Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[FAST]

Are you expecting the climate to change totally evenly, or in a straight line?

So you are stating that humans in 1908, almost instantaneously caused the globes temp. to start a very steep incline for 40 years,...then mysteriously declined,...???

I guess all those people with Cadillac Escalades must have opened their doors with the air conditioning on.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

debunking the claims that man made global warming is caused by CO2 which is 0.039% of Air

Funny, most of those quotes showed the opposite.
Didn't read them all, did you?

 

[basketcase]

Interesting effect that's making the earth greener.

Is that argument supposed to say that global warming isn't happening?

Or have you realized that you are wrong and have changed your argument to 'global warming is a good thing'?

 

[canada-man]

Funny, most of those quotes showed the opposite.
Didn't read them all, did you?

they have crying global warming since 1870

 

[basketcase]

computer models and graphs which can be manipulated are not facts

Yet even you could set up two closed containers with differing CO2 content, stick them on your windowsill and measure the temperature.

 

[Frankfooter]

The moment someone replies that the recorded temperatures aren't what the hypothesis said they would be, you accuse them of trying to change the subject.

And to think that Franky has the nerve to call me a troll. :biggrin1:

Your favourite research, Michael Mann, who you like to quote posted this chart, which shows that the reality has followed the projections spectacularly well.
Of course you are a troll, who claims that the IPCC's projections must be deadly accurate to the means of their projections, a claim they don't make.

And of course, as you stated a while ago:

The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.

Which means the IPCC projections are as accurate as they stated they would be.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your favourite research, Michael Mann, who you like to quote posted this chart, which shows that the reality has followed the projections spectacularly well.

Nonsense. The fake "Nobel laureate" has adjusted the line showing the predictions to correct for all the things that the actual predictions got spectacularly wrong.

Let's stick with the published graph.

 

[bishop]

Your favourite research, Michael Mann, who you like to quote posted this chart, which shows that the reality has followed the projections spectacularly well.
Of course you are a troll, who claims that the IPCC's projections must be deadly accurate to the means of their projections, a claim they don't make.

And of course, as you stated a while ago:


Which means the IPCC projections are as accurate as they stated they would be.

What is this, the 9th time you have posted CIMP5 knowing full well that at best only 2 years is actual projections because CIMP5 was released at the end of 2013. Yet you still hold that up as a testament that IPCC projections are accurate.

 

[fuji]

... a huge cut and paste post that failed to address the point ....

Versus the article in Nature above which proves, definitively, that human produced greenhouse gases downwell the exact amount of heat predicted.

It's not a model. It's not a theory. It's not a hypothesis.

It's a direct observation.

But keep on losing. Your continued attempts to change the topic away from the empirical fact is dishonest. Spamming the thread won't make the Nature study go away.

 

[fuji]

This is too bizarre, even by your standards.

Using measurements that a published paper says are "affecting the surface energy balance," you keep posting that the Earth's recorded temperatures are EXACTLY what the hypothesis said they would be.

I said nothing about recorded temperatures. Stop being so fucking dishonest. I wrote that human caused global warming has been observed directly and is completely proven with the results exactly matching prediction.

The net temperature is affected by that, but by many other factors as well.

You have failed to comprehend what I wrote. You have failed to comprehend the facts. You have failed to comprehend the study.

Which is unsurprising.

You are clinging to this RIDICULOUS argument that nobody can make any claim about factors influencing the climate unless they can exactly model every single factor. That is just asinine.

Human caused global warming is proven. There are many OTHER climate factors that are unknown. Predicting the temperature accurately requires understanding ALL the factors. We understand a few of them--such as the exact amount of warming caused by human activity.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The reality, Fuji, is that you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'll ignore the silliness about how you were supposedly saying nothing about "temperature" when you spoke about "warming."

Let's recall a few facts:

-- K Douglas asked you about the Judith Curry post about the climate having low sensitivity to CO2. You simply evaded the discussion with a snarky reply.

-- When I questioned whether you understood that the debate is whether the impact of man-made emissions on the Earth's temperature is statistically significant, you responded with a reply that completely missed the mark and had nothing to do with the question.

The debate over man-made greenhouse gases isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

The issue isn't whether man-made emissions have an effect on the climate. They almost certainly do.

The question is whether the impact is anywhere even close to significant enough to be concerned about it.

The IPCC has claimed that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950 and that the planet faces an existential crisis. That's highly debatable, given that nothing unusual has occurred in recent temperature patterns and the predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.

No matter how you try to twist things that you don't actually understand, the reality is the Earth has not warmed "EXACTLY" as predicted. The observed temperatures have been nowhere near what was predicted.

