Sunday, June 29, 2014

Misconceptions About Antarctica Ice

Deniers keep citing evidence of increasing sea ice around Antarctica as evidence that global warming is not real. So, let's review the facts.

Antarctica sea ice is increasing. Take look at this plot:

Source: NSIDC

This shows the annual extent of sea ice in May every year up to this year (the last complete month). Keeping in mind the seasons are opposite in the south, this represent the ice extent as the region is approaching the heart of winter. You can see that there is a trend of increasing ice and this last May, (the last plus mark on the right) was the highest ice extent ever recorded.

At this point deniers are going, "See, we told you so!" and this would be just one more example of how deniers ignore anything they don't want to see.There are major differences between the Arctic and the Antarctic. See a discussion about this from NSIDC here.  Among those differences are the circumpolar currents in the atmosphere and the oceans that isolate Antarctica and make it a unique environment. Another difference is even bigger - land ice. Deniers conveniently ignore the fact that Antarctica is the largest reservoir of land ice in the world. What is going on with the land ice?

The reality is that Antarctica is losing ice in large amounts. One of the reasons sea ice is increasing is because it is coming from the land ice that is sliding into the ocean. Evidence indicates Antarctica is losing land ice at a rate of over 100 billion tons a year. That is enough to raise the sea level in excess of a millimeter per year. That may not sound like much, but in ten years that amounts to a one-centimeter rise in world sea levels and that does not include other sources of sea level rise.

A NASA/ESA study incorporating more satellite data than past studies confirmed that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass.

The loss of land ice is increasing and it was recently determined that the massive West Antarctica Ice Sheet has reached the point of no return. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the ice sheet will still melt.

The evidence is conclusive; the total amount of ice in the Antarctic region is decreasing, not increasing.

So, if deniers want to talk about ice in the Antarctic region, make sure they include the land ice. It's a very different story when you do.

The Great Arctic Ice Recovery of 2013

One of the more common claims deniers make is that the Arctic sea ice recovered in 2013 and that the issue of the vanishing Arctic sea ice is no longer valid. Frequently, this issue is pulled out as evidence that global warming is not real, or at least over blown.

Let's look at the facts to see the validity of these claims.  Below is a plot from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the amount of Arctic sea ice. The solid black line is the long-term average. The dotted line on the bottom is the data from 2012, which was a catastrophic year and, by far, the year with the lowest amount of sea ice. The line in between those two is the data from 2013. As you can see, the ice made a recovery, but not even to the average.

Source: NSIDC

To put it another way, look at this similar graphic. This time we still have the long-term average as the black line, but the two lines below it represent the data for 2013 and for 2009. The 2013 ice data is very similar to the 2009 levels. In other words, the ice in 2013 recovered to only about the 2009 level.

Source: NSIDC

What does that mean when I say it recovered to 2009 levels? Take a look at this plot of the September sea ice extent (annual minimum extent) over time.

Source: NSIDC

You can easily see the big dip in 2012 and the recovery that occurred in 2013 as the last two data points on the right. Start at the 2013 data point (the last plus mark) and make a horizontal line to the left to compare it to previous years. You can see it is about the same as 2009. Otherwise, there are only five data points that are lower and that is going back all the way to 1979.

There is a clear downward trend to the plot above, but the individual years go up and down. There is nothing surprising about that. We can see that 2012 was an abnormally bad year. Likewise, 2013 was a nice recovery that we hope will continue. But, you can't make judgements about the trend based on one, or even two years. If scientists were to make claims based on just 2012 alone, it would be as wrong as deniers making claims based on 2013 alone. The long-term trend is what is important.

So, will the trend continue in 2014, or did 2013 represent the start of a new trend? Let's look. Below is a plot showing the ice data for this year (as of June 28). Again, the long-term average is the black line. The complete curve is for 2013 and the partial curve is for what has happened so far this year.

Source: NSIDC

The ice data for this year is consistently tracking at below last year's. Granted, it is only a little bit below and there is a lot of melt season remaining, so there could be some significant changes in this graph by September. Remember, though, those significant changes could go either way. The point I'm making here is that we are not seeing evidence of a recovery, we are seeing evidence that the data is returning to the trend line.

Look at this plot.This is the ice surface temperature and comes from the Danish Polar Portal. The North Pole is located in the middle of the figure. The color of the ice represents the temperature according to the scale on the bottom. The white areas are areas where data was not collected due to cloud cover. The coldest areas are typically north of Greenland, where the large white area is in this plot. But, the rest of the Arctic region is either close to 0 degrees Celsius or above. In other words, its melting.

Source: Polar Portal

This temperature distribution is about average for this time of year and there is thickness to the ice, so we are not looking at some major collapse of the sea ice. But, the evidence does not support claims that the sea ice extent has recovered. I hope it does recover because this is a critically important part of the world in regards to weather. The data, though, is indicating the reduction in sea ice extent will continue pretty close to the long-term trend.

I will post updates as the melt season continues.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Why I Did the Challenge and Wrote My Book

One of the tactics of deniers is to bully scientists into bowing out of public debates. This is very advantageous to them because it gives them the public stage all to themselves. They are then free to say anything they want. Scientist, in general, are not interested in getting into this kind of hand-to-hand combat.

Certainly, this tactic has shown itself in comments to my blog. The personal attacks have been just plain vicious at times. This tactic seems to be coordinated because the attacks are so similar. It is well know deniers do just that. I guess I should be flattered that I have made enough of a splash for them to feel threatened by me.

