$30,000 Challenge Comments Archive

Blogger states that you are allowed an unlimited number of comments and replies per page. However, the $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge page will no longer accept comments or replies. In an attempt to clear this up, I am removing comments from the Challenge page and placing them here in the hope that it will free up memory space for new comments and replies.

All comments that began before June 23, 2014 (with replies) are included here. All comments are reproduced verbatim with no editing.

Chris Keating


  1. You can't prove a negative. Good thing, as you haven't the $10K to offer.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. Even global-warming and climate-change is misused in the question. Simple thermodynamics will support any claim that any means of artificial combustions will contribute to thermal emissions to the surrounding. However, we now start going into "global-change" which are natural cycles that have existed long before mankind.

      For clarification sakes, Mr. Christopher Keating, are you asking if these cycles are not man-made or are you merely asking for someone to disprove thermodynamics?
      Delete

    2. It is Dr. Christopher Keating.

      No, I am not asking anyone to disprove anything. I am asking people to follow-through on their claims. AGW deniers claim man-made global warming is not real and that it is easy to prove it. Fine, if it is so easy, show us. that is all I am doing here. So far, no proof that man made global warming is not real has been provided.

      For the record, and this is not part of the challenge, but yes, I am saying that this is not a natural cycle. There are natural cycles and deniers have never produced even a smidgen of evidence to show that this current warming trend is a natural cycle. The fact is, the result of the current natural cycles is that we are in a natural cooling cycle. The warming is all man made.
      Delete
    3. I think Ben Davidson of Suspicious observers already disproved AGW: http://youtu.be/5c4XPVPJwBY
      Delete
    4. Are you asking someone to disprove man-made climate change, or man-made global warming? The two are NOT necessarily the same, nor are they necessarily related. (read: correlation does not prove causation).
      Delete
    5. Yes, you can actually prove a negative. For example it is easy to prove that the earth is not flat.
      Delete

    6. I am only quoting deniers. Which one have you been telling people? And, which one would you like to disprove?
      Delete
    7. No you are not quoting "deniers'. You have made up a strawman that cannot be knocked down. Man has impacted climate. There is no doubt. Heat island effect. Heat from combustion engines. Changes to the lanscape when converting land for agricultural use. etc. Now feel free to show us how a trace increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can effect more than a trace increase in global temps.
      Delete
    8. Here is a paper, Mr Christopher Keating.

      [http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/ir227/IR_JOC.pdf]
      Delete
    9. Here is another one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
      Delete

    10. I was asking the anonymous comment made at June 23 at 6:28 PM.
      Delete

    11. To Joe Wagner: I am reviewing the video and will have my comments tomorrow.
      Delete

    12. Mr. Keating, I accept your challenge.
      For the record, I am not doing this for the money -- and will be happy to donate the winnings to the charity of your choice, as the conclusion of this discussion.
      I hev a substantial amount of material, how would you like to proceed?
      Delete
    13. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5

      BTW ... just as an aside. The NOAA has just reported that last month was the hottest May ... planet wide ... since temperature recording began.
      Just sayin'.
      It does NOT have any direct relationship to this discussion ... it's just one month. It's just one report.
      Though ... perhaps it DOES have a direct relationship to those people who are trying to claim that the earth is actually cooling ... not heating.

      Once again ... just sayin'.
      Delete

    14. Karl Spain, you may submit your proof on this blog. I would prefer you submit it as a new comment instead of a continuing thread, though.
      Delete

  2. If you can't prove that global warming is false, then why do all of the deniers claim that it is so obvious? Based on the claims of the deniers, it would be a simple matter. You're very words show the lie of climate change denial. The reason you can't prove your point is because there is no science to support you.

    Your comments about my finances illustrates just how little logic deniers exercise in their claims. You have no way of knowing what my finances are like. Instead, you just jumped to the conclusion you wanted without anything to justify it. The very essence of global warming denial.

    Just for the record (and I already made this clear in one of my postings), I most certainly do have the $10,000 to offer.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies






    1. I believe that a more accurate statement would be that a large number of people do NOT believe that the "scientific community" has conclusively proven that climate change is a direct (and indisputable) result of human activity. Correlation is not proof of causation.
      Delete

    2. I agree with your statement. The deniers are winning this battle and we scientists have to get better at communicating to the general public. But, the fact that the public believes it, doesn't make it so.
      Delete
    3. Isn't this swell? Another case of 'prove my claim wrong, otherwise I'm right' from a warmist. Prove a negative. Reverse the burden of proof.

      Shouldn't you rather focus on showing with empirical data from the real world that our CO2 emissions actually caused the warming we've seen ...?

      You know of course (by the scientific method) that it's not enough to just point to warming and say 'We did it!'

      Where and how in the global temperature records do you see the cause of warming (ANY warming) specifically being the rise in atmospheric CO2? You know, the verifiable signal of +CO2 >> +T in real-world data.

      The whole AGW claim is just that - a claim. A completely unsubstantiated claim at that. Well, backed up by models. Your own models. And that's it. The scare is all in the models. Not in the real-world.

      It's a perfectly circular argument. It's got nothing to do with the scientific method. It never did. It's pseudo-science from start to end.

      You can keep your ten grand.
      Delete

    4. My reply to the challenge www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC2vrtx-ozk&list=PLlN8eSERofYpS2dGzNGv_hFAVXSbpACEn
      Delete

    5. My reply to your challenge-

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC2vrtx-ozk&list=PLlN8eSERofYpS2dGzNGv_hFAVXSbpACEn
      Delete
  3. Hi Mr. Keating, I'm a student reporter with The College Fix and I'd like to interview you for a story we are doing. Are you interested? I couldn't find your contact information anywhere, so I thought I would just post here. Thanks!
    ReplyDelete
  4. There are four reasons why no scientific skeptic will stoop to take up this challenge.

    The first is that it offends against the nemo sit iudex in causa sua principle of natural justice, for you have strong opinions on the subject and a direct financial vested interest in not awarding the $10,000, wherefore you are the judge in your own cause. Find a retired and manifestly independent judge to assess the evidence independently and you might get some takers. Otherwise, your offer is nothing more than a childishly theatrical but pointlessly pusillanimous stunt.

    Secondly, you will need to formulate as a basis for your challenge a proposition with which scientific skeptics might actually disagree. It has been long demonstrated by experiment that our adding CO2 to the atmosphere will - all other things being equal - be likely to cause some global warming. The proposition as you have currently formulated it is one with which all scientific skeptics would broadly agree (subject to such obvious qualifications as that the rate of global warming has been half the central estimate predicted by the IPCC in 1990 and that in the past decade or two there has been no global warming at all).

    Thirdly, the proposition must be formulated with some precision. In any dynamical system in which a variable is observed to change over time, it will be possible (unless the change has been unidirectional throughout the evolution of the system) to find some period during which there has been an increase in the value of that variable and some period during which there has been a decrease. Thus, in the climate object, there has been a decline in global temperature since the Holocene climate optimum, but an increase in global temperature since 1850 (though the warming rate is of course very much slower than that which was observed in Central England and inferred worldwide at the end of the Maunder Minimum). To overcome the obvious problems caused by the unscientific imprecision of the proposition as it is currently formulated, you may like to replace it with something like the IPCC's definition of the imagined "consensus" proposition: i.e., "Most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade".

    Fourthly, you must learn not to bracket those who on legitimate and serious scientific and economic grounds question your belief system with Holocaust deniers. In Scotland and in a growing number of other European countries, using such totalitarian hate-speech terms is - rightly - a criminal offense in that it is seen as a shoddy insult to the six million Jews who were murdered by a previous generation of totalitarians. If you want potential challengers to take you seriously, ditch the hate-speech.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. Truthfully, there is one, and only one, reason why no one will take the challenge - because they can't!

      Your line of reasoning is, typically, a false argument. If I am not a fair judge, it will be there for all to see. I would only serve to show that I am a fraud if I don't do things above board. Any submission must be, and will be, fairly judged and any comments will be on full display. Additionally, since there is no entry fee, anyone that submits a challenge and, assuming it doesn't satisfy the requirements of the challenge, can make corrections and resubmit it as many times as needed.

      The terms of the challenge are very clear, you say man made global warming is not real. Fine, produce the science to prove it. And, I don't mean the typically false statements for the masses like, "there has been a decline in global temperature since the Holocene climate optimum," Those are statements meant to make you sound intelligent, but are actually an indication of the level of ignorance in the topic. The fact that there are natural cycles to the climate does not speak to what is going on today. Provide any proof that the warming witnessed today is a natural cycle. You really don't want to go there because all of the evidence shows that the naturally occurring cycle we are currently in is a cooling one, not a warming one.

      And, let's be clear about something, deniers are out there every day ranting about how man made global warming is false and they can prove it. Well, all right, put my money where your mouth is and show us.

      No, the real reason no one is taking the challenge is because it can't be done. Deniers are big talkers, but they can't produce any science to back them up.

      As for comparing deniers to the Holocaust, that is most certainly not hate speech. Studies show that as many as 400,000 people are dieing each year due to climate change. That figure does not include people being injured, maimed or made ill, not to mention how billions of people are having their standard of living degraded. The Nazis were in power about 12 years. That means they were killing Jews at an average rate of 500,000 per year. That is a very comparable number to the number of people we are killing today because we can't do anything about the climate change problem. The reason we are unable to do address the problem is because of deniers actively working to prevent it. That is a statement of the facts and not hate speech. Standing around doing nothing and watching while climate change kills millions of people is the moral equivalent of watching the Nazis round up people for liquidation while doing nothing. Maybe I don't have to worry about Nazis gunning me down if I object, but I have worry about climate change killing me, or the people close to me.
      Delete
    2. Lord Monckton wrote: "It has long been demonstrated by experiment that our adding CO2 to the atmosphere will - all other things being equal - be likely to cause some global warming."

      You responded: "You say man made global warming is not real."

      If you're even capable of making such a simple error, one so thick as to not even qualify as an error of logic, what makes you think you are capable of adjudicating the merits of the arguments of those who would take up your "challenge"?

      "Truthfully, there is one, and only one, reason why no one will take the challenge - because they can't!"

      And you're going to be the judge?
      Delete
    3. "you say man made global warming is not real." - he just said it's real ("The proposition as you have currently formulated it is one with which all scientific skeptics would broadly agree"), that's not the point the "skeptics" are trying to make. Don't you read comments before replying? :)
      Delete

    4. I do have to wonder if you, "Kutsen", bother reading through before you reply. I'll try to be more specific for you. AGW deniers claim that man made global warming (anthropogenic global warming) is not real and that it is easy to disprove it. My challenge is for them to follow through and provide any such proof. Pure and simple.
      Delete
    5. A new challenge- $10,000 to anyone who can prove "Lord" (I use that term loosely) Monckton is not a massive bell end.
      Delete
    6. Vintage response from Christopher "(Monckton") Walter. Tries to bamboozle with his overuse of a near-extinct language, but then heads his ensuing paragraphs "secondly", "thirdly" and "fourthly."
      Delete
    7. Ah, the 'Lord' has spoken. One may be prone to ask, "what's up with that?".
      Delete
  5. Only 10k? Steve Milloy offered half a million to anyone who could prove humans cause dangerous global warming.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. I have $10,000. I don't have $500,000. I don't have access to Steve Milloy's financials, but I have always doubted he had the money or that he ever would have paid it out. Notice some big differences in my challenge and Milloy's. I do not charge an entry fee, he did. I will post any submission with my comments. He didn't.
      Delete
  6. Here you go:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

    Please make your generous donation payable to: The Free Software Foundation (fsf.org). You donation is appreciated and TAX-DEDUCTIBLE...
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. I entered your submission in both the $10,000 challenge and the $1000 challenge. You can see my discussion on your submissions here:

      http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/first-10000-and-1000-challenges.html
      Delete
  7. I think Mr. Keating has been has been out in the sun too long and it has affected his scruples.(Bravo Lord Moncton)
    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you disprove George Carlin ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. George Carlin was a extremely funny guy and I loved his comic routines. Hopefully, you accept it as that and no more. If you really do that this as a proof against global warming it would actually be very easy to disprove what he says. It is humor, nothing more.
      Delete

    2. To be clear, you can enter this as a submission to the challenge and I will address it, but identify what part qualifies as a scientific proof.
      Delete
  9. How about a more tangible bet. Like perhaps Mister Keating. Tell us the EXACT temperature anywhere on the earth 2 years from this moment. Or maybe one month from this moment. Or maybe 2 weeks. If you are wrong donate the 10k to an appropriate charity. If your science is so settled this should be a no brainier. Oh, and don't give us the Climate is not the same as Weather crap. and if you must.
    You ask for people to hit a bull-eye’s and don't actually provide a target.

