The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

There you go ruining what might be a perfectly good research by endorsing it

You are the worst enemy of the cause

Cool, now I think I'm going to pick some other things to endorse, just to annoy you.
How about if I fully endorse the pro-vaxxer's and the pro vaccine movement?

You better stop using all vaccines, eh?
Oooh, the power.....

I had no idea you were so influenced by my posts, larue.

 

[Frankfooter]

Confirms you are either really lacking in intelligence or completely unread.

There are numerous graphs available, for those who can actually read graphs,... showing the globes temp starting a warming trend in 1910,...that continues for 40 years gaining .75C ,...again it must have been all those suv's.

FAST

I know these concepts are really hard for you to understand, but lets give it a try.
In 1910 there were no SUV's.
1910 was around the peak of coal use, the dirties of all fossil fuels.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/

Coal use around the start of the industrial revolution was responsible for the start of AGW.

And lets note that this was before the UN was created, so you can't claim that was from a UN conspiracy.

 

[Moviefan-2]

1. You got thumped in the debate on whether global warming is caused by human activity...

No, what happened was the threads were closed after somebody )) went running to the mods.

At that time, you were completely lost trying to understand the simple basics of the AGW hypothesis and were struggling to answer the question of whether water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling. Have you figured it out yet?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nature is the best there is.

From Nature -- confirmation that the predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been spectacularly wrong:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

 

[Frankfooter]

From Nature -- confirmation that the predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been spectacularly wrong:

From terb:
Confirmation that the predictions made by moviefan have been spectacularly wrong.

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

While the study quoted repeatedly by moviefan confirms both the fact of AGW and its effects, showing that moviefan is also spectacularly wrong in his claims. And just to confirm how spectacularly wrong moviefan's claims are, here's an updated version of one of moviefan's favourite IPCC charts, containing 2015's data, confirming that the IPCC projections are very good vs moviefan's total failures

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/02/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4_UPDATE.jpg

 

[Moviefan-2]

Confirmation that the predictions made by moviefan have been spectacularly wrong.

Post-Enron, it seems pointless to repeatedly have to state that 0.74 plus 0.15 doesn't equal 0.83. I'm assuming most people get that.

 

[fuji]

No, what happened was the threads were closed after somebody )) went running to the mods.

At that time, you were completely lost trying to understand the simple basics of the AGW hypothesis and were struggling to answer the question of whether water vapour feedback leads to warming or cooling. Have you figured it out yet?

Here's what's proved beyond dispute: human activity is warming the planet.

 

[Frankfooter]

Post-Enron, it seems pointless to repeatedly have to state that 0.74 plus 0.15 doesn't equal 0.83. I'm assuming most people get that.

No, I don't think most people have any clue what you are talking about with your fairy tale math.
Most people don't think NASA is guilty of fraud for updating their methods as they stated they would, nor would I expect that most people would have any clue why you use those numbers when the only number we bet on was whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.

As a conspiracy theory science denier you are in a very small minority.
Good luck with that and your fairy tale math.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I expect that most people would have any clue why you use those numbers....

They're your numbers. We bet on a temperature increase of at least 0.15ºC in 2015 and the graph you keep insist on using for the final result shows a temperature anomaly for the previous year of 0.74ºC.

So, 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = ????

(T)he only number we bet on was whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.

:beguiled:

It's funny how Franky keeps raising this topic (after reading numerous posts about how people are sick of hearing about it) and then repeatedly runs away from his own math.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here's what's proved beyond dispute: human activity is warming the planet.

I don't think I see an answer in that post to the question you've been struggling with: Does water vapour feedback lead to warming or cooling?

 

[Moviefan-2]

There are numerous graphs available, for those who can actually read graphs,... showing the globes temp starting a warming trend in 1910,...that continues for 40 years gaining .75C ,...again it must have been all those suv's.

Interestingly, a graph by James Hansen (former head of NASA's GISS) from 1981 showed the planet cooling from the 1940s to 1980.

https://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/hansen1981temp.jpg

 

[Frankfooter]

They're your numbers. We bet on a temperature increase of at least 0.15ºC in 2015 and the graph you keep insist on using for the final result shows a temperature anomaly for the previous year of 0.74ºC.
.

No, you are lying, as usual.
The only number we bet on was whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.
Typical denier, accusing NASA of fraud and then coming up with fairy tale math, including numbers never referenced by either of us until you had lost the bet.