Now, I much prefer to be civil and many people submitting comments, including deniers, have been not only civil, but even pleasant. I enjoy talking to them and try my best to treat them with as much respect as they show me. But, the deniers that like to be bullies need to understand that I am glad to mix it up with them. I can give back just as well as I can take. What I have observed is that they cannot take it when it comes back at them. They really start acting like petulant children throwing a temper tantrum in the store when they don't get what they want.

Certainly one of the major sources of attacks has been my motivation for the challenges and my book. Being deniers, they are not interested in the facts and simply jump to the conclusion they want, just like with the climate science. Here are some facts:

I wrote the book for myself. It was something I wanted to do. No, I did not write it to make money and never expected it to. If your name is not Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson, a book on a science topic is not going to sell. I was at a pool not long ago and noticed that everyone around the pool that was reading was reading a James Patterson novel. Different groups (not just a family sharing) and different books. You will never see something like that with science books. I could go to a science convention and I still wouldn't see everyone sitting around reading books on science. This is not something I was fooling myself on. I will not make any significant money off this book and it doesn't matter how much promotion is done.

So, no. This challenge and the blog are not about promoting the book. But, they are certainly about promoting the issue, just as the book is. As I said above, deniers have the stage all to themselves and I don't like the fact they are lying and deceiving the public about such an important topic. They are serving the fossil fuel industry at our expense.

There have been only two science issues with such an emotional public debate - climate change and tobacco. See any connection there? In each case some entities (corporations and people) were making a ton of money at the expense of the public that didn't know better because a coordinate attack was made to undermine scientists and block any actions that might cost them money. It is what happened with tobacco and it is what is happening with  climate science today.

And, do you think global warming isn't costing you? How are your utility bills looking like nowadays? How about your grocery  bill? What has happened to your insurance rates? All of that supposes you have not been hit with some weather event such as a flood, drought, Superstorm Sandy, etc.

Every time someone buys into the claims of the deniers they are taking their checkbook out and sending money to billionaires.

I think that is wrong and that is why I am doing what I'm doing.

If you want to deny global warming, that is your right. I am not on a crusade. I just want you to be able to make an informed decision.

What the challenge is showing is that there is no credibility to the deniers. I did not challenge anyone to prove anything. I just gave them a chance to prove what they have been claiming is so obvious and easy to prove, namely, that man made global warming is not real. No one has to submit an attempt. They do that on their own volition. What we have seen is that there are no credible claims.

They are lying to you every time they say man made global warming is not real and the science is there to prove it.

That is why I did my challenge and I have been demonstrating it very thoroughly.

By the way, when they object to me being the sole judge, they are lying to you again. They are trying to make it sound as if I have it rigged (some have stated so outright). What they aren't telling you about are the denier challenges that are similar to mine (including one that just cut and pasted my challenge with changes to make it a denier challenge). These denier challenges all have the guy paying the money serving as the sole judge. And you know what? They aren't objecting to those guys. Here are some that I am aware of. I'm sure there are more:

The ScottishSkeptic $10,000 Global Warming Challenge's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

Climate Guy $10K Climate Challenge

So, that is why I did the challenge and the book. I believe this is an important issue and want to help people make an informed decision. If the deniers want to tell you anything else, they are liars. But, we already know that.

Skeptical Papers

Dr. Keating,

I am a poor college student that needs the 1,000 dollar reward. I do believe that man made Global Warming is real, but I can present evidence against it, because all scientific theories have unsolved problems, and there are no absolute certainties in science.
Here are two papers that are skeptical about man made Global Warming. You can look at the data presented in the Papers.

If you think the papers make good points, please contact me because I will need the 1,000 dollar reward.


I'm afraid these papers do not qualify as scientific evidence of anything. The reason is because of who wrote them; The first reference was written by Craig and Sherwood Idso along with Robert Balling. The second paper was written by Ross McKittrick and Patrick Michaels. Every single one of these people have been shown to falsify their research and are not credible. The Idsos are funded by The Heartland Institute which is a fossil fuel industry funded organization that funds scientists with the stated goal of undermining climate science. Anyone associated with Heartland has lost all credibility, but the Idsos have gone to great lengths to destroy theirs.

Sorry, there is nothing here that qualifies as scientific evidence. It will merely serve as something deniers will pull out endlessly, not matter how many times it gets debunked.


Some people have made comments indicating they think I was overly dismissive. I wasn't. But, I will admit I didn't clarify myself well enough. Let me take care of that.

The Idso family (father Sherwood and brothers Craig and Keith) run the denier organization Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. This center is closely aligned with, and accepts money from, the Heartland Institute. Internal documents from Heartland showed Heartland is providing funding for the purpose of undermining climate science. Craig Idso, according to the documents, is collecting $11,600 a month from them. Another organization funded by Heartland is the NIPCC, which presents itself as an alternative to the IPCC. I have already responded to a submission on the NIPCC. You can see it here. Craig Idso is lead author on reports of NIPCC.

So, we have a group of people receiving money from the fossil fuel industry with the stated, directed goal of undermining climate science.  No one associated with the group is credible and nothing they say can be accepted as scientific evidence. To me, this is no different than "evidence" from Nazis about Jews or from the KKK about black people. They have zero credibility and have been demonstrated to present false reports in the past. When someone has the stated goal of destroying something, how can you possibly give any credence to what they have to say on the subject? The answer is, you can't. And, I don't.