    I am fairly certain. you will just call me names and move on ...
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. Be real! You are switching weather for climate and hoping no one notices the difference. The challenge is for a very specific purpose, to wit: Climate change deniers claim that man made global warming is not real and that it is very easy to prove it. OK, so prove it.
      Delete
    2. Bargaining: one of kubler-rosss five stages!
      Delete
  10. rosa koire agenda 21

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. I am not going to spend 1 and half hours to review the entire presentation. But, I am familiar with the Agenda 21 subject. Basically, there is no science here. This is a political issue. You may agree or disagree with the politics, but it has nothing to do with the science. I did spot reviews of what she was saying and there was nothing but unsubstantiated, inflammatory speech. Again, agree or disagree with her, but it isn't science and certainly is not any kind of evidence against global warming. If you really want to submit it as a challenge, say so and I will be more detailed in my comments. But, be sure to specify what part qualifies as a scientific proof. Comparing the U.N. to Nazi Germany is not a scientific proof against man made global warming.
      Delete

  11. Hi, initially just here to ask for a point of clarification. What would be considered the threshold e.g in global temperature readings from land/sea/atmosphere for as long as it has been accurately recorded that would be considered as solid evidence for man made climate change?
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. That is a very valid point and something that is considered with great care in the scientific circles. Basically, the process is this: the global temperature is measured and compared to the natural processes. All effort is made to find an explanation for the observed data. In the case of climate change, what is found is that the data can be explained only when man made effects are included. Now, to answer your question, the amount of departure from the natural and the measured is qualified as the percentage of error in the measurements (a sigma). The greater the number of sigmas, the more strongly is the conclusion. Two sigmas is generally considered to be conclusive.
      Delete
    2. Temperature is an indicator of the heat content of a system: suffice to say, temperature means next to nothing until the system it is measuring is defined!
      Delete

    3. Well in that case I agree that there's no disproving man made climate change with the overwhelming evidence available quite easily that 2 or more sigma's worth of error occur quite often and in ever increasing frequency. Hopefully a lot more people in the right places notice and start to do more to address the situation.
      Delete

  12. Hey, I sent you a PM but I will post a modified version here:

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-3

    Any thermal combustion will contribute to a release of thermal energy. You argument, no matter how you twist it, will always be positive as thermal emissions contribute to the heating of the surroundings. It's basic thermodynamics.

    The extent in which global warming is "man-made", however, doesn't quite make any sense. The world has continued to go through natural cycles of heating and cooling long before our proposed existence. If ice-ages have occurred long before man-kind, what factors would have caused the periodic flux of global temperatures? Could not have been man-kind.

    As the good old saying states, "correlation does not mean causation". As said, combustion of fuels will release thermal energy. The more thermal energy we produce will heat the surroundings. But as CO2 emissions arise, which have a lower specific heat than air [1], thermal energy cannot be trapped as effectively as air. These emissions are the cause of global warming. They may even result in a global cooling. You will need CO2 to be as "thick as glass" in order to trap heat it deflects solar rays to the Earth. Furthermore, we prefer air, copper, and other materials with a higher specific heat to cool our electronics.

    Although we see a correlation between CO2 emissions and global change in these periodic cycles, current changes to our CO2 concentrates do not follow the trend. CO2, and other greenhouse gases are not significant variables to these periodic cycles.

    Anyways, as your question states "cause of Global-Warming", there are hundreds of alternatives available that will release thermal energy, and thus, as stated here and above, man-kind is not the "cause" of global warming. You’re asking a trick question. Man-kind did not exist prior to these cycles that resorted in "global warming". However, if you want to point out simple thermodynamics, sure, you're right on the grounds that man-kind, when we combust materials/fuel, it will expel thermal energy into the environment. Good on yeah.

    Alternative Sources:
    [1]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

    Cheers

    The more conversations we have over this topic will help bring some light. It’s merely beneficial; but it would be appreciated, given the ethical conduct of your discipline, that you uphold to your disciplines standards in its discussion.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. The fact that there have been natural cycles in the past has no bearing on what is going on today. You have provided no evidence at all to connect today's warming with any naturally occurring cycle.

      Your argument goes this way:

      There were warming cycles in the past.
      There is a warming cycle today.
      The warming cycles in the past were natural.
      Therefore, the warming cycle today is natural.

      Let me give you an identical argument to show how false this line of reasoning is:

      Pneumonia kills people
      Gunshot wounds kill people.
      Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease.
      Therefore, gunshot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

      The two arguments are identical and you can clearly see why they are false. The second does not follow from the first. Until deniers can show there is a relationship between the natural cycles and today's warming trend, this is a false argument. The fact is, we are in a natural cooling cycle, not a warming one. All warming is man made.

      As for proving global warming is real, I do that in my book. I am sure you will not read it because you have rejected science. It was written for people that want to learn more about the subject.
      Delete

    2. One more comment. I did not think you were submitting a challenge, just making a comment. If that is wrong, please say so and I will treat it accordingly.
      Delete

    3. "I have rejected science"? Were you able to say that with straight face? You can save the personal attacks. It only makes you lose credibility as you pull garbage out of your ass with such pathetic attempts at belittling another individual. I'm currently an engineering student, already have a research paper under my belt, and contributed to numerous studies on neurological disorders. Frankly, it sounds like you are looking for an ego stroke because you "wrote a book" and resort to fortune-telling tactics (i.e. cognitive dysfunctions) that I won't read your "book". (And I won’t bother giving you a single cent of my time after this).

      You failed to address numerous points I made. It is clear you merely cherry picked certain topics I made and resorted to typical schema responses instead of actually having an intellectual discussion. Such ethical conduct could revoke your right to practice your discipline and be taken seriously.

      I'm not debating global warming is not occurring, but rather you’re stating it is “man-made”. You are taking a whole and resorting to placing all blame on artificial contributions. That is what you are arguing after all. You failed to acknowledge the points on greenhouse gases (outside of methane) having lower specific heats than air and thus somehow warm up the earth. Higher CO2 concentrations won’t promote global warming. Any combustion that produces thermal energy will release such energy into the environment. So of course, under basic thermodynamic principles (somehow I’ve rejected science) man-kind has contributed to global warming but is not the “cause” of such.

      And yes, the cycles are real. These natural cycles also occur over a ~100 000 years and vary dramatically over 100 000 year gaps. Over small portions, looking at the linearization averages of the gaps over 10 000 years, nothing was accounted for. If you have looked the scaling, there are massive gaps and simple averaging techniques to fill in the gaps between them. You take each 10 000 year linearize average at face value and fail to scale it to a 10 year period. Well done. You’ve taken basic level calculus, correct? We do this all the time.

      During the “age of the Dinosaurs”, there were even larger emissions of “greenhouse gases”. They still undergone these natural cycles. And, in the academic paper I sent you via hangouts, as I have rejected “science”, showing how, basically, as the global temperatures rise, biomass decreases, dissolved greenhouse gases increase.

      You attempt to fill a self-fulfilling prophecy as opposed to having a nice, and intellectual discussion. No one will get the 10 000 grand, not because you can’t prove that global warming is merely caused by man-kind, but you have an ego that corrupts your mere basic cognitive reasoning. Furthermore, you, being in such a cognitive-defective state, are the “judge” to your own self-fulfilling prophecy. You’re an absolute joke. It is really hard to have a discussion with someone who believes in “science” when, in reality, he doesn’t hold the ethical basis in order to practise “science”. You can’t argue with you as your mind have clearly been made.

      You trying to grab hits for your book? It’s a nice attempt; I sure got a laugh from it.
      Delete

    4. It's rather hilarious how you tell others to re-read their posts but you failed to even read my own argument. "Any thermal combustion will contribute to a release of thermal energy. You argument, no matter how you twist it, will always be positive as thermal emissions contribute to the heating of the surroundings. It's basic thermodynamics". Recalling the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics, I agreed that we contribute to global warming. You claim we are the absolute, and fundamental source of "global warming".

      Good God, how did you get your degree when you can merely skim through simple text?
      Delete

    5. "All warming is man made". We produce volcanos and solar energy from the sun too, eh?

      Oh well, yeah, I'm done here. You're an absolute joke. Good luck on selling your book. It obviously hasn't made enough sales to feed your ego.
      Delete

    6. Funny, for someone that said you were not going to spend a second of your time on me, you sure are spending a lot of time here.

      For the record, how does studies in neurological disorders make you a better expert on climate science than all of the world's climate scientists combined? Just wondering.

      First off, greenhouse gases do not warm the Earth. Earth is warmed by the Sun. What greenhouse gases do is to prevent infrared radiation from passing through the atmosphere as efficiently. As the amount of greenhouse gases increases, it become more and more difficult for infrared radiation to pass through the atmosphere into space. This acts in much the same way as placing a blanket on the bed or putting a coat on. Neither of those warms you up, they just keep the warmth from radiating out. If you are not clear about this then you should probably go back to your professors and have them explain it to you. You appear to need some tutoring on your understanding of science.

      There are many natural cycles and no one is denying that (at least, none of the scientists are). These cycles come in all sorts of sizes from a few years in length (such as the El Nino cycle) to thousands of years (such as the Milankovitch cycles). When we combine all of these cycles and compare what we find is we are in a natural cooling cycle. There is no natural explanation for the heating trend of the last few decades. The evidence is overwhelming that we are to blame for the warming and it takes a full-fledged denial of science to come to any other conclusion.

      As for having my mind made up, I go where the science leads me. If it should ever happen that the science shows man made global warming is not real, then that is where I will go. Too bad you can't do as well.

      You think I'm just ego-tripping saying you have rejected science? Then, answer one question - what would it take to convince you that man made global warming is real? I've already stated what would change my mind. Tell us what will change your mind. I bet the answer is, "Nothing."
      Delete
    7. You will need CO2 to be as "thick as glass" in order to trap heat it deflects solar rays to the Earth.

      This isn't how CO2 causes warming -- it absorbs heat coming from the Earth, not rays from the Sun.

      Maybe you should learn some science before you reject it.
      Delete
  13. Because Rush Limbaugh says so.
    Next.
    Oh, and I know you have the money because he also says that you guys are raking in millions (billions, even) as members of the Climate Change Industrial Complex.
    Make my check payable to the Institute for Restorative Therapy for Marcus Bachman. Is anyone more deserving?
    ReplyDelete
  14. I've often wondered what makes deniers think that we are not capable of spoiling the atmosphere. If you first take the simple trope that if the world were the size of a basketball that our atmosphere would measure the thickness of a single sheet of paper held against the ball, then look at the exhaust of a single automobile. There are over 1 billions autos on the planet. There are 200 million square miles on the planet. That means you could put 5 cars on every square mile (including, I guess, floating on platforms on every ocean). If you left those cars running for a month, do you not think that they could foul the atmosphere (extending upwards of one sheet of paper on the basketball that is earth) in that one square mile they inhabit?
    I'll take it a step further. Imagine a glass box built around you ... 1 square mile in size and extending 1 mile high. You are alone in that box, except for the 5 running automobiles. Would you be alive in 1 month do you think?
    How about 2 miles high?
    5 miles high? (We're heading toward the upper reaches of the atmosphere) Not much oxygen up there.
    Let's say some rich son of a gun offered a million bucks if you would sit in that box for a month. Would you take the challenge?
    ReplyDelete
  15. Your point is very easy to understand, Truthhursaz. It is a great starting point. It seems to me that people are not starting from that point, though.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies






    1. I think the starting point for the deniers is political. In my estimation, they are putting their somewhat bizarre adherence to the republican party line ahead of the futures of our children and grandchildren. Bottom line ... ameliorating climate change through new technology, conservation and innovation will have a lasting positive effect on our lives. There is no downside ... (except maybe some jobs lost in the fossil fuel industries).
      Oh, my scenario, btw, has some flaws. I suppose I should be as honest and forthright as our host.
      I did some math. Assuming that an exhaust pipe can foul 1 cubic foot of air per second ... then multiplying by 60 for a minute ... 60 for an hour ... 24 for a day and 365 for a year, then multiply by 5 cars ... then taking the number of cubic feet in a cubic mile ... it would take about 900 years to foul every square inch of a cubic mile.
      But ... since exhaust is heavier than air ... you only need to find for the first 6 feet in the square mile ... so the first 6 feet would be completely filled with exhaust fumes in about 1 year.
      If you are at least 6 foot 4 inches ... you could take that bet for a full year, but by then it would reach your nose.
      Delete

    2. I believe very much that politics has a big part to do with all of this. Republicans hate Obama and Gore so much Republicans will do not anything that might be seen as agreeing with them.

      Jon Stewart had an interesting take on this. It is only humor, but his point about how the Republicans won't even believe their own people is a true statement.

      http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/06/jon-stewart-analyzes-the-republican-strategy-of-im-not-a-scientist/372210/
      Delete
    3. Of course, it's only the evil deniers playing politics. The goodly climate change ( oops warming ) would never play politics.
      Delete

    4. Of course they play politics and no one is saying otherwise. I wish the good guys could play better, but that it isn't what they are trained to do. We are at a disadvantage, though. We stick to the facts and to science. Deniers are free to say any lie they wish, as long as it furthers their agenda of serving the fossil fuel industry and certain extreme-right individuals.
      Delete
  16. The way you have defined the level of proof required to disprove it means that my body heat alone is enough to satisfy your claim of proof for AGW under the second law of thermodynamics.

    Define the parameters that would disprove AGW... You have not provided a target level or time frame of heating. The fact that we have had larger ∇ of temperature over shorter time frames before mankind was around should be enough to prove that man kind has little effect on the climate, but apparently that's not enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. One more example of deniers avoiding the issue of how no science supports their claims. If, as you say, it is true that our body heat is enough to cause global warming (something I do not concede), then why do deniers keep insisting the man made global warming is not real. And, why do they keep insisting there is much scientific evidence to support their claims? All you are doing is trying to split hairs to get out of a situation of your making. It is the claim of the deniers, not mine. I'm just challenging the denier population to come through with the proof they claim is so easy to find.

      If the claim is not true, then stop repeating it.
      Delete
    2. You're putting up a straw man...

      Almost nobody disputes we cause warming... the argument is how much and what are the consequences. I am not a "denier" because I'm skeptical of the hypothesis and predictions... especially because the predictions of warming and catastrophe have diverged wildly from the observed thus far. The claim is over 2 C by centuries end, yet despite an 85% increase in Co2 and an exponential increase in human population and energy use per capita, its gone up .85 C. Human population is stabilizing, and energy use per capita is slowing and reversing rapidly in some nations.

      >"If, as you say, it is true that our body heat is enough to cause global warming (something I do not concede)"

      Then you are denying the second law of thermodynamics and just outed yourself as a denier of, thus far, proven LAWS of nature. Hilarious considering you're a physicist... You of all people should know that a warmer body then ambient will contribute to a global heating, even if it's miniscule.

      You didn't give any criterion for falsifiability other then "man-made global climate change is not occurring", thus the very existence of a single human being is enough to claim you are right. Give us the parameters and criterion to meet for falsifiability, otherwise you're just trollen.
      Delete

    3. Did you seriously just say that no one denies global warming? That is such an idiotic statement that I will spend only a few seconds on it.

      The Heartland Institute and NIPCC:
      http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

      How about this guy?:
      http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

      Or, any number of editorials in Forbes and Wall Street Journal:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/

      Or, this one:
      http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/

      And, Senator James Inhofe:
      http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe

      That took me about 30 seconds (literally!). If I had wanted to, I could have found thousands of examples to show how wrong you are. You couldn't even take 30 seconds to verify such a ludicrous statement before posting it?

      Delete
    4. Perhaps he meant that nobody denies that it gets warmer when the sun comes up. You see, as the sun goes below the horizon, the heat from the fires on it's surface is denied us ... so it gets colder, but as the great chariot pull the sun across the sky during the day ... we all know that it gets warmer.
      Really, this is all so easy to understand.
      But really, could you please explain to me what prevents the water in the ocean from spilling off into the great void. Are there, like, pebble tec walls like on my swimming pool?
      Delete

    5. You are most definitely a denier. That point is demonstrated in your very apparent lack of homework. You patiently waited until you had 10% of the information and then boldly jumped to the wrong conclusion. Now, it has become a mantra for you and nothing will change you mind. Do you think I'm kidding? Tell me what could possibly change you mind? That is not a rhetorical question.

      As for the body heat, another example of not doing your homework. Assuming 7 billion people around the world burning an average of 2000 Calories per day. One Calorie is equal to 1000 calories and is enough energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius. So, 7 billion people consume 14 trillion calories per day. About 70% is radiated off as heat, meaning we collectively emit about 10 trillion calories, or about 40 trillion (4 x 10^13) joules per day. In comparison, solar heating provides about 1 x 10^25 joules per day. So, heat emitted by humans is on the order of 1/10-billionth of one percent of the heat coming in from the Sun. I sure do hope you recognize that as being well within the realm of noise in the data. I am not sure we have instruments sensitive enough to measure heat input on that order. But, that is all irrelevant because any energy emitted by humans is energy that is in the system. It comes from food, which, at some point, got the energy from the Sun. If food was brought in from off-planet, then we would be adding (an incredibly small amount of) heat to the system. But, since it is all coming from within the environment, we are not adding heat, just moving it around.

      But, I'll bet you aren't interested because that is science.
      Delete

    6. The water doesn't spill out because of water Velcro that keeps it in place.
      Delete
    7. Physics... is not your strong suit is it?

      >"One Calorie is equal to 1000 calories and is enough energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius."

      Actually its enough to raise 1 KILOGRAM by one kelvin/Celsius. ~ 5.88 x 10^16 joules per day globally.

      > "But, since it is all coming from within the environment, we are not adding heat, just moving it around."

      Actually, 99.999+% of the chemical energy of food comes from the sun via photosynthesis, so its technically not from the environment. You contradicted yourself with the previous sentence.

      >But, I'll bet you aren't interested because that is science.

      What you said isn't science, it's bad math with horribly inaccurate assumptions.

      >Did you seriously just say that no one denies global warming?

      My verbatim comment, "Almost nobody disputes we cause warming", key word ALMOST. This is backed up by countless studies.

      You still didn't answer my question/request... What is the criterion for disproving AGW? What are the parameters that would satisfy a conclusive proof that humans are not meaningfully contributing to AGW? This must be explained or this is nothing more then a religion with an unfalsifiable, moving goal post, hypothesis...

      Anyone can claim an apocalypse with a computer model. Example; with current trends of homosexuality, sometime in 2070(arbitrarily speaking) everyone will be gay and we wont have any children to carry on humanity. This would be true and unfalsifiable but incredibly stupid to based any policy restrictions on homosexuality because of a computer model based on trends.

      Please stop with the strawmen... Get to the real issues with the uncertainties instead of bashing everyone who has a slight skepticism of them.
      Delete

    8. You get some brownie points. I made a typo error and some math errors. That's what I get for rushing a response as I was trying to get out the door.

      Let's do the math again.

      There are about 7 billion people in the world and the rough average daily consumption is about 2000 Calories. A Calories that we use to measure energy content of food is actually a kilocalories and is equal to 1000 calories. Each calories (lower case) provide enough energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius and contains 4.186 joules of energy.

      So, 7 billion people times 2000 Calories/person x 1000 calorie/Calorie x 4.186 joules/calorie is equal to about 6 x 10^16 joules of energy. Let's round up to 10^17 joules. Again, the Sun dumps about 10^25 joules of energy on the planet each day, so the heat output of humans is 10^17/10^25 x 100% = .00000001%. That is 1/100-millionth of one percent.

      So, the number is larger, but the point is still true. The amount of heat radiated by the combined population of the planet is insignificant compared to the incoming solar radiation. I do not believe we have instruments sensitive enough to measure the heat contribution from human bodies to the environment on a global scale. In any event, it would be well within the noise level.

      As for offering a strawman, you are the one doing that and I have been patiently putting up with you. This whole claim of yours about human radiated heat is an attempt to change the topic.

      The challenge is clear and is in response to the claims of the deniers. You deniers state that AGW is not real and it is easy to prove. Fine, show us what you got. What would it take? Well, you are the ones making the claim, so it would seem you are best able to answer that question and you are just engaging in yet another strawman.

      I have addressed this issue in more detail in my posting at:
      http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-clarification-on-100001000.html

      If you can stay on topic long enough, this should answer your questions. If you still want to try and change the topic of the challenge, feel free to come back.
      Delete
  17. Dr. Keating...

    I respectfully submit the findings of Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier. Here is an article that summarizes the research...

    http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/17/scientist-reveals-inconvenient-truth-to-alarmists/

    Here is his interview on why, "Our society is fundamentally dishonest." Translated from German to English by Google Translator...

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.derbund.ch%2Fwissen%2Fnatur%2FUnsere-Gesellschaft-ist-grundsaetzlich-unehrlich%2Fstory%2F24948853&edit-text=

    Additional questions for you to answer.

    1. Can you explain why the Rhone glacier has been ice-free for 5,800 of the last 10,000 years, according to Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s research?

    2. Can you explain why the Rhone glacier was ice-free before human industrial influence? Which is the very period of time that global-warming alarmist's point to as the proverbial smoking gun to prove their point.

    I am not submitting these findings for a prize. I ask only that YOU refute Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s work with an absolute certainty in this matter. If you can't, as I suspect you won't be able, then concede this, there is NO definitive right or wrong in this case and PUBLICLY accept that your OPINION may not be the correct one. I reverse your challenge, I don't want your money, I want you to take out a full-page ad in either the NY Times or LA Times admitting that you lost this challenge.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. I will treat this as the next submission to the challenge and will respond with a posting tomorrow. I am familiar with this work and will be glad to provide my comments.
      Delete
    2. Fair enough.
      Delete

    3. Here is my reply to your challenge:

      http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/second-10000-challenge-submission.html
      Delete
  18. Please be more honest and use the word Heretic instead of Denier.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. Actually, there are a lot of other words I would prefer to use, but I demand this blog be family friendly. Denier it is.
      Delete
    2. Heretic is religion -
      Keating is trying to discuss the science of global warming.
      I appreciate that Republican have a hard time realizing that "fact based" science is quite different from their "faith based" machinations.

      Denial of physical facts is denial... has nothing to do with "Heretic"

      Denier it is. :- )
      Delete
  19. This is really a great example of how discussion of important policy issues has degraded over time. It is a classic straw man argument designed to elicit emotional reactions rather than scientific debate....and there are at least two major flaws in the stated challenge. Skeptics on AGW do not say that man has no affect whatsoever but that man's influence pales to that of nature. The challenger knows this but has misstated the skeptic's positions so as to promote his cause. So the very basis of the so-called challenge is void. (As to the above discussions on thermodynamics, earth is not a closed loop system and energy is both radiated at earth and into space from earth)

    The second fallacy is that it is impossible to prove there is no basis for any measurable affect by man just as it is impossible to prove there is. We know so very little about the science of climate change that it impossible to calculate at this time and it takes a lot of hubris to believe we understand all the systems involved. There are multiple potential causes of global warming and we have a poor understanding of each of them, let alone their potential combined affects. Some of these, but not limited to, are the weakening of earth's magnetic fields, recent discoveries of gamma rays and their affect on cloud formations, the lack of volcanic activity over the last couple hundred years, the recent discovery of substantial bacterial activity in the middle, and possibly upper, atmosphere, the uptick in solar activity in the last 150 years, recent observations of sprites in the upper atmosphere. And there are many others like natural cycles, planetary inclination, decadal oscillations, asteroid/large meteor impacts, and more. There is very much that we know very little about.

    Further, discussion about the temperature change and trends over the last 200 yrs is too small a time period when there are multiple natural cycles spanning 100,000 years with varying synchronicities. A 200 yr data point may just be a blip like a stray rain shower in the Sahara Desert.

    This 'challenge' has no scientific basis nor will it result in any science. The challenger knows this but is more interested in emotional responses and, even more so, the attention and publicity that such a meaningless challenge will draw.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies







    1. Actually, the straw man is being submitted by you. This challenge is in direct response to statements made by deniers. You are absolutely mistaken when you say that deniers do not say man made global warming isn't real. There are plenty of examples of that, including a major U.S. Senator (Inhofe) that stated on the Senate floor that global warming is a fraud. Really, do your homework. When you say that you are the one creating a straw man and trying to deflect the challenge to a different topic.

      As for your second "fallacy" you once again showed that you have failed to do your homework. The science supporting man made global warming is overwhelming. In my book I was able to provide a solid proof of the reality of AGW. And, if your claim that it is impossible to disprove it is true, then why do deniers keep making that claim, along with the statement that the science is easy. If this is the case, show us. If not, stop saying it.

      No one is saying we understand everything. That is why we have scientists. But, we don't know everything about medicine, either. Does that mean you're going to ignore the doctor when you are ill? Ask Steve Jobs how well that worked out for him. Oh, yeah. You can't because he's dead. Maybe those doctors that don't know everything could have done something for him if he hadn't ignored them.

      Same thing with climate scientists. We know enough to show conclusively that we are changing the climate. Maybe the public and our governments should be listening to them more.

      Speaking of hubris, it takes a ton to decide you're smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. Maybe you should get a little humility and work on your science education before you mislead anyone with your false statements.

      One thing you are correct about, I do know there is no scientific basis to the challenge and that is the entire point. The claims by the deniers have no scientific basis and I am doing my part to demonstrate it. For that purpose, it is certainly not meaningless.

      Funny how many deniers weasel there way out of the challenge. I'll bet you will go out and tell people that man made global warming isn't real, but you won't submit a proof (at no cost and no risk) to back up your statement.
      Delete


      1. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

        Will this do for a submission? Not just the original link itself, mind you. It already has a comprehensive "rebuttals to criticisms" section.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. No, it won't work. If you would like to go through the individual papers and show that some, or all, of them provide evidence then that would be fine. But, the terms of the challenge do not require me to do all of your homework.

          But, before you begin, I have come across this kind of statement before and I can tell you the way it works. Just look at their own disclaimer:

          Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

          What they do is to write something, then find some paper somewhere that refers to that topic and include it as a reference in their paper. Then, they cite the original paper as supporting their claims. I once went through about 100 papers in one of these cases (the CO2Science.org) and did not find a single one that supported their claim. It is all an exercise so they can claim 'thousands of refereed papers support our position." Once again, a claim made by deniers that they can't back up. They have to lie and deceive.

          But, if you would like to go through 1350 papers and produce an argument from them, I would accept that. It is your job to produce the proof, not mine.
          Delete
        2. Here's the thing, it's not on my behalf. The author of that page has ALREADY gone through all of them. And two ease your mind on the disclaimer, there's already this in the "answers to criticisms"
          http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4034

          The proof has been produced, it is now on you to refute without using logical fallacies (aka Hasty Generalization as you are here. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hastygen.html)
          Delete
        3. Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

          Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
          Delete
        4. There has been no 'proof' provided. All you have provided is a list of papers that someone says supports their anti-AGW claims. That is not any kind of proof. I have said you can even cut and paste, but I will not go through over 1300 papers for you to find the slivers of scientific evidence that probably don't exist. I've gone down this path before, like I said. If you cannot put together a proof, why do you expect me to?
          Delete
        5. As for the anonymous criticism and reply comment above, remember what this challenge is about. I am merely providing a venue (and possible payout) for climate change deniers to prove their claim about AGW. We are not here to debate every other issue or to negotiate the challenge. Stick to the point.
          Delete
        6. The "anonymous" criticism comes straight from the link provided.

          What I've noticed here is that you think your caricature of what "climate deniers" believe is actually reflective of the consensus of those who disagree with the "majority" science position. It was evident in your list of sites that "say AGW is not real" on the other page, and it is readily apparent here as well. The NIPCC offers a wonderful, PEER REVIEWED, and thorough analysis of why the IPCC is flawed, which is one of your listed criteria that allows for winning this contest.

          I suggest you take a good hard second look at what you think you're up against, because this silly fallacy of "I've found the most ridiculous arguments on the internet, and this is clearly what everyone who disagrees with the IPCC actually believe" is just plain malarkey.
          Delete
        7. My good sir... If you are truly interested in finding scientific materials opposing your views, you would seek out papers written by your peers, not garbage spewed by random internet Anons.

          If it would be appropriate, might I suggest someone write a script that for every day for the next three and a half years will automatically select a unique paper from that archive and post it to this blog. That way you will actually be doing something useful to the scientific society.

          But no, your objective is not to seek the truth. Your objective is to seek out the stupid and point out their stupidity so your audience can laugh and be merry.
          Delete
      2. It isn't the climate science that I refute. I think climate science is some of the most interesting science out there. I do wonder about the correlation vrs causation argument.

        The term "global warming" can be trashed if you ask me. Especially after experiencing some of the coldest temperatures on record this past winter. The term climate disruption, ecosystem disruption, or even climate change is better.

        So it isn't the science I dispute, it is the implementation of policy that I refute. In the land of the free, how to you force investors to invest in green energy? How do you make it affordable to the average person? How do you implement green initiatives without bankrupting small business? How many green initiatives went bankrupt after receiving billions in tax dollars???? Seemed like a money laundering scheme if you ask me.

        Personally, I would love to have solar panels on my house that would power essential appliances like the stove, refrigerator, and heating/air system.

        Better yet, how do you get China on board? The entire US can go green tomorrow, and it wouldn't matter because in a few years China will be pumping enough CO2 into the atmosphere for everyone.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. Remember, the cold winter we had was actually pretty normal just a few decades ago. And, while we in the middle and eastern part of the country had a cold winter, it was a record warm one on the West Coast, Alaska, Siberia and even in the Arctic Region. They had a warmer winter in Alaska than we did in Texas. Don't confuse local weather with global climate. They are not the same thing.

          As for the policy disputes, I agree there are lots of problems. That is politics and is a whole lot messier than science.

          As for solar power, it is becoming very affordable and competitive with grid power. I have been looking at it for my house and I can recoup my expenses in less than three years now.

          How do we get China and India on board? Man, if I could answer questions like that I would run for President. But, they certainly won't do anything until we start cleaning up our own act first.
          Delete
        2. Dr. Keating:

          I would be curious as to your take on the following statements of Patrick Moore, who is said in this cut and pasted article to be a co founder of Greenpeace. Specifically, it would appear that his points 1-3, 6 and 9, if true, would disprove man made global warming based on carbon dioxide emissions.

          Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."

          Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

          "The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific "proof" at all."

          Moore goes on to list some key facts about "climate change" which are ignored by true believers.

          1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.

          2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.

          3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.

          4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.

          5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.

          6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.

          7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.

          8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.

          9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.





          Delete
        3. Mr. Moore was forced out Greenpeace and then became a paid supporter of the nuclear power industry in Canada, counter to the position taken by Greenpeace.

          The fact that Mr. Moore, or anyone else, stated there is no scientific proof global warming doesn't make it so. Ask yourself, with all of the climate scientists out there, do you really think there is no scientific evidence to support AGW? That alone speaks to Mr. Moore's credibility.

          Also, saying climate change is a theory and there is no scientific evidence is an oxymoron. Many people substitute 'theory' for 'hypothesis' but in science they are very different things. A theory is something that has been rigorously tested via the scientific method and has passed all of the tests. Mr. Moore would be in a position to know that.

          I'll address each of his comments in order.

          1. I discussed this in my post here:

          http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/second-10000-challenge-submission.html

          As you can see in the graph provided (today is on the left), the CO2 level over the last 800,000 years has been higher at times, but has been mostly lower.

          But, so what? There is no connection is shown between those events in the past and what is happening today.

          2. Same plot in the same posting. Again, you can see the temperature levels have been higher at times, but mostly lower for the last 800,000 years. Again, so what? Where is the connection with today's events? This is a false argument to claim what is happening today is the same as what happened in the past. Where is the proof?

          3. This is a true statement, but incomplete. The reason there was so much CO2 in the atmosphere was because of a series of massive volcanic eruptions. The CO2 from those eruptions first caused global warming, but then the chemicals and ash in the atmosphere led to the global cooling.

          4. So what? Does this have anything to do with the debate here?

          5. Once again, an irrelevant statement. At least it is true.

          6. Mostly true, but irrelevant. I have heard of this before, but my source say the optimum level is between 1000 and 1200 ppm. No real difference there. But, so what? This has no bearing on the debate.

          7. There is a lot of debate about this. Many studies show that growth levels will first rise, but then fall. But, so what?

          8. And, what does this have to do with the debate?

          9. Finally, a statement with some meat on it. However, this claim has been soundly debunked and I have commented on it several times. Take a look here:

          http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/first-10000-and-1000-challenges.html

          All in all, Mr Moore's comments have nothing to do with our debate. But, it was a nice little comment.

          I viewed this as simply a comment, mostly because there were several statements there that had nothing to do with our debate. But, if you intended this to be a challenge let me know and I will post it as such.
          Delete
      3. Oh if only the challenge had been to provide evidence of faked and manipulated data in support of "Global Warming". IMO, it is obvious that "Global Warming" is due to Man is all very much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster bit...and of course the FSM's open and loving noodle arms as the cause for climate change cannot be "disproved". Because something mythical cannot be disproved does not make it any less mythical. This is why I think you are totally safe in your $10k challenge. But it does hopefully move the debate forward or cause people to rethink why they are naturally, rightfully, and logically skeptical of any such projected doomsday doctrine be it of religion or science.

        1. 17th Year and counting of a lack of "Global Warming" as the "pause" continues per the IPCC. (So there is no "Global Warming"...but since you probably assume the IPCC just has bad PR men...)
        2. Man's activity has greatly increased during this time period as have the so called "Green House" emissions yet no corresponding "Global Warming" or out of cycle results have occurred.
        3. Recently record sea ice in Antarctica some how formed despite the alleged "Global Warming" (perhaps the FSM is to blame) which also just happened to trap "Global Warming" tourists and multiple ships designed specifically to deal with expected ice.

        It is beyond the pale to suggest "scientific method" is needed to accept the a priori truth that, for the moment at least, Man is not causing "Global Warming" because there is no "Global Warming".
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. Well make your own challenge. Nothing is stopping you, if you feel that strongly about it.

          When I made the challenge I knew I was totally safe because I knew deniers did not have any science to back them up. And, yes, false and mythical things can be disproven. Its done all the time.

          I have already addressed each of your three points several times before so I don't feel I need to do it for the umpteenth time.

          By the way, you should get with your pals that claim no denier has ever said global warming is happening. Yeah, I know. I was pretty amazed, too.

          But, again, the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science.
          Delete
        2. So you see this as an "us" verses "them thing by your comment of "your pals"? I didn't know we were choosing up sides, I thought you were open to discussion as individuals?

          1. Nice try, but I didn't say false and mythical things cannot be disproven. I said because something mythical cannot be disproved does not make it any less mythical. Surely you can do better than to misquote.

          2. Still, no matter your snarks, Warming is not happening "currently" and it certainly is not happening at a rate that reflects Man's greenhouse gas emissions. Or else why would there be all this "excuse" talk about deep ocean heat or volcanic ash reflecting inbound energy being the reason that GW is not tracking Man's activity? The only reason these "excuses" or "explanations" are needed is because, for the present time, there is no Global Warming "happening". Therefore I don't need to deny science in order to know that Warming is not currently occurring...I only need to look at the science community scrambling to explain why it is not happening as expected to know it is not happening due to Mankind's measurable output..

          3. And the reason this lack of Global Warming point is valid is because you refused to establish a timeframe for your definition of GW "happening". So I chose my timeframe of say the past 10y+rs, then no, there is no GW and therefore Man cannot be currently causing warming. You can't deny this without attacking the timeframe and logic.

          So framing it as us/them, and then a rhetorical slight of hand on your part about Myths coupled with your overall valuing of the inability to disprove a negative, indicates a certain lack of honesty on your part of really being open to having your mind changed or that your are looking for proof.. Especially if you think your techniques add anything to the validity of your assertions about GW.

          No, I suspect the story of Mankind driven GW cannot be disproved for the same reason that the story of FSM cannot be disproved, because they are assertions that are sustained only by their promoters. But even though they can't be disproved there is more than enough reason to be skeptical of both given that neither are currently having measurable effects.
          Delete
      4. The burden of proof belongs to those proposing climate change mitigation, not to skeptics.

        Dr. Keating's misuse of the word "deniers" helps disguise antisemitism, promotes hate, obfuscates history and hides the lies of those who claim the Holocaust wasn't real. Shame on you!
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. My, my. Just who is engaging in hate speech?

          There is no misuse of the denier label. It refers to people that reject the massively overwhelming amount of scientific evidence showing we have change the climate and caused global warming with our greenhouse emissions. They deny global warming is real, hence the label.

          All of those other things you said probably means you should get you meds checked.
          Delete
        2. "promotes hate, obfuscates history and hides the lies of those who claim the Holocaust wasn't real."

          "\Wow. Only one step away from playing the Nazi card.

          I have it on good authority that Dr. Keating is not a holocaust denier. You see, I met Chris up in Northeastern Arizona. We were scouting spots in the Painted Desert to film the fake moon landings. Neil Armstrong, Chris and I spoke at length about the Holocaust. Chris absolutely believes the Holocaust happened, but he's totally certain that Pearl Harbor wasn't real and was instead Daryl Zanuck production.
          Then we did some peyote and Neil floated away.
          Delete
      5. Of course no one can disprove it! Even simple minds with simple logic can see the impact of the elements on a smaller scale. To attempt to disprove this would be the plain and simple fact that one has lived under a rock and has possess no earthly logic or education. Simply put "Cause and effect", Day in Day out, year after year, decades after decades. However I do believe that life sustains itself, the miracle of life forms will mutate and adapt as we continue on. As much as I really need the money for my children, I would not even attempt this. It is what it is!
        ReplyDelete
      6. That is just absurd. Of course man has had an impact on climate. Heat island effect for one.

        It simply cannot be disproved as presented.

        Now if you were to amend it to say if it can be disproved that a trace amount of man made CO2 can do more than a trace amount of temperature rise in the atmosphere, then you would lose.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. You are missing the point. Deniers are the ones that have been making this claim and I am just giving them a venue to prove their point. I tried to explain this in this post here:

          http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-clarification-on-100001000.html
          Delete
        2. I am not missing your point. You are purposely missing mine. You claim that that is what "deniers" claim. That is incorrect. No sceptic "denies" that the globes climate has changed, that is what climate does, it changes. No sceptic claims that man has had zero impact on climate.

          Conversely, alarmists claim that man made trace increases in the existing trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere may increase the global average temps. Sceptics generally agree with that to some extent.

          The question is whether or not this trace increases in atmospheric CO2 can effect more than a a trace and inconsequential increase in temps or whether, as alarmists claim, it will be affected to a catastrophic level. That is what is in dispute by sceptics and you know it.

          So your claim that "deniers" "deny" that man has any impact at all on the climate is absurd and plainly incorrect. You claim that that is their claim. You are wrong. And making this bet is silly semantics. I would expect more from someone who claims to be a physicist and a scientist in good standing.
          Delete
      7. Dr. Keating,

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

        Please send me my $10k now.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        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.
          Delete
        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
          Delete
        3. Hello Mr. Keating,

          I absolutely agree with Kevin. Building on this, the moon has no atmosphere, yet, it is so much warmer in sunlight than the earth with its GHG laden atmosphere. Now why on earth is that?

          Regards,
          Gary Marshall
          Delete
        4. Hello Mr. Keating,

          I absolutely agree with Kevin. Building on this, the moon has no atmosphere, yet, it is so much warmer in sunlight than the earth with its GHG laden atmosphere. Now why on earth is that?

          Regards,
          Gary Marshall
          Delete
      8. I see the deniers are even claiming that this "Challenge" is phony. All you are asking is for the deniers to post some scientific evidence that disproves the overwhelming evidence that man is affecting the climate.

        How many climate scientist make the claim that man is not a major contributor to GW? I know there are a few but has any of their work been peer reviewed? I would think one of the denier scientists would take the "challenge". Could be an easy $10,000. for their cause. Ben from WA.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. I know. Thanks for getting the point. I made this challenge to show they can't back up their science and they are getting so upset because they can't deliver what they have always claimed was so easy.

          Thanks for you comment.
          Delete
      9. Where can I post my entry? As a comment to this blogpost?
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. You may submit it as a comment to this blog. If it is a submission, it would help me if you label it as such, otherwise I will probably think it is just a comment.
          Delete
      10. The problem with most the global warming ideas is your stuck in the box looking at the walls. What we produce in emissions on our very own planet doesn't really effect the planet like we want to think. Our earth over time has produced or been subjected co2 levels that make current levels look like a drop in a bucket. The thing that impacts our whole planet is that same thing you foolishly say rises every morning. Our ever present sun. If you look at the reports of the suns activity over the last couple decades you should notice a good amount of solar storms are causing high speed radiation burst to bombard our very thin atmosphere. You may want to say that our planet is being heated up through the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect but think deeper. Our planet is giant magnetic engine. The sun is its source of energy. The magnetic field is what protects us from certain types of radiation ever present in space. Its understood that our present location in reference to the sun is what's called the Goldilocks zone. That very understanding should tell you something. We are position in a place between habitable and uninhabitable space. If all conditions of the suns activity were a constant then you could easily say yea let's all go be gay and drive a Prius. But the fact is when the sun chooses to make our planet warmer and colder you will see a direct change in co2 emissions. I'd wouldn't be surprised if you study the fluctuation of solar events you will see a rise or fall in c02 output of our planet. Its like saying I made koolaid and you drop one extra grain of sugar and say now its too sweet. Google anything in my statement to check plausibility. Look at geology of our planet and which layers contain what. Next we can say global warming makes my pee yellow. The fact is on all planets the star nearest to them has effect on their core temp, surface temp, and geological effects, not to mention we have a moon that causes even more changes. Strange tho our whole life we only see 55%. Anyways I need the money, you can send it via PayPal in 2x $5000 transfers I'll eat the few hundred lost in fees. And today you can say you learned something. My PayPal's Igamer420@gmail.com thanks again.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. Actually, the solar activity is one of the natural cycles we keep discussing. It has been shown there is a good correlation between solar activity and past warming cycles in the climate record. As the solar activity goes up, it triggers mechanisms that release CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem with this is that the solar activity has been on a long-term decline since the 1950s. This is part of why we say we are in a natural cooling cycle right now, the Sun is cooling. Not enough to be concerned about, but enough to change the climate for the cooler. Your comments are at least fairly well informed about the Sun-Earth connection and solar physics, but they are incomplete.
          Delete
        2. Until your comments at the end I did not recognize that might have been a submission. I'm still not clear that it actually was, or you were just being facetious. If this was an authentic submission, let me know and I will post it as such.
          Delete
      11. The problem with most the global warming ideas is your stuck in the box looking at the walls. What we produce in emissions on our very own planet doesn't really effect the planet like we want to think. Our earth over time has produced or been subjected co2 levels that make current levels look like a drop in a bucket. The thing that impacts our whole planet is that same thing you foolishly say rises every morning. Our ever present sun. If you look at the reports of the suns activity over the last couple decades you should notice a good amount of solar storms are causing high speed radiation burst to bombard our very thin atmosphere. You may want to say that our planet is being heated up through the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect but think deeper. Our planet is giant magnetic engine. The sun is its source of energy. The magnetic field is what protects us from certain types of radiation ever present in space. Its understood that our present location in reference to the sun is what's called the Goldilocks zone. That very understanding should tell you something. We are position in a place between habitable and uninhabitable space. If all conditions of the suns activity were a constant then you could easily say yea let's all go be gay and drive a Prius. But the fact is when the sun chooses to make our planet warmer and colder you will see a direct change in co2 emissions. I'd wouldn't be surprised if you study the fluctuation of solar events you will see a rise or fall in c02 output of our planet. Its like saying I made koolaid and you drop one extra grain of sugar and say now its too sweet. Google anything in my statement to check plausibility. Look at geology of our planet and which layers contain what. Next we can say global warming makes my pee yellow. The fact is on all planets the star nearest to them has effect on their core temp, surface temp, and geological effects, not to mention we have a moon that causes even more changes. Strange tho our whole life we only see 55%. Anyways I need the money, you can send it via PayPal in 2x $5000 transfers I'll eat the few hundred lost in fees. And today you can say you learned something. My PayPal's Igamer420@gmail.com thanks again.
        ReplyDelete
      12. That is the exact point of the challenge. It is absurd for deniers to go around claiming AGW is false and they can prove it. All I'm doing is giving deniers a chance to do what they claim is so easy. I'm glad you agree, those claims by deniers are absurd.
        ReplyDelete
      13. Well, I just saw someone else post his submission here so I'll go with mine aswell. Would be nice if you had an e-mail we could send it to.

        This is from the work of Esther and Jerry Hicks with the non-physical consciousness they have access to that they call Abraham. I don't know if you are familiar with them.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi_3yvGQp7Y

        It probably won't count as an "entry via the scientific method" because it's just a freakin' audio recording of a seminar they once held.

        So I'm going to throw some other stuff in to help you know what you are dealing with. First of all, I'm not going to prove that they exist. I'd have to prove that God exists and well...

        The power of their mind is such that they can accurately predict lottery numbers and according to them they were conscious even before this planet existed and saw how it came into being. Basically they saw and experienced it all from the non-physical realm.

        What they teach is law-based and vibrationally accurate. Which means their words and emotional content are tied together. Human beings/animals feel that in others. They also feel when someone is full of shit.

        With that I do take what they say almost for face value (except for what is not applicable to my life) because I have not found any evidence that could proof that they are wrong, either. They have been correct about everything and you'd basically have to disprove that.

        And if you don't accept this as a submission at all I'm fine with it aswell since I haven't found many scientists yet who are eager to talk about "vibration" and other woo-woo stuff. So don't you worry. And no, I won't elaborate on this in a 200 page scientifically accurate work showing all the diagrams I can find because I'm not a scientist and will not go to the end of the world to proove my point. I'd rather be happy than right.

        Sincerely,
        Philipp Knechtle
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. The terms of the challenge called for the proof to be scientific. I don't think your submission qualifies, but I thank you for sharing with us.
          Delete
      14. Dr Keating,

        I am not a denier, but would like to pass this around ... but what if climate change is real but not human caused? Would that suffice?
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. No. In fact, that is one of the claims of the deniers. They point at the naturally occurring cycles in the past and claim that shows this is merely a natural cycle. The claim of the deniers is that man made global warming isn't real and they can prove it with ease. I am simply giving them a venue and a possible payout to do so.
          Delete
        2. But, if you could prove that the current warming is a natural cycle, that would suffice as proof. Is that what you were asking?
          Delete
      15. Here are two extremely pedantic arguments that mostly attack your wording rather than content:

        Prove that man-made global warming is not occurring.

        Argument 1:
        The existence of man-made global warming must mean that man is a causal contributor to such an extent that he can take ownership of global warming making it man-made as opposed to man-caused, or man-driven.

        For simplicity, let’s take 50% as the threshold. The idea is similar to made in USA vs made in China for products. Although I’ll grant that is a troublesome analogy if taken literally, I simply mean to provide context for the 50% number. The idea is “more man-made than other-made.”

        Let us posit that 95% of all causes of global warming are caused by the human race. That is, volcanos, animal farts (not from domesticated animals), spurious methane releases, non-human related fires, etc. account for 5% of the cause of global warming.

        I realize that 95% is probably much higher than the true number, but it is sufficient for this proof.

        The global gender ratio is 101 men to 100 women. Thus men are responsible for 50.24% of the human-caused portion of global warming.

        This yields a man-made global warming contribution of 47.74% which is less than the 50% threshold Q.E.D.