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

This topic keeps coming up because moviefan, denier that he is, keeps claiming that 2015 didn't hit 0.83ºC, that the planet isn't warming up because of man's actions and that the IPCC's work (upon which the bet was based) isn't as excellent as it is.

 

[Frankfooter]

Interestingly, a graph by James Hansen (former head of NASA's GISS) from 1981 showed the planet cooling from the 1940s to 1980.

https://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/hansen1981temp.jpg

Not bad for a chart that is almost 40 years old now, same with the projections Hansen made at the same time.
As Hansen explains, during the 1940-1970 period humans went into economic overdrive after the recovery from the first two world wars and pumped a lot of aerosols (like coal dust) into the air, which cooled the planet. Showing once again how humans effect the climate.

After World War II, the industrial economies of Europe and the United States were revving up to a level of productivity the world had never seen before. To power this large-scale expansion of industry, Europeans and Americans burned an enormous quantity of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). In addition to carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuel produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate aerosols. Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970.

And of course Hansen also says this:

"For much of the twentieth century, both types of human emissions were on nearly equal footing, and aerosols were able to compete with greenhouse gases," Hansen said. But that balance has tilted increasingly in favor of greenhouse gases in the last 30 years. Today, Hansen's team estimates the human forcing from greenhouse gases to be about 3 watts per square meter (warming) and the forcing from aerosols to be about minus 1.5 watts per square meter (cooling). Hansen sees these trends as very likely to lead to what he calls "dangerous human interference" with the climate system.

"I think action [to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] is needed urgently, because we are on the precipice of a climate system 'tipping point'," Hansen concluded. "I believe the evidence shows with reasonable clarity that the level of additional global warming that would put us into dangerous territory is at most 1°C."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/

Thanks for reminding us of how even nearly 40's years ago we understood what we are doing to the climate, and how consistently excellent Mann's work has been.

 

[fuji]

I don't think I see an answer in that post to the question you've been struggling with: Does water vapour feedback lead to warming or cooling?

I don't think I saw you concede that the Nature study confirmed human activity is warming the planet. I don't think I saw you acknowledge that the climate has been consistently warming.

Until you acknowledge these proven facts I see no reason engage you in what amounts to pettifoggery. You are trying to create the illusion of debate by arguing minor points when the headline debate is settled.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I don't think I saw you concede that the Nature study confirmed human activity is warming the planet.

What you saw was affirmation that temperatures in the 21st century (prior to the El Nino) have been stagnant and that the predictions made by the climate crowd have been spectacularly wrong.

What neither of us have seen is your answer to the question: Does water vapour feedback lead to warming or cooling?

Do you not know the answer? :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, you are lying, as usual.
The only number we bet on was whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.

I have no idea why you accuse me of "lying" when I say that you have calculated that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83. And then you follow it up with a sentence that confirms you have concluded the total is 0.83.

 

[Frankfooter]

I have no idea why you accuse me of "lying" when I say that you have calculated that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83. And then you follow it up with a sentence that confirms you have concluded the total is 0.83.

Back to the fairy tale math, typical denier moves.
I have never used those numbers, we never bet on those numbers and those numbers only came up after you accused NASA of fraud and realized you were losing the bet.
In short, you are lying your face of to suggest those are 'my numbers'.

Here are 'my numbers' as clearly confirmed by you.

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

No other numbers required.

 

[Frankfooter]

What you saw was affirmation that temperatures in the 21st century (prior to the El Nino) have been stagnant and that the predictions made by the climate crowd have been spectacularly wrong.

The only prediction that was spectacularly wrong was yours.
For instance, the updated version of your favourite IPCC chart, with a dot representing 2015, shows last year hitting smack dab in the middle of the projection range.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/02/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4_UPDATE.jpg

You are spectacularly wrong.

 

[K Douglas]

Now you are just trying to bluster your way past the Nature study which indeed confirmed the results of many other studies. Nature is the best there is. Bluster isn't a counter argument.

You have no explanation for why your (Conway's) prediction of cooling was so disastrously wrong.

You are left sputtering in the face of the indisputable evidence that the climate is consistently warming.

You're done .

Nature is a running joke when it comes to climate science. They are complicit in the fraud of AGW.

 

[fuji]

Nature is a running joke when it comes to climate science. They are complicit in the fraud of AGW.

^^^^^ kooky anti rational nonsense