Ross McKitrick is an economist (yes, you read that correctly). He is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". He wrote an 'evangelical response to global warming' and has spoken at the Heartland conferences (see my comments about being associated with Heartland above).

Patrick Michaels was a professor at the University of Virginia but is now Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is a denier organization that receives funds from the fossil fuel industry, most notably from the Koch brothers. Michaels was an expert witness for the Western Fuels Association. ABC News reported he received $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electricity Association to fund his research into alternative climate science and he has admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel industry. He has a long history of getting it wrong.

McKitrick and Michaels have collaborated before. Together, they wrote a paper on the urban heat island effect that has been completely debunked and, in my opinion, used falsified data. Even though debunked and shown to be false, this issue is still one of the most often-cited criticisms deniers produce. In other words, years after the two of them made a false claim, scientists are still forced to repeatedly fend off that false claim. To really rub salt in the wound, even McKitrick and Michaels said only half of the observed warming could be attributed to the urban heat island effect (not a true statement, by the way). So, even with flawed work, they still could not show man made global warming is not real. And yet, it is still cited as evidence against AGW.

So, am I being overly harsh for dismissing these papers as being unscientific? If anything, I believe I have been very generous. I did not use this submission as an opportunity to launch into their work to show why they are even worse than what I have portrayed here.

If you have an accountant and you learn that he was stealing your money, would you go back to him and trust him? This is the same with McKitrick and Michaels. The have a long history of taking fossil fuel money and then making false statements about climate change science. They have no credibility and their work cannot be accepted as scientific evidence.

Can they reform their reputations? Yes, they can. Even the Idsos. But, it would be a long, difficult process and it will not start with me.

George Carlin

Here is my participation Dr,
George Carlin on Global Warming:
i hope it counts
regards :)


Some submissions appear to be well thought out. This isn't one of them. George Carlin was very funny guy and I loved his comedy routines. But, I sure hope no one ever mistook him for a scientist.

I could disqualify this one off-hand simply because it does not address the question in a scientific manner. But, let's make some comments.

Carlin's argument (and he never disputes global warming, man made or otherwise) is that the planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and we are no threat to it. That is a true statement. The planet is not a living being and it will continue to go on no matter what we do to it. Carlin himself makes the key point, though. The planet might go on, but that doesn't mean we will. And, he is just fine with the idea we will go away.

And, even if the race goes on, how many people are we going to kill, injure and make ill so the fossil fuel industry can keep its profits? How many people are going to suffer from a lower standard of living so that we can send our money to billionaires?

That is the key question. Carlin has the attitude that we need to just sit back and die. I don't agree.

This challenge did nothing to show man made global warming is not real.

Composition of the Atmosphere


I have a non religious non wacko objection to Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

This does not mean I do not care about the environment
and it does not mean I think Green energy and waste management are not key issues facing us today.

It means I do not believe the global warming process can be slowed down or altered based on the magnitude of numbers involved.

Follow me please and save your questions to the end.

I will link several sources for each point.

First the Mass of the atmosphere of the planet Earth on which we reside.

around 5.97 x 10^24 kg Large number. let that sink in.

Next is the composition of the atmosphere...again contained in the same links.

If you have different information then please link it.

78% N2
20.9% O2
.93% Ar
.039% CO2

These are the Major Gases in the ATMOSPHERE and the percentage by volume.
Now the atomic weights can be found from the periodic Table. (do I need an additional source for the periodic table?)


N2 = 14.007x2 g/mole = 28.014
O2 = 15.999x2 g/mole = 31.998
AR = 39.948x1 g/mole = 39.948
CO2= 12.011x1+31.998 g/mole = 44.009

Follow me here. I submit that the proportion of gas by mass is equivalent to the proportion of gas by volume because the masses are similar.
this is a little rough but according to the NASA link above the mean molecular weight is 29.87 g/mole that would make the assumed g/mole of
CO2 off by 34% from its actual mass.
I do this because it is hard to get the percentages by weight and I am short on time.

For arguments sake I think it's fair to say that the mass
of CO2 is  .039%*(5.97x10^24)Kg +/- 50% (to cover my sloppy math)

2.3283 x 10^23 kg +/- 50% (1.16415 x 10^23 to 3.49245 x 10^23)

Ok. we have the first number. Mass of the CO2 in the atmosphere. with a wide margin of error but I know the number is somewhere in that

Next we will Look at Mass of CO2 produced annually by Humanity.

is the EPA ok?

I can link others...I don't want to link an anti global warming site as that is not the point.

is 6,000 million metric tonnes an ok estimate?

it is an emotionally large number.

that's 6X10^12 kg the highest.

Ok. that's a huge number. astounding really.

this site contradicts my argument and gives a larger number.

it only compares it to the amount absorbed and emitted by natural sources not the atmospheric volume.

26.4 Gigatonnes or 2.64*10^13 kg Annually.

still with me?

take the amount produced and divide it by the amount present(i will lowball this so that things are skewed against me).

multiply by 100 to get the percentage increase in CO2 due to Humanity annually.

(2.64 x 10^13)/(1.16415 x 10^23) * 100 =
2.2677490014173431258858394536786 x 10^-8 percent increase in CO2 annually.

Taking into consideration the way global warming works is energy reradiated by the earth after absorption by the sun is absorbed by gas
molecules in the atmosphere. there is a linear relationship between mass increase and number of particles increase which is again linearly
related to the energy capable of being absorbed. this is an idea in nuclear physics too.

Now let's link to a page on how greenhouse gasses work.

Specifically let's look at how much of the energy absorption of the atmosphere is due to CO2

C02 used to contribute only 9% with H20 having a 76%+ but i'll go with 30%.

so if we contribute an additional 2.2 x 10^-8 percent of the mass we increase the energy absorbed by the atmosphere by 30% of that in the
worst case....or 6.8032470042520293776575183610358 x 10^-9 percent.

ok so there are the numbers.

If the percentage of volume produced where not so pathetically small I would assume error. But what kind of model of gas behavior can
close that gap?

I'd love to see it. It is definitely needed because the gap exists.
Now I'm sure I'll get abuse. But this is an evidence based analytical look at the data being provided by the people that are telling me I am the cause of Global warming.

I am but in amounts so small to be's an accident that the industrial revolution corresponded with a warming trend....perhaps
better crop yields resulted in more wealth and leisure for invention?
I digress. save the insults and discuss the implications or the fallacies.
We need to save the planet but that may involve preparing for climate change...not trying to prevent it in vain.
thanks for listening.
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is... See More


I'm OK with the large margins on the math since we are only trying to prove a point. This is called a 'back of the envelope' estimate. But, your numbers go beyond 'back of the envelope."

The first number I have trouble with is the amount of man made CO2 emissions. You use 6,000 million tons per year (6 gigatons per year). That number represents U.S. emissions only, according to your own source. Worldwide emissions are well over 30 gigatons annually (also from the EPA: I have even recently seen 40 gigatons as the amount, but lets go with the lower number.

You are way off on the mass of the atmosphere. Your second cited reference states the mass of the atmosphere is about 5 x 10^18 kgs, not 10^24. That's a factor of a million difference. When I multiply the area of the planet by atmospheric pressure I get about 5 x 10^18 kg (after converting from newtons to kilograms). That would be 5 million gigatons. So, let's go with that number.

I have not done the calculations myself, but Wikipedia gives about 3000 gigatons as the mass of atmospheric CO2. Using these numbers we get CO2 is about .06% of the atmosphere. Wikipedia lists it as .04%, so we are in the ball park.

Now, as we saw, humans produce in excess of 30 gigatons of CO2 per year, that would be a 1% increase in CO2 level per year. Fortunately, about one-half of what we emit is absorbed by nature. That would be an increase of around .5%. Measured CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of about 2 parts per million per year. The current density is about 400 ppm, so that means we again find we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at a rate of about .5% per year. (

The measurements taken in the late 1950s showed atmospheric CO2 levels to be at 315 ppm. Today, they exceed 400 ppm. That gives us an increase of about 27% over 55 years, or about .5% per year. Again, we get about the same number. 

Your line of reasoning was OK and, based on your numbers, your objection was reasonable. But, your numbers were incorrect. When we use more accurate numbers we consistently get an annual increase of CO2 levels of about .5%.

If we had a linear relationship, then we could say the 30% of warming due to CO2 has increased by 27% over 55 years. It either started out as about 24% of the warming, or has increased to 38%. That all depends on when the 30% figure is good for. 

But, it isn't linear because when CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere it causes other things to change. In particular, increasing the temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the air and water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. That shows why CO2 is the driver, even though the majority of warming is attributed to other gases.

I believe I have shown that this is not a proof that manmade global warming is not real. 

Friday, June 27, 2014

News Articles

there ya go all copy and past urls


The first link provided took me to the Hockey Schtick page, but it said the referenced page no longer existed. I would be glad to address what it was they said there, but I have no idea what it is.

Second link:
I've seen this post before. It is really bad. It claims to show five scientific reasons global warming isn't happening (Where are all the guys that insist no denier says global warming doesn't exist?). Let's review them in order:

1. It has not warmed since 1997. Man, cats should have this many lives. No matter how many times you kill this sucker it keeps coming back. Dracula had nothing on this myth. To recap, nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since 2000, including the three hottest (all three hotter than 1998). Also, they always love to leave out the ocean warming, which is 93% of global warming. "Global" warming means the whole globe and cherry-picking only one part doesn't change the reality. See this article here:

2. This one is a double failure. First, it isn't true. And, second, it isn't scientific evidence and is a red herring that deniers like to use to try and distract the argument. It is a whole lot harder for them to buy off scientists, so they make stuff up. I addressed this issue in this post here:

3. So what? One year doesn't establish anything, one way or another. Arctic sea ice is down dramatically since 1980, that is what matters. By the way, the sea ice extent this year has been consistently tracking at levels below last years. The melt season has a long way to go yet, but the trend is not supporting denier claims. See the data here:

4. Climate models are actually quite good. This is another false denier claim. Analyses of the models shows that the 'pause' was accurately modeled, contrary to denier claims. Look at these sites:

5. This is a 'So what?' point and not scientific evidence. The predictions made by scientists do not have any effect on what nature is doing. But, the point is also incorrect. Many of the things that were forecasted have turned out to happen as predicted.

Third link:
Solar activity has increased since the 1800s, that is true, but it has also decreased since the 1950s. Take a look at the data here:

Fourth link:
I'm not sure how this helps disprove man made global warming. Solar storms dump energy in the atmosphere all the time and were doing it before global warming started. You would need to show there has been an increase in the total energy input to the atmosphere over time.

Fifth link:
The consensus has not only been shown to be true, but it has been verified by deniers.

But, again, so what? Nature is not going to change what it is doing based on how scientists agree or don't agree. This is not scientific evidence.

Sixth link:
See the my response the fifth link.


There was no scientific evidence submitted here. So, it did not come close to proving the point.

It's Now the $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!

Cenk Uygur and Jimmy Dore of The Young Turks have offered to contribute an extra $10,000 each to my challenge. I have accepted their very generous offer and will do everything I can to keep their money safe.

They did a nice piece on my challenge that you can see on You Tube here.

Empirical Evidence

  1. 1. First instalment.

    Thank you for the opportunity, Christopher.

    In the context in which you raise ‘climate change’ you’re clearly referring to ‘global warming’. In case you’re being tricky though, I will address the broader issue of disproving ‘climate change’ after dealing disproving ‘global warming’.

    My proof relies on and cites empirical scientific evidence. It’s the determinant of science.

    To prove human carbon dioxide caused Earth's latest atmospheric global warming (now sometimes referred to as 'climate change') requires empirical scientific evidence that answers each and all of the following three (3) questions with a 'yes'.

    1. Is Earth's global ATMOSPHERIC* temperature rising unusually either in rate of warming or amount of warming and is it continuing to rise?

    *The UN, Al Gore and America's government claim human CO2 enhances their claimed ‘greenhouse’ effect. That's a supposed atmospheric effect based claiming warmed troposphere that supposedly warms Earth's surface. I'm going to be generous though and discuss not atmospheric temperatures AND surface temperatures.

    If it's not warming there's no need to go any further. If it is warming unusually, the second question is:

    2. Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air determine the global atmospheric temperature?

    If not, there's no need to go any further. If yes, the level of CO2 determines temperature, the third question is:

    3. Does the human production of carbon dioxide determine the global atmospheric CO2 level?

    If not, human CO2 does not cause global warming.

    To fulfil your challenge "... prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring" all I need to do is to prove the answer to one of the three questions is 'no'.

    Empirical scientific evidence proves all three are answered 'no'.

    Let's get started:

    Question 1: Is Earth's global ATMOSPHERIC temperature rising unusually either in rate or amount and is it continuing to rise?

    The answer is 'no'. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature reveal that every year since 1998 the global temperature has been cooler than in 1998. There is no ongoing warming. This is confirmed by radiosonde (weather balloon temperatures).

    Dr. Phil Jones is in charge of temperature measurements cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC, Al Gore, NOAA and NASA-GISS. He admits that ground-based temperature measurements reveal no warming trend since 1995. Statistically, he’s correct.

    By the way, is this why the term ‘global warming’ was replaced by the term ‘climate change’?

    References are provided on pages 1-19 Appendix 4 here:!.html

    It’s easy to see that empirical scientific evidence reveals it is not continuing to warm. Earth’s latest modest cyclical warming is very modest compared with past cyclical warming periods. You’ll notice that temperature in recent decades is lower than in the 1930’s, 1890’s, Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period and 80% of the last 10,000 years. The graphs on page 6 reveal that recent warm period is similar in extent and rate of warming to temperatures recorded in earlier cyclical warming periods.

    Please refer to Appendix 7 at the link above. It reveals the ground-based warming trends I’ve cited have been doctored to hide a cooling trend. In reality, Earth has been cooling for a century. Warming has been fabricated by manipulating earlier temperatures to appear cooler and inflating recent temperatures to appear warmer. Note the reportedly active involvement of NASA-GISS and James Hansen in fraudulently concocting warming.

    I could say global warming is man-made. It’s made by man. Fabricated by man.

    Please note:

    Note the corruption of American temperatures as revealed by American meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts:
  2. Instalment 2:

    Please note this recent empirical scientific evidence from Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy:

    Empirical scientific evidence proves Earth’s global temperature and climate is varying naturally. It proves humans are not causing global warming or climate change.

    In accordance with the terms of your offer I’ve done enough to claim your prize. Let’s continue though as this is fun.

    Question 2: Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air determine global atmospheric temperature?

    This too is answered ‘no’.

    The empirical scientific evidence is provided on pages 20-24 of Appendix 4 at my first link above.

    Empirical scientific evidence proves changes in temperature drive changes in CO2 levels. That applies seasonally and over the longer-term.

    The medium-term is confounded by various other factors.

    Ernst Georg Beck’s work reveals atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher than current during the past 180 years.

    Note that during the medium-term range from 1958 to 1976 CO2 levels reportedly rose as atmospheric and ground-based temperatures fell and as human CO2 production increased dramatically.

    That’s two ‘no’ answers out of two. Human causation is doubly disproved.

    Let’s have some more fun by answering the third question.

    Question 3: Does the human production of carbon dioxide determine the global atmospheric CO2 level?

    Empirical scientific evidence reveals the answer is again ‘no’.

    It’s explained in detail and with links to empirical evidence on pages 25-27 of Appendix 4.

    Briefly, atmospheric CO2 measurements cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC reveal that Nature alone controls global atmospheric CO2 levels. Please refer to the graph of data at Mauna Loa measuring station showing CO2 levels.

    It’s further explained here:

    If you want NOAA’s actual graph, see the first two graphs at NOAA, here:

    All three questions are answered ‘no’. That’s comprehensive proof human CO2 did not, does not and cannot cause global warming or climate change.

    You owe me ten grand, Christopher.

    In the context of ‘climate change’ in which you offered your prize Christopher, I’ve proven human carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming.

    In case you’re going to distort the challenge, let’s be more comprehensive. Let’s consider empirical scientific measurements of supposed effects of human action on climate. All such measurements reveal no unusual change occurring. All variation is natural inherent variation: Storm activity frequency and severity; floods; droughts; snowfall; tornadoes; ocean temperatures; sea levels; ocean alkalinity; glaciation; ice sheets, ice caps; bush/forest fire frequency or severity.

    Please refer to links to empirical scientific evidence in Appendix 4a at the first link provided above.

    There is no signal anywhere of human’s driving global climate.

    Notice though that some agencies truncate data to create the false perception that trends are occurring. Yet when the full data set is used over a full climate cycle and over a full century or more there is no change occurring in any climate markers.

    You owe me ten grand, Christopher.

    For humanity’s sake, let’s continue

    Had all three questions been answered ‘yes’ it would mean that human CO2 affected global atmospheric temperature and climate. Yet, before cutting human CO2 output we would first need to ask a fourth fundamental question:
  3. Instalment 3:

    Question 4: Is warming detrimental?

    The answer is ‘no’.

    Pages 28-32 of Appendix 4 at the first link above reveal warming is highly beneficial. Empirical scientific evidence and history prove that.

    Humans do not control or affect Earth’s thermostat. If we could, we would raise temperature. Warming is beneficial.

    Nor do we or can we affect global CO2 levels. If we could we would raise CO2 levels. Higher CO2 is highly beneficial. As Nature has repeatedly proven in Earth’s past.

    But we cannot affect either CO2 level of temperature. We need to adapt and live with what we have and redirect our science funding to understanding climate and not reinforcing fraud. Although we have nothing to fear from Nature’s global warming periods, we have plenty to be concerned about with Nature’s cooling periods.

    We have something else to be concerned about: corruption of science.

    Science has given us our way of life and security and comfort. Science though has been corrupted.

    Please refer to Appendices 3, 5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9 10, 11 and 12.

    Please refer to Appendices 13 and 13a-16g for an illustration of how the global warming claim has been propagated in the media by a combination of ego, stupidity and government corruption.

    To understand the motives please refer to Appendices 14 and 15.

    Now, Christopher, let’s see your response. We’ll learn whether your position on climate has been driven by innocent error, stupidity or dishonesty.

    Your claim that human CO2, and more broadly that human activity, is causing global climate change is nonsense. It has been completely disproved by empirical scientific evidence, the determinant of science.

    Your claim has been enabled and pushed by massive corruption of climate science.

    Let’s see whether or not your claim is based on stupidly making assumptions or whether you’ve been innocently misled.

    Please advise the name of one scientist or one science agency or one government or any UN body that has provided proof of human causation of global warming or climate change. Only one is needed. Please specify clearly the location of the empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning that you see as scientific proof of humans causing global warming or global climate change.

    No one has ever provided such evidence. I’ve searched myself: NASA, Australia’s CSIRO, NOAA, UN IPCC, ...

    I’ve asked many academics and politicians advocating the claim that human CO2 caused warming. ALL failed to provide such evidence.

    Let’s see what you can do.

    How will you send me the check?

    Malcolm Roberts


    Your procedure used is similar to what I used in my book to provide proof that it is real. I asked three question in order: 1) Is the planet warming?; 2) If yes, is it the result of the greenhouse effect?; and 3) If it is, are we responsible for that greenhouse effect? If the answer to any of the three questions is 'No', then the conclusion is there is no manmade global warming.

    Question 1:

    You're claim about warming is false for two reasons. First, the atmospheric temperature has most certainly continued to rise. Nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1998, including the three hottest (all three hotter than 1998). But, limiting the claim to just the atmosphere is a false argument because it leaves out what the atmosphere is itself keeping warm, namely the ocean. Ocean temperature have continued to rise. The oceans are heated by sunlight, but the atmosphere is preventing the heat from being radiated out into space.  Omitting the oceans is emitting 93% of the global warming. Here is a really good article on the subject.

    In any event, why consider only the temperature record since 1998? Why not the entire record? You are cherry picking. You have to apply your argument to all data, not just data of your choice. In fact, later on you choose to use the record starting all the way back in the 1950s. You use a 16-year record for one thing and a 55-year record for the other. Why?

    I sometimes use either term 'climate change' and sometimes 'global warming.' I am not trying to be deceptive or split hairs. Climate change means the climate is changing and it doesn't matter if it is warming or cooling. Global warming means the climate is changing and it is getting warmer.  There is a difference, but the issue is not a cooling planet, so I use them interchangeably. Maybe it is bad form, but no deception is intended. 

    I have addressed the issue of natural cycles many times. The fact that naturally occurring cycles resulted in warm periods in the past is not evidence that today's warming is natural for two reasons: We understand what caused many of those periods pretty well and those causes are not occurring today; and there is no evidence linking today's warming to natural cycles. Today's natural cycles would actually result in a cooling period, not a warming one.

    Speaking of deception, the business about the data tampering comes from a denier by the nom de plume of Steve Goddard who has been found to falsify his claims in the  past and been forced to retract them. Until his claims are examined by someone credible I will not consider them to be anything other than another denier lie. The other two you mentioned are well-documented to be receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry (via the Heartland Institute) to undermine climate science. Watts, in particular, has been shown to be someone that has no credibility. Essentially, anyone associated with Heartland is automatically assumed to be fabricating their reports.

    As for a cooling trend in one part of the world, that doesn't make any more difference than a warming trend in one part of the world. The term is 'global' warming. We are interested in what the world is doing, not one selected part.

    So, by the very standard you set, your proof has failed because you failed in the first question.

    But, as you said, let's continue.

    Question 2:

    The last time the atmospheric CO2 level was anywhere near this high was about 150,000 years ago. This one is so easy to find I'm surprised you didn't do it. Here is one source:

    You are correct about the 1950s and 1960s. CO2 levels were certainly increasing. See the Keeling curve here (funny, but you try to say later that they weren't part of your proof that man made CO2 is not the responsible):

    The surface temperature was also declining before taking off at the end of the 1970s. But, the oceans were already warming. This was when the natural cooling cycle was in full force (that began in the 1940s, or even earlier) and it took a while for man made effects to have a major impact. But, the data shows that warming was already occurring as early as the 1950s, even though there was a strong natural cooling cycle in effect.

    So, you failed the second question, as well.


    Question 3:

    You are wrong here, too. Man made carbon dioxide (along with other man made greenhouse gases) are responsible for warming. Look here:

    And, I already provided a link to the very same Keeling curve you are trying to say proves man made carbon dioxide isn't a factor.

    Question 4:

    Is global warming detrimental? The answer to that one is irrelevant because that isn't what the challenge was about. For the record, the answer is that it is most certainly detrimental. See this article on a report on that very issue:


    So, the challenge is to provide a venue for deniers to come through on their claims that man made global warming is not real. You decided to prove that carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Even if you had succeeded in your proof I'm still not sure if you would have satisfied the requirement.

    But, it isn't a question that I need to answer because your 'proof' does not carry any scientifically valid evidence. You decided to use some extremist deniers as your evidence and ignored the science. This 'proof' not only fails, but it really fails.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Solar System is Warming

Dr. Keating,

Planets and moons all over the solar system are warming up.

Please send me my $10k now.

  1. If this is an honest submission, I will treat it as such. Just let me know. Otherwise, I will assume it is just a comment because there really isn't a proof here. Even is what you were saying is true, this one line wouldn't suffice. But, be aware this has already been well debunked.
  2. This is absolutely honest.

    I would love to hear this "thorough debunking". The evidence for solar activity causing the warming of planetary bodies in the solar system is overwhelming. Further, we're seeing a cooling happening now, right on cue with the end/beginning of a solar cycle. Astronomers know about this, why don't climatologists? I really have no interest in sending you articles that you could very easily find yourself.

    With evidence such as the correlation of solar activity to planetary temperature changes, you couldn't possibly say that our planet is warming due to human activity. It is a belief you hold and is no more scientific than an atheist saying that he/she knows that there is no God.

    It is not my intention to insult you so I apologize if I did. But your belief in man made climate change is more powerful than the science. It is clouding your judgement.

    Waiting for that $10k...

    My credentials: physicist, astrophysics background, astronomer in my early career

    Some data shows some of the bodies in the solar system are warming. In a nutshell, this rates a big, 'so what?' There are hundreds of large bodies in the solar system. It is to be expected that some will be warming and some will be cooling all the time, simply because of the seasonal changes on those planets as they orbit the Sun.

    Mars is warming because of Milankovitch cycles. I find this to be very ironic because so many deniers use this as an excuse for our warming trend. Now, we really do have it on Mars. Here is a good site about Milankovitch cycles in general and Mars in particular.

    Jupiter is warming through normal season changes.

    Saturn's moon Titan is going through normal seasonal changes.

    What would have been very interesting is if we didn't find any bodies getting warmer. What has been done is to grab a handful of data and cherry pick some bodies to get what they want. If the solar system is warming, why aren't all of the bodies in the solar system getting warmer?

    So, a handful of bodies out of hundreds are selected without any comments on all of the other bodies. To top it off, we know why several of those bodies are warming.

    This does not approach a proof that man made global warming is not real.


Here is my submission


This is the easiest one so far. The Heartland Institute is well-known for being funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science.Their work has already been completely debunked.









There's lots more, but I think I made my point. The NIPCC fails in all regards to present a scientific challenge to man made global warming.

10 Facts and 10 Myths

Here is my entry:

Originally published by GR in 2009
Ten facts about climate change

1.     Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2.    Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958.  In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
3.    Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4.    Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
     Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
5.    On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
6.    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7.    The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8.    Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9.    Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10.   The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.
Myth 1     Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1       Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995. 
Myth 2     During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Facts 2      The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past. 
Myth 3     AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).
Facts 3      The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.
Myth 4     Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Facts 4      Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling. 
Myth 5     Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5      A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.
Myth 6     Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts 6      No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration. 
Myth 7     Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts 7      The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change. 
Myth 8     Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts 8      Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.
Myth 9     Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts 9      SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase. 
Myth 10   The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Facts 10    Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.


OK, so this will take a while.

Fact 1: No one is claiming the climate hasn't changed. The very reason guys like this can state the climate has changed in the past is because scientists have done the hard work to discover this climate history. 

Fact 2: False and false. No scientist with any credibility believes the temperature record is due to the heat island effect. This is a extremely well-debunked myth. And, take a look at the global surface temperature shown in the figure below. There is a substantial amount of warming since 1950.

Fact 3: Again, this is so false that it is insulting to spend my time on it. Take a look at this plot:

Once again, deniers are leaving out any data that doesn't agree with their desired conclusion. The ocean is part of the globe and is, therefore, part of 'global' warming'. The oceans actually absorb 93% of all of the planetary warming.