        Comment: Yes, I realize you more likely meant “man” in the context of all humans, but the challenge as stated has been met. As with all scientific questions and answers, precision in wording is critical, so I think this is a fair attack.

        Argument 2:
        This argument will focus on the phrase “is occurring” as it references man-made global warming. Taken as written, this means that man-made global warming is occurring right now at this very moment. Unfortunately, you did not define a time period over which this claim can be evaluated. I will reduce this to absurdity on two timescales: short term and long term.

        For the short term, I will take one week as a timescale. Although I have not done the research to prove this, if you allow me to back-date or future date this claim to a specific week within the past year, I am sure there is such a period over which the global temperature has dropped, or at least stayed flat, even when accounting for seasonal and decade-al effects.

        For the long term, you can choose the start date you like, but the end date will be the entropic death of the universe. On that timescale, the earth is well above the absolute zero that the universe will approach in due time.

        In neither case is man-made global warming occurring.
        Q.E.D.

        Comment: Yes, you have a particular timescale and window implied, but it is not specified. I took two reasonable timescales and have proven that global warming is not occurring. Again, I have relied on the lack of precision in your challenge.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. Very clever arguments, but I am not going to accept a semantic argument as a replacement for a scientific argument. However, I may present this in a lecture.

          The terms of the challenge have been dictated by the deniers. This challenge is merely a venue for deniers to present the scientific evidence they claim exists and is so easy to produce. So, it is the deniers themselves that have chosen the timescales by referring to the scientific literature. The issue is what has mankind (sorry if the generic gender usage is confusing) done to the environment with his emissions. By default, that means the period of time that we have been changing the environment.

          Nice try.
          Delete
        2. How can the terms be dictated by deniers when there is no published consensus theory of deniers?

          You are lumping all deniers into a single belief, you most certainly incorrect.
          Delete
      16. Dr. Im no student of the sciences, but they do intrigue me (and maybe one day Ill pursue a degree in astro, or particle physics) As simply a High School graduate, Im not here to join in, but rather, after scouring the internet, to (hopefully) see a real discussion between two competent individuals. I do however have one problem with the man made global warming crowd, that I do feel justified in asking. You and others claim dening todays science as false is absurd. My question is, how is it any more absurd then expanding Newtonian physics, which if I understand Einstein perfected, centrist universe theory, and all of the once scientific consences, that would either be disproved, or expanded. What I am asking is, if science isnt there to question what we "know" what is it there for? Respectfully, John (forgive me, expressing thoughts isnt my strong point)
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. That is a valid question. Einstein expanded Newtonian mechanics via proven scientific methods. Same thing for quantum mechanics. Any scientific principle can be examined and questioned, but it needs to be done via the scientific method, not by someone who just simply doesn't like the result. And, any new science advancement must include what was previously known. For instance, Einstein's relativity works the same as Newtonian mechanics at slow speeds. So, any advancement we make in climate science must include all of the science we have already discovered. We build on what we already know, we don't tear it down and throw it out.
          Delete
      17. Dr. Keating: I am not one of the people who deny global warming; in the past earth has gone through repeated cycles of cooling and warming. I am somewhat skeptical that humans are driving this particular cycle. The second graph in this Wikipedia article shows concentrations of CO2 over the last 800,000 years. I am interested in the previous peaks and I am trying to find out why in the past there have beenquick run ups in CO2 levels followed by very quick declines. Do you know what mechanism causes the decline? All I have been able to find so far is that the "mechanism is poorly understood". How do the global climate simulations model this?
        ReplyDelete
      18. It is both a scientific question and NOT a scientific question. The reasons why global warming became a political issue looking for scientific evidence include the UK's reliance on coal and the miner's strike, all the way to the cultural phenomon of movies about doom and disaster and the complete loss of confidence of economists and right with theorists. The scientific question is very late to the party.
        I doubt very much that you have a conscious understanding of those aspects.
        The scientific debate is only mildly interesting. The important aspects are the social and political conditions in which global warming emerges as the focus for various anxieties.
        Scientific evidence interpreted in the context of broad belief in generalised "doom" stops being science and starts to become belief looking for evidence.
        Climate and Atmospheric science have continued despite this, and have generally enjoyed massive funding out of proportion to the importance of climate - since there is, in fact, no problem. Climate Change is an intellectual climate change - one in which the term "denier" is used in the way "nazi holocaust denier" was used after WW2. That is the problem.
        You have missed the point - by a very long margin.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. Well, you jump to all sorts of conclusion about what I do and do not know or understand. I would guess by your comments that you are a denier and that would be consistent with your words because you have already demonstrated you will reach the conclusion you want, rather than bother with facts.
          Delete
      19. There are actually several drivers over the history of the planet - supervolcanoes, meteorite impacts, etc. One of the most commonly recurring correlations is solar activity (which is different from the solar cycle). There is a definite correlation between the CO2 level and solar activity. As the activity goes up, so does the CO2 level. As the activity goes down, so does the CO2 level. We are in a current cycle where the solar activity has been going down since the 1950s, so we are actually in a naturally occurring cool cycle. BTW, be careful reading those plots. A thin line could be hundreds or thousands of years.Things might be changing as quickly as you might think at first glance.
        ReplyDelete
      20. The whole manner of your challenge too, is just as silly as the whole silly aggressive "battle" over who is "right". Your money isn't well offered. It's not actually honestly offered. You aren't open minded at all. I want science to be free to present the best "contested" knowledge possible. It is already distorted by Capitalist fixation with profit instead of human well-being and social development.
        There is a million dollar challenge too for demonstration of the homeopathic "memory of water". I would put yours in the same category. Quackery. Since you demonstrate a very unsubtle, unsophisticated knowledge of the social conditions in which "science" is produced by a very sick world.
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. You are totally wrong. This is an honest challenge and I would love for someone to prove global warming isn't real. What I am not open minded about are stupid 'proofs' that just don't have any science to them. Some people have posted some sincere comments and I have welcomed them. Others try to bully or intimidate and they picked the wrong guy for that.

          This challenge is in response to deniers that claim AGW is not real and that its easy to prove. I have given them a venue to do so and promise to pay anyone that succeeds. But, it has to be scientific.

          The money is well offered, as you say and I will most certainly pay it to anyone that can produce.
          Delete
        2. http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/1000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html
          Delete
        3. C02 lvls based off of what the sun. Pay me bro you owe me 10 bro. Or did e smart car cost you too much. Used Tesla roadster for sale. I'll take it if you got title in hand.
          Delete
        4. Space is the next place we go..........Space X ftw. IMA buy 10000 tickets. Shoot you'll be stuck here writing books on why shit changes. Look up at the stars that's why it all happens.
          Delete
        5. IMA troll this guy till he pays you approved my statement that's there is a relation to the suns activity on our plants surface. I want you to tell me where my theory isn't right and yours complete bs. Human civilization has only been here a fraction of this planet life not a very big .0000000000001 of time its been worse and will change like the tide core effects from the solar radiation change the planets cycle not mere co2 emissions come close. Those che trails are bad but not gonna effect the change set in motion by the sun. The weather oceans tides temperature change live and exist for the sun. Look at climate on mars, Europa ,titan, and never forget our strange moon. The biggest force is at play the space. Pay me bro
          Delete
        6. Near the surface,
          thermodynamic effects interact with and dominate radiation.
          (Below the clouds, radiative equilibrium)

          High above, extra radiation to space will cool and lower clouds.
          Lower clouds imply lower surface temperature.

          Earth is saved, from being Barbecued by IPCC science.
          Delete
      21. Dear Scientists,

        In 1991, my Geology textbook made a claim that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had increased by 20% since pre industrial times. Wikipedia today says that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased to 43% higher than preindustrial times.

        But they did the experiment and calculations wrong. In preindustrial times, we had carbon dioxide at 280 parts per million of the atmosphere. Today we have carbon dioxide at 400 parts per million of the atmosphere. 400/280 equals 1.42857, or an increase of 43% of carbon dioxide. But this is a calculation of differences of the same unit.

        280 parts per million equals .028% of the atmosphere. 400 parts per million equals .04% of the atmosphere. The actual increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually .04% minus .028% equaling .012% of the atmosphere, which is an increase of 120 parts of carbon dioxide in a million parts of the atmosphere.

        Do the experiment as comparing the temperature of containers with air with concentrations at 280, 400, and 450 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of air, not increases of 20%, 43%, and 60% of carbon dioxide in the air.

        Bill Nye the Science Guy did a good round about experiment. He used a control container of natural levels of air and an experimental container flooded with carbon dioxide. The heat lamps showed a skyrocketed level of temperature in the experimental container.

        But more reasonable experiments need to check .012% increase of carbon dioxide in the air instead of 43% increase of carbon dioxide of itself.

        I hope that you get it. There is extreme damage control for climatologists’ reputations to undertake. Have nongovernmental organizations release the news first.

        By the way, I am a former Greenpeace canvasser of 3 years, I have extreme loyalties to nature and society, but I am still a climate investigator because I think that I have grim news to the environmentalists, that it might not be that bad.

        to date, the carbon dioxide has risen .012%, not 43%, since preindustrial times. check the heat gained in air with both raises, see which one increases 2 degrees celsius, and reply to me the answer.

        before industrial times, carbon dioxide was 280 parts per million of the air. today, we are at 400 parts per million of the air. that is an increase of 120 parts per million of the air. dividing 400 ppm of the air by 280 ppm of the air is not the increas of carbon dioxide in the air. this equation cancels out all its units, and equates to how much carbon there is compared to itself. the actual rise in carbon dioxide is 400 ppm of the air minus 280 ppm of the air, thus the units hold and the answer is an increase of 120 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air or .012%, not 43%.

        at question is; does air increase by 2 degrees celsius at increase of 120 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air? or does air increase by 2 degrees celsius at increase of 43% carbon dioxide in the air?

        i need to know the answer. i have been writing you and anyone who could study this for years, with no reply. i need to find a conclusion. if you do not calculate and experiment with the information in this letter, and then, you must, inform me of your conclusions, then i will contact other scientists, who would make the discovery first and make it difficult for the environmental community to effect damage control.

        Kenneth Wheaton
        Tea Party Democrat
        rainbowrevisited@yahoo.com
        2934 Washtenaw road #2A
        Ypsilanti, MI 48197 USA
        ReplyDelete
      22. In 1991, my geology textbook said that carbon dioxide had increased by 20% since preindustrial times. in 2014 wikipedia said that carbon dioxide increased by 43%. but that is 400 ppm in the air divided by 280 ppm in the air, and that cancels out the units. this just measures how much more carbon dioxide is in the air than itself.
        the real measure is 400 ppm in the air minus 280 ppm in the air, which is 120 ppm more carbon dioxide in the air. shifting decimals around finds this to be .012% more carbon dioxide of the volume of the air.
        we need to measure the temperature of gases in two containers, one with a control amount of carbon dioxide in the volume of air, say, preindustrial times, which would be 280 ppm of the air in one container. the other container would need the current rate of 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air. even another container could have a predicted rate of 450 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air. there would be thermometers in each container. the containers would be made of transparent glass. and there would be sunlamps above each container. maybe we would need carbon dioxide meters in each container.
        the idea is not to buy into the increases of 20% or 43% or 61% of carbon dioxide in the air. at 280 ppm in the air, to 400 ppm in the air, to 450 ppm in the air, the carbon dioxide is only .028% of the air, .04% of the air, and .045% of the air, respectively. so 43% more of .028% carbon dioxide in the air equates to .04% carbon dioxide in the air, or rather 400 ppm carbon dioxide in the air.
        yes, it is possible that .012% more carbon dioxide in the air will result in 2 degrees celsius increase in atmospheric temperature. it is just that such is unlikely. the experiment will need to be done by someone with far more expensive laboratory equipment that i can muster.

        Kenneth Wheaton
        2934 Washtenaw road #2A
        Ypsilanti, MI 48197
        rainbowrevisited@yahoo.com
        Tea Party Democrat
        ReplyDelete
      23. another note on climate change...
        there is more ice above water than there is above land.
        and when ice melts, the H2O molecules get smaller instead of larger.
        so when the icebergs and glaciers melt, the sea level will lower, not raise.
        Kenneth Wheaton
        Tea Party Democrat
        rainbowrevisited@yahoo.com
        2934 washtenaw road #2A
        ypsilanti, MI 48197
        ReplyDelete

        Replies






        1. Fill a glass with ice and water to the absolute brim. Let the ice melt, and the water level will be at the brim.

          The lower density ice floats, but has some displacement above the water level. When it melts, the volume will equal the if it were water.