 

[fuji]

Let's recall the fact:

-- Direct, exact, precise scientific measurement of the warming effect of human produced greenhouse gas

You denied it. You said there was no statistical significance to it. It turns out to be a fact. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that fact, otherwise, what is the point of debating anything with you? You will run in circles while evading the fact.

Once you acknowledge that humans cause global warming, we can discuss what other factors also are impacting the client that make it hard to predict the net temperature.

It would also be nice if you would quit the asinine argument that unless every single factor that influences temperature can be modeled perfectly, that no factor that influences temperature can be known accurately. That's proven false by the Nature study above.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You denied it. You said there was no statistical significance to it.

It's impossible to know "exactly" how to respond to this because you continue to confuse different concepts.

What I said is that there is no evidence that the impact of man-made emissions on the Earth's temperature is statistically significant. If that's what you mean, I stand by that statement.

And the comparisons of the predictions vs the observed data support my statement.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. The fake "Nobel laureate" has adjusted the line showing the predictions to correct for all the things that the actual predictions got spectacularly wrong.

Let's stick with the published graph.

Sorry, troll.
Michael Mann is a lead author on the one chart you like you to copy and paste, from the study about which you lie repeatedly.

Either you don't support his work and you've been using a chart from a study you don't trust, or you do support his work, in which case this chart is just as legit as yours.
And of course, its beyond you to figure out why they look different, isn't it?

You'll never be able to tell, will you?

 

[Frankfooter]

What is this, the 9th time you have posted CIMP5 knowing full well that at best only 2 years is actual projections because CIMP5 was released at the end of 2013. Yet you still hold that up as a testament that IPCC projections are accurate.

Yup, and for you I'll also post up a chart of CMIP3, an older projection, because it has more years you can judge it by.
And this is about the 9th time I've done this for you.

Hope you enjoy it this time as well.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By the way, I love how Fuji cites one published paper as if its findings are etched in stone.

Papers get published all the time that have conflicting confusions. An obvious example would be the Karl paper from last year that said warming in the 21st century had not slowed down compared to previous decades, vs. the recently published paper by Fyfe et al that said there had been a slowdown.

 

[Frankfooter]

What I said is that there is no evidence that the impact of man-made emissions on the Earth's temperature is statistically significant.

15 of the 16 warmest years ever recorded happened this century.
The odds that is 'natural' or 'statistically insignificant' are 0.01%

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study

There is a 99.99% chance that you are full of shit and just a troll.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Michael Mann is a lead author on the one chart you like you to copy and paste....

Actually, the lead author on the paper was John Fyfe.

And of course, its beyond you to figure out why they look different, isn't it?

You'll never be able to tell, will you?

Well ... if you were to provide the link to an actual reference source, that might be helpful.

But it's not necessary. I already told you how he did it -- he made adjustments for all of the things that the actual predictions got spectacularly wrong.

 

[fuji]

It's impossible to know "exactly" how to respond to this because you continue to confuse different concepts.

What I said is that there is no evidence that the impact of man-made emissions on the Earth's temperature is statistically significant. If that's what you mean, I stand by that statement.

And the comparisons of the predictions vs the observed data support my statement.

No, you were quite clear. I said that human caused global warming was proven, and you claimed not with statistically significance. I replied with a link to the Nature study which exactly measured human caused global warming with a high degree of precision and significance.

Then you went back to the asinine argument that since the resulting models have large residuals that nothing can be known.

Let me give you an analogy: you have a furnace which you calculate will raise the temperature of your home by one degree per minute. What you don't know is whether or not the bedroom window is open. Your prediction as to the resulting temperature may be wildly inaccurate as a result of this unknown. You may not even know you don't know the window's state--you may have overlooked it.

But you know fact in any case that turning on the furnace is going to raise the temperature.

That's the situation here. We know EXACTLY how much heat greenhouse gases are creating. Exactly. We have measured it. We have hard physics that explain and predict the heat.

But they're are other unknowns we don't know, that make the prediction inaccurate.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, the lead author on the paper was John Fyfe.

I said a lead author.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

Well ... if you were to provide an actual reference source, that might be helpful.

But it's not necessary. I already told you how he did it -- he made adjustments for all of the things that the actual predictions got spectacularly wrong.

Here's the source for the data, though hotwhopper published that copy they used Mann's data.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep.../hottest-february-by-far-at-whopping-135.html
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/hottest-february-by-far-at-whopping-135.html

The hotwhopper post is good, mentions Mann discussing how he thinks we hit 2.0ºC above pre-industrial temperatures last month.

Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
Yes, Feb 2016 saw 2C warmer-than-preindustrial "dangerous" warming:twitter.com/MichaelEMann/s…
4:37 PM - 12 Mar 2016

I look forward to your analysis of those two charts.
Hahahahahahahahaha!

:bounce:
:clock:
opcorn: