, I'll be sure to add it.

Ah, its the return of the whiny copy and paste loser, is it?
Poor boy, still trying to claim that 0.87 isn't as high as 0.83.
Once a denier, always a denier.

 

[eznutz]

Another kook.
I can see why he wants his chart to end in 1960, as his arguments are total nonsense when you add in those numbers.

180 Years of Accurate CO2 —
Gas Analysis of Air by Chemical Methods

More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are
summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in
temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing
CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2
concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level
maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical
method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an
accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of
Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists
have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques
being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical
methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the
assumption of a climate CO2 connection.

Ernst-Georg Beck
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE 18-2_Beck.pdf

The Truth About Ice Cores

Because carbon dioxide ice core records are regarded as a
foundation of the man-made global warming hypothesis, let us
dwell on them for a while.
The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit
view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently
preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition
of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable
matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and
ancient atmosphere. This assumption is in conflict with ample
evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the
opposite (see review in Jaworowski et al. 1992b).
Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by
analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally
lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere.
But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values much
higher than the current atmospheric concentrations
(Jaworowski et al. 1992b). These recent proxy ice core values
remained low during the entire past 650,000 years
(Siegenthaler et al. 2005)—even during the six former interglacial
warm periods, when the global temperature was as
much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial!
This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible
influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy
ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the
ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true).

Z. Jaworowski - CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time, EIR Science,
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski CO2 EIR 2007.pdf

 

[fuji]

Where do you find this garbage? Enutz, your post is a load is crap and your reference is nonsense.

EIR Sciences, a contract research organization: laughable. And Jaworowski's claims have been thoroughly refuted in real journals, like Science:

Raynaud, D., J. Jouzel, J. M. Barnola, J. Chappellaz, R. J. Delmas, C. Lorius, 1994, The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases, Science, 259, 926-934.

After the refutation in 1994 and another in 1995 Jaworowski was never able to get another one of his papers taken seriously by a refereed journal and only ever published in bullshit journals like EIR Sciences that publish WHATEVER they get without any peer review.

Your post is another example of fake debate. You think any reference that disputes AGW is valid even if it comes from a dodgy journal and has been widely refuted in real ones. You think just posting the link here gives it equal weight.

It doesn't, and you need to educate yourself on the difference between a credible reference and shit.

 

[PornAddict]

Where do you find this garbage? Enutz, your post is a load is crap and your reference is nonsense.

EIR Sciences, a contract research organization: laughable. And Jaworowski's claims have been thoroughly refuted in real journals, like Science:

Raynaud, D., J. Jouzel, J. M. Barnola, J. Chappellaz, R. J. Delmas, C. Lorius, 1994, The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases, Science, 259, 926-934.

After the refutation in 1994 and another in 1995 Jaworowski was never able to get another one of his papers taken seriously by a refereed journal and only ever published in bullshit journals like EIR Sciences that publish WHATEVER they get without any peer review.

Your post is another example of fake debate. You think any reference that disputes AGW is valid even if it comes from a dodgy journal and has been widely refuted in real ones. You think just posting the link here gives it equal weight.

It doesn't, and you need to educate yourself on the difference between a credible reference and shit.

Here a credible reference by credible french researcher and peer review!

The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access". http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/



GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
'Could explain recent disagreements'


30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page

As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:

Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.

Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.

"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.

VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."

With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.

 

[fuji]

Here a credible reference by credible french researcher and peer review!

On a totally different topic. Do you agree with that article that AGW is largely correct but needs to be updated to include additional factors?

Enutz' link was to some climate denier bullshit. Your link was to an article that accepts AGW and is trying to tweak it to include an additional factor.