          1. Here is my submission

            http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Hi Christopher,
              You seem to be answering everyones else's attempts but mine?

              Waiting ............................
              Delete
            2. I have your submission and will make my comments as soon as possible. Yes, I am answering everyone, even you, as quickly as I can.
              Delete
            3. Hi Christopher,
              You seem to be answering everyone else's attempts but mine?

              I plan to donate the reward to the Galileo Movement so they can continue their important work http://www.galileomovement.com.au/donations.php

              Waiting ...........................
              Delete

          2. On reflection I realised that it was impossible to disprove something when it hasn't first been proven.

            So to show what a numpty "prize" this was I'm now offering my own "prize" for someone to prove by the scientific method that we are currently experiencing man-made global warming.
            http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/the-10000-global-warming-challenge/
            ReplyDelete
          3. It is impossible to disprove something when it hasn't first been proven.

            So to show what a numpty "prize" this was I'm now offering my own "prize" for someone to prove by the scientific method that we are currently experiencing man-made global warming.

            http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/the-10000-global-warming-challenge/
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. That is an entertaining response and I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in. I believe, very strongly, that it has not only been proved, but that I did it myself in my book. Can I submit my book to your challenge? I would love to win the money.
              Delete
            2. Was this proven with hypothesis testing?

              I bet not. Just as the IPCC cannot reject the null hypothesis - that man is responsible for less than half of the warming since the mid-20th century.

              How can we believe that YOU have proven what the IPCC cannot?
              Delete
            3. I have not tried to put a percentage of responsibility on our emissions. I merely worked to prove that man made global warming is real.
              Delete
            4. BTW, I noticed the ScottishSkeptic specifically ruled out ocean warming in any submission. Funny. It is a lot easier to deny global warming when you deny 93% of the warming. This is a classic example of how deniers have rejected science.
              Delete
          4. Near the surface, thermodynamic effects interact with and dominate radiation.
            High above, extra radiation to space will cool and lower clouds.
            Lower clouds, lower surface temperature.

            Basic Physics -- simple logic
            Greenhouse gases Cool -- Opposite of Warm
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Is this a submission? I'm not sure it would even qualify under the 'scientific method' requirement. If you would like to expand on it and submit for the challenge you are certainly welcome to do so.
              Delete
            2. zlop, you obviously have never had a college course in Meteorology. Cloud cover serves to retain heat in the atmosphere, because the solar rays reflect off the earth and are bounced back to the earth by the clouds, hence the term "greenhouse effect".
              Delete
          5. To specifically answer your game that "man-made global climate change is not occurring" isn't a true statement and through wisdom, here is why: to say man's carbon footprint on the world using the industrial process is causing global warming is an understatement, because that is only a part of the current issue. To say that the man-made global climate change is happening, I can say yes, but what about the aspects of global climate change that isn't happening because of what man does, but because of the chain reaction of events that happen from the consumption alone of man, being included annihilation of species through deforestation.
            The deforestation caused by man making homes and farms also has a direct impact on local climate change, such as changing wind and rain patterns, which can thus effect temperature regions of ocean water, which can change currents, thus causing man-made global climate change, this is the current theory and we see it's side effects. Not to mention, China planning on bulldozing full mountains and seeding their clouds to produce rain, this can also create a local to global effect on the climate.
            But back to what is not man-made that is a side-effect of the growth of humans regardless to the industrial revolution or deforestation by farming, the extinction of animals. This annihilation of, for example, large animals thousands of years ago, can cause a butterfly effect, to a species of rodents that proliferates, which can end up eating the eggs of a certain type of bird that eat a certain type of insect. Now, there are many different hierarchies in the animal kingdom that this can occur, and probably has happened in the past, but now that that this insect is dead, other insects that either eat tree bark or carry a disease specific to a certain type of tree can also end up creating a deforestation effect.
            Now you have nature conservationalists fighting this and preventing it from occurring, but if they weren't there, we would have already seen by now the drastic world-wide consequences of not protecting our forests and jungles and their fauna and life.

            Now I am not saying the last Ice age was created by man hunting Mastadons, but since the Earth is in a goldilock zone, and a slight tilt of the Earth's magnetic poles could have drastic effects on life here, as well as a slight displacement of the moon in the heavens, anything could potentially tip the scales, and it must be "man-made" or you can say "man-touched or man-handled" to be more politically correct, or by a heavenly object, as we already know that by itself nature balances itself out best.


            So with this I am just disproving your statement that global climate change being man-made is not occurring, since (whether on a million year process or hundred thousand year process) not by the inventions of man's industrialization or inventions (except of the spear) is global climate change occurring but also through the evolution of man, because this cause-effect scenario could have already started many years ago just by the mass extinction of some animals and species by man.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I think you misread the challenge. The challenge was made to climate change deniers to back up, with science their claims that man made global warming isn't real. I am familiar with the science on the topic and understand the science is overwhelmingly in favor of proving man made global warming is real.

              I agree with your comments about how we are changing the planet. The changes I have personally witnessed to the environment here is Texas since I was a boy is disturbing and, at times, heart-breaking.
              Delete
            2. Oops I wrote my main sentence wrong there. I meant to take a philosophical scientific approach and use a specific argument to get to the point that your question itself can be proven true, while trying to maintain my ideological beliefs showing how it is impossible to disprove your statement.
              We all know there is a chance that on a local level with the Earth's cycles, a tipping point could be achieved, but to answer your question, not through man-made factors, but through a butterfly effect of man just killing off a certain type of animal species could this also occur.

              First we must describe what is 'man-made global climate change' and that is that the actions of post-industrialization of man is the sole cause of the world to have a drastic change in temperatures that could bring upon a new ice-age. You may disregard the ice age part, but I do believe I am correct about this question being based on how man is the sole cause for climate change or how man has no effect on the change in climate as it can't change and naturally changes slowly over time or some other reasonable explanation.

              So the statement that 'man-made global climate change is not occurring' is true, since it is not 100% based on man-made industrialization.

              For example if 35% of the current global climate change is based on Earth's natural cycle, 5% based on the actions of man over the past 10,000 years prior to the industrialization man-made era, and 30-60% from man-made industrialization the past several hundred years, it must be a full consensus as to the cause of global climate change being man-made to answer your question, and thus it is not even if we want to disregard the natural cycle and say 95% based on man-made industrialization.

              If your question was "global climate change is not occurring based on man's actions" then I would not be able to give this answer.

              But this potential scenario in which hunter/gatherer man does kill off 'big game' which ends up destroying a rain forest due to an increase of insects carrying a virus causing a temperature change in an area, causing the gulf stream to slow down/stop, causing a global climate change, (which is not man-made) is but a butterfly effect of global climate change and is currently untestable at the moment, this could be tested theoretically one day once we have developed the proper algorithms for how the world works;
              this scenario probably has occurred in different parallel universes and can mathematically be shown, some day.

              I look forward to your response.
              Have a good day. :)
              Delete
          6. Premise: CO2 is causing the temperature of the Earth to increase.
            Fact: solar radiation hits objects on Earth and heats them. This radiation is the really hot solar black body type and is at a shorter wavelength than normal earth thermal radiation so it goes right through all the CO2 (and warms the ground)
            fact: these objects then re-emit longer wave earth thermal radiation, some of which is absorbed by CO2 in the air. aka the greenhouse effect.
            fact: The extinction distance for all thermal radiation that CO2 absorbs is around 300 feet. That is to say if you had a laser that shined light in the wavelength that CO2 absorbs you would not be able to see it if you where standing more than 300ish feet from it. All the light would be absorbed by the intervening CO2. This was determined in the 60s when engineers where trying to determine if lasers could be used for communications and they found that CO2 and H2O are really great at making that impossible in those wavelengths that they absorb strongly in.
            fact: if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere all you really do is shorten the extinction distance. you do not absorb more heat because
            ALL of it is already being absorbed.
            Conclusion: if all the heat is currently being absorbed then increasing the amount of CO2 will not cause the earth to warm any more than it has already.
            now if you increase the amount of solar thermal radiation that would cause more earth thermal radiation and that would also all get trapped and THAT WOULD increase the earth's temperature over time.
            thoughts
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. This is a nice argument and will review it. I commented on your second submission below.
              Delete
          7. Christopher,
            Let me state from the beginning I DO want the $10,000 and will not donate it to charity. There we go. Below is one article from a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates how two people can look at data and arrive at different conclusions. For me it demonstrates conclusively that the earth's climate has for eons cycled through some rather dramatic climate changes. It also demonstrates that we may be near the peak of the most recent warming trend.
            I am all for many of the "Carbon Initiatives" strictly because they lead to less pollution and a better, cleaner planet. What scares me are some of the proposed solutions that the "Warmers" are proposing. Purposeful pollution of micro-particulates for the purpose of cooling the planet is scary. The likelihood of damage far exceeds the potential of any beneficial change in our historical cycles.
            "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE |VOL 399 | 3 JUNE 1999 |www.nature.com
            So sit back and relax. Mother Nature has got this under control. What she doesn't have under control is the stupid nuclear power plant industry, hormone mimics, nano pollution, Monsanto and the GMO sociopaths. One might consider working toward restricting and reforming these assaults on our World as a more efficient use of resources.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Thank you for your refreshing honesty. And, I have the same thoughts about some of these proposed 'solutions.' It is kind of like the story of how they introduced the mongoose into Hawaii to deal with the rat problem. Now, they have a rat and a mongoose problem.

              I will review this and post my comments today.
              Delete
          8. The graphs do not seem to come through, so you will have to visit the URL for full effect. Additionally, it would be nice if you could act like a decent human being instead of a rude snob - you treated Lord Monckton (if that was really him) rather shabbily. Your unfairness is evident as you have the capability to prevent any reasonable counters to your arguments from ever appearing on this blog as you must approve them, whereas other venues/message boards/blogs allow posting that is moderated after publishing. Hence you control the venue entirely and can prevent any winning argument from even being heard on this blog. That and this blog limits me to 4096 characters - hardly enough to make a compelling argument.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/

            BIG NEWS Part VII — Hindcasting with the Solar Model
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I have not moderated any comments beyond postponing the posting until I have a chance to review them for family friendly content. That is the only rigorous rule I have. I would consider, on a case-by-case basis, any comment that is extremely rude or offensive. So far, I have not had to hold back even one comment. If you look, I have posted many comments that have been quite rude towards me and climate science in general. I think that demonstrates I am not censoring anyone.

              As for the bruising, part of the denier plan of attack is to bully scientists. As a group, we are trained and experienced in methodical debate, not the rough and tumble of public perception. I have a different background and am willing to give back to anyone that wants to give it. If they are courteous, I try my best to return the courtesy. As for "Lord Monckton", he engaged in the rough and tumble and got it back.
              Delete
            2. Other people, including myself, have posted comments that I'm pretty sure (without actually counting) are larger that 4096 characters. If you need to post larger than that, try doing it in multiple comments.

              Is this comment a submission to the challenge?
              Delete
          9. You proved your challenge a few posts ago - you stated we were in a cooling period. Which is it, global warming or a cooling period?

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/04/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months-since-sept-1996/

            According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. What I believe I said is that we are in a natural occurring cooling period. In other words, if it wasn't for us, the climate would be cooling right now. All of the warming above the average (actually, above what it would be without us) is due to the effects of our greenhouse gas emissions.

              The satellite data has been reexamined and there is most certainly a rise. Look here:

              http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/#more-7094

              But also, the satellite data measures surface temperature and does not include ocean heating, which has been extreme. Global warming includes the whole globe, not just one part of it.
              Delete
            2. So this article is right then?

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html?utm_content=bufferccdd2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
              Delete
            3. I've seen multiple people post the same thing I explained 1st global warming is being created by duh????????? The sun and its radiation. Human history is still a big question. Maybe we were here when there we dinosaurs and we burned them all for food and it caused dino particle to trap the ever present radiation from the sun and now were all doomed and should sell our lawn mowers and eat the grass....So if you can't disprove the simple fact the suns radiation is the only reason our planet exists. Its why we have warmth and the moon and its light and intensity choose our weather. More radiation more heat... less radiation less heat..... Cmon bro pay up or put it in escrow or stfu go sell your horrible 100 page book on why you think your right. Show some money in some way or your just trolling......... I bet your book manufacturing process caused a penguin to die.....
              Delete
            4. I am not really sure what you are trying to say there. I hope you don't think we were here when the dinosaurs were. If you have a proof you would like to submit I would be glad to post it.
              Delete
            5. As for the data tampering claim, I see nothing in this article that is news worthy other than the deniers don't know how data is processed.
              Delete
          10. Premise: increased concentrations of CO2 are causing the earth to warm
            Fact: Short wavelength solar radiation heats the earth.
            Fact: The hot earth re-emits longer wavelength radiation.
            Fact: CO2 absorbs some of this longer wavelength radiation
            Fact: By absorbing this radiation CO2 causes a thermo dynamical imbalance in the energy in-out equation for the earth as a whole and causes the earth to warm. Aka the greenhouse effect.
            All fine and dandy and nobody is questioning that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
            Fact: The extinction distance for CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is about 300 feet. That is to say that any thermal radiation emitted by the ground and in the wavelength that CO2 absorbs strongly at will all be absorbed within the first 300 ish feet. That would be no matter how intense the radiation was. Engineers discovered this back in the 60s when they were trying to develop laser communication through the atmosphere. CO2 an H2O completely absorbed the laser light in those wavelengths that they strongly absorb at. 300 feet is based on the 1960 CO2 concentrations BTW.
            Fact: Increasing the concentration of CO2 only shortens the extinction distance it does not trap more heat. ALL the heat that CO2 can trap is already being absorbed in the extinction distance.
            Conclusion: increasing the concentration of CO2 does not cause any more heat to be trapped and therefore cannot be the cause of global warming.
            And to the point, Man is not causing global warming because CO2 can’t be the method by which it is happening.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I am treating this as a formal challenge and will have my response up today.
              Delete
            2. You might look at this:
              http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/03/06/carbon-dioxide-how-can-one-little-molecule-be-such-a-big-troublemaker/
              CO2 absorbs centered around 15um, and the range is very "peaky" If you look at the "transparency" chart about half way down the page you will see that while light gets through, at 15um there is a sharp spike. It is just to the right of the partial window for IR and right on the edge of the opaque portion shorter than radio
              Delete
            3. William. Are you a member of Stuart's family? What part of the country do you live? Are you aware that, since we share the same last name ... we are related? (All hail to Aldert ... on The Spotted Cow!)
              Delete
            4. while increasing CO2 has less and less effect on radiative absorption as ppm concentrations rise, more powerful greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide have different thermal absorption frequencys to CO2 that are not filled up (saturated) as much as CO2, so rising ppms of these gases are far more significant.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential
              Delete
            5. Could it be the "wings" of the absorption band? No, looked at that and that ain't it. Much to small a contribution to the energy equation to make a difference. Third order stuff that normally gets ignored by most scientists of ilk.
              Could it be the upper atmosphere doing "odd" things? No it only does odd things when you mess with the equations to get them to do that. if you leave the equations in their original form the upper atmosphere does not change. Which is what you would expect if all the heat gets absorbed in the lower atmosphere where the concentrations of CO2 are higher (by volume)
              Delete
            6. I'm apologize for not getting my response out today as I promised. I had some real technical difficulties the last couple of days and it has left me far behind. It is in the queue and I will get it done as quickly as possible.
              Delete
            7. dk, you are in error about the other green house gases not being saturated.
              try this on for size. And yes he is a little loud and repetative but apparently that is what the science needs right now. a formal getting back to basics.
              http://nov79.com/gbwm/equil.html
              Delete
            8. anonymous june24, 2014 at 6:26 PM
              lets not hijack the thread OK
              Delete
          11. What data would you like me to use to disprove GW? Just a single data set of temperatures will suffice.... I ask not to be coy, but because I truly don't know where to find one... I can disprove the theory of GW as a non-natural occurrence and will do so not with science, but with the basics of the math that science uses.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. This challenge was set up for the deniers to prove their claims. I have provided a venue and a possible payout for anyone that can back up their claim with science. How you want to do it is up to you. Here is some more information:

              http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-clarification-on-100001000.html
              Delete
            2. Future based science is not provable until it's in the past. That's basic common sense, and the frustration most "deniers" encounter. Global warming is theorized, but not proven. The point that an earlier poster made was that when the challenge was made for someone to prove their claim scientifically that global warming existed it was also not met (with a much larger 500,000 reward), because it's like claiming the existence of god, or a round earth. It is provable after the fact, but not before. Welcome to science. 101.
              Delete
            3. I entered the JunkScience challenge because I didn't want him to be able to say no one entered. He just said I didn't win, but never provided a reason why. Are you really going to say that my challenge is not credible because the other challenge offered more money? That is a perfect example of how poor the logic is among deniers.

              If you can't disprove global warming, then why do deniers keep saying they can?
              Delete
          12. "Even a smidgen"...That says it all.

            That's a safe, and stupid, bet. It's a safe bet, like saying "prove that summer, or winter, doesn't happen." It's all a matter of period. Year, decade, century, millennium, eon, of course the climate changes, nobody denies that, that's why the bet is stupid.

            Comparing people that do not believe in AGW to flat earthers is the wrong analogy. At the time people believed in a flat earth, 97% of scientist believed in a flat earth. It was the minority, the round earthers of that century, and the climate change deniers of this century, that were in the minority and punished for their thinking.

            Fortunately, us 'deniers' have time on our side, and all you AGW believers will feel very stupid in the not too distant future. You've already had to change the name of your religion from 'Global Warming', to 'Climate Change'. What will be your next iteration? 'Man made Carbon Dioxide Change'?

            You like 'settled science'? What happened to Stasis, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle. Have the properties of water changed and nobody told us? When water stops behaving as it has since the beginning of time, then we are in some trouble, but that hasn't happened yet.

            It is you AGW zealots that owe us 'deniers' scientific evidence. As @Chris Hatcher posted, the burden of proof is on you. You are the people proposing changes that will affect all of our pocket books, and possibly screw up the economies of entire nations. Based on what? Computer models that don't match reality? Heavily doctored or omitted temperature data that shows such little promise that you can no longer call this 'global warming'?

            All you have at this point is a rise in CO2 ppm. And their is a stronger correlation that this follows GW and does not precede it. What about the melting ice on Mars, where there are no people? CO2 levels on earth have been much, much higher in the past. Plants thrive at 1000 ppm, and we are at half that. What are the dangers of a warmer planet or higher CO2 levels?

            Here's my bet to you and Dr. Christopher Keating. Scientifically prove to us 'deniers' that 1) AGW is happening. 2) GW is a bad thing. 3) GW research isn't about the money. My terms are the same as Dr. Keating's, except my bet is for $1, and all the fame and fortune you will get from finally 'settling science', and you can submit your evidence to Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU). He's the guy that studies global air and water temps to predict hurricanes, and also not afraid to speak out against this climate change BS.

            You are just a blogger trying to make a few dimes off of clickbait articles. You haven't even bothered to Google where that '97%' figure came from. If you had, you would know that claim came from a websites' poorly worded, un-scientific poll that if a 'scientist', or even an educated blogger, were to answer correctly, 100%, not 93%, nor 97% would have agreed. 100% should have said yes to that question. No educated person would deny that the climate hasn't been changing--have you heard of the Ice Age?

            The burden of proof is on you...and time is on my side.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. No, the burden of proof is not on me. Deniers are the ones claiming AGW is not real and how they can prove it. I am just giving them a venue. There is no burden on me to prove anything except that deniers are frauds, liars and deceivers. But, you guys are doing a really good job of that for me.

              By the way, I am not only familiar with where the 97% claim comes from, but I am also familiar with the work by the denier that tried to disprove it and came up with a 91% figure. Then, a mistake in his process was pointed out and he came up with - surprise! - 97%!

              Do your homework next time.
              Delete
          13. The only data I find is from 1880. Given the age of the earth, that is akin to a fifty-year old man dieting and trying to see some weight change from Noon to 12:01PM. While there is data that claims to go back several thousand years, that data is reconstructed. You cannot have a scientific fact based on reconstructed data. So can you please provide a source for data that takes into account at least 1,000 years or so? You see for the earth to be proved to be warming as a fact, the mean of the earth's temperature readings has to shift to the left under a bell curve beyond statistical reason. Given the age of the earth, you can EASILY mathematically prove that 50 years of data will not move the mean one iota to the left or the right.... unless the sun exploded. I await your reply as to how 25 years of data can move the statistical mean to the left with 25 years of data in a data set that is measured in the thousands, or millions.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Check the National Climatic Data Center. I am not sure how far back their data goes, but they are suppose to have all data.

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
              Delete
            2. Norman, You said, "You cannot have a scientific fact based on reconstructed data." I guess you are unaware of the science of ice core sampling from which accurate data of past climates goes back some 200,000 years. You need to clarify what you mean by "reconstructed" data.
              Delete
          14. Thank you, Dr Keating. Your $10,000 is safe. But the time you will expend on slogging through the nonsense will cost you much, much more.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. It really is costing me more. This is a classic 'careful of what you wish for' situation. But, it is something that needs to be done and I can do it and have the time. So, there I am.
              Delete
          15. Lo que estos líderes no saben es que el gran Dios que nos da la vida y el aliento ha profetizado directamente en las Sagradas Escrituras que justo antes de la segunda venida de Jesucristo vendrán estados climáticos realmente "anormales". El propio Jesucristo, describiendo la situación de los tiempos del fin, declaró: "Entonces habrá señales en el Sol, en la Luna y en las estrellas, y en la Tierra angustia de las gentes, confundidas a causa del bramido del mar y de las olas; desfalleciendo los hombres por el temor y la expectación de las cosas que sobrevendrán en la Tierra; porque las potencias de los cielos serán conmovidas. Entonces verán al Hijo del Hombre, que vendrá en una nube con poder y gran gloria. Cuando estas cosas comiencen a suceder, erguíos y levantad vuestra cabeza, porque vuestra redención está cerca" (Lucas 21:25-28).
            La mayor parte de quienes se declaran cristianos nunca aprendieron que el Dios verdadero interviene de verdad en su creación, y que a veces "altera" las condiciones meteorológicas para influir en los sucesos mundiales, o para cumplir su voluntad en determinada situación......Dios le dijo a su pueblo, Israel: "Si anduviereis en mis decretos y guardareis mis mandamientos, y los pusiereis por obra, yo daré vuestra lluvia en su tiempo, y la tierra rendirá sus productos, y el árbol del campo dará su fruto" (Levítico 26:3-4). Enseguida, Dios advirtió: "Pero si no me oyereis, ni hiciereis todos estos mis mandamientos… quebrantaré la soberbia de vuestro orgullo, y haré vuestro cielo como hierro, y vuestra tierra como bronce. Vuestra fuerza se consumirá en vano, porque vuestra tierra no dará su producto, y los árboles de la tierra no darán su fruto" (vs. 14, 19-20)........Hay quienes piensan que pasajes como estos son simples "cosas del Antiguo Testamento". ¡De ninguna manera! El propio hermano de Jesús escribió, terminando su epístola en el Nuevo Testamento, que "Elías era hombre sujeto a pasiones semejantes a las nuestras, y oró fervientemente para que no lloviese, y no llovió sobre la tierra por tres años y seis meses. Y otra vez oró, y el cielo dio lluvia, y la tierra produjo su fruto" (Santiago 5:17-18).........A medida que el Dios Eterno comience a intervenir con más y más fuerza mediante tremendosterremotos, epidemias de enfermedades y trastornos del clima; comprendan, por favor, que quien está a cargo es Dios, y no un "cambio climático" inducido por el hombre. Cuando empiecen a ver estas cosas ocurriendo en la Tierra, con "angustia de las gentes, confundidas a causa del bramido del mar y de las olas;desfalleciendo los hombres por el temor y la