Fact 4: Almost true, but very misleading. The actual average temperature of the planet without an atmosphere would be about -20 degrees Celsius. It is true that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2, but the water vapor  wouldn't be there without something to warm it up in the first place. In this way, CO2 is the driver and is the principle greenhouse gas.

Fact 5: It is true that the temperature increase preceded the CO2 increase. This just means there was some kind of trigger in natural cycles that initially caused the temperature to rise and allowed the CO2 to be released, resulting in greater temperature increases. We have taken the place of that natural trigger and made a concerted effort to put the CO2 in the atmosphere ourselves. Now, it is leading to higher temperatures, just like it did in the past cycles.

Fact 6: This is an irrelevant, political statement and has nothing to do with the science. This author is merely venting his hatred of science.

Fact 7: See Fact 6.

Fact 8: A big misdirection here. First, the models don't predict weather, they predict climate. Huge difference. Second, define 'acceptable.' Models are doing very well already (despite denier claims) and will only continue to get better. Here is nice article on  The Weather Underground showing how well they are working.

Fact 9: Not true. See Fact 8.

Fact 10: Define 'vigorous debate.' Yes, scientists debate things. Isn't that what we are suppose to do? Debating does not mean we don't agree on certain things, though. The well-documented consensus among climate scientist is 97% agree that man made global warming is real. This has even been verified by the deniers.

Tally on 'Facts': Five are false, three irrelevant, 1 true and 1 part-true

Now the Myths:

Myth 1: This one is so false that I get tired of talking about it. Refer to the heat content graph above.

Myth 2: Another false statement. The rate of temperature increase in the last 30 years of the 20th century has never been seen in the historical record before now.

Myth 3: He means the Hockey Stick curve, which has most assuredly been shown to be valid. I don't know what he means by saying it showed climate was unchanging, because it didn't.

Myth 4: 60 degrees?! No! The extremes are between 2 and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Sixty degrees Celsius is equal to 108 degrees Fahrenheit! Add 108 to your temperature today and imagine what that would be like.

Myth 5: Models do not predict 20 degrees C increases, that would be 36 degrees F. Generally, 6 degrees C (about 11 degrees F) is considerate catastrophic.

Myth 6: This one is true. An increase in CO2 is harmful for the environment. But, they are stating on one hand that it is bad and the other that it is good. I'm not sure what they are saying.

Myth 7: Back to clearly false. Solar activity has been decreasing. If we were to go by only the solar activity, things would be getting cooler.

Myth 8: False, false and false. The ice sheets are most definitely melting. Check out the National Snow and Ice Data Center to see for yourself. Greenland is losing billions of tons of mass each year. The sea ice in the north is rapidly disappearing. The sea ice in the south is increasing, but the total ice on Antarctica is decreasing.

Myth 9: Take a look:

Looks like its rising to me. You might want to define 'dangerous.' I live 1800 feet above sea level, so I'm not in direct danger. But, if you live on the coast, and most people living on the coast know this, sea level rise is a danger.

Myth 10: Half true. The data base is small, but seems to be showing no increase in storms, but does show an overall increase in storm dissipated energy due to more category 4 and 5 storms.

Tally of Myths: Eight are just plain false and two are half true.

This thing is busted. Not only does it not disprove man made global warming, but it barely rises to the scientific standard.

You did not prove manmade global warming is not real.


I think Ben Davidson of Suspicious observers already disproved AGW:


So, I actually sat through the whole video and I could not see anywhere that he is even trying to disprove global warming. Let's recap some of the pertinent points.

He admits the temperature is going up.

He admits there is a correlation between temperature and CO2.

He admits the CO2 comes from human emissions.

So, what is the deal here? What is he claiming?

Well, the most noticeable thing he is claiming is the Sun is cooling. In fact, he states, "I would place my money on global cooling."

Let's review. One of the things I have repeated many times on this blog in many challenges is that we are in a natural cooling cycle and part of that natural cooling cycle is that the solar activity has been decreasing. So, what Mr. Davidson really said was the same thing I have been saying, just in a lot (A LOT) more sensational manner. I am reluctant to say we are in global cooling and a new mini-ice age is on the way when we are in the midst of the hottest years ever recorded. And, for the those that keep saying we are no longer warming, 9 of the 10 hottest years and the three hottest have all occurred since the year 2000. This year is well on track to breaking the record if things don't change (a cold winter in mid-America doesn't mean the rest of the world was the same).

I know its a big crowd pleaser, but much of his talk was unsubstantiated sensationalism. He made claims about things that he never demonstrated were true or were relevant. He made several claims that I know are not true and others where he conveniently only mentioned the part that supported his claim. Many of the people he cited as 'experts' are well-known tools of the fossil fuel industry and receive tens of thousands of dollars in funding (and more!) from that source. Some of the people he mentioned have been caught falsifying their research and data.

And, ultimately, he acknowledged that man made greenhouse gas emissions acted to warm the planet. He just claimed it is irrelevant because the Sun will cool more than the greenhouse gases will keep it warm. That is the gist of his talk.

So, I have to say that this video did not produce any evidence that man made global warming is not real.  In fact, I think he provided a great deal of evidence against the 'climate goes in cycles' argument.

And, he might be right about the Sun. It is too early to know for sure (and we have a poor understanding of the Sun's interior activity), but there really is data to support his general thesis of a cooling Sun. We'll have to wait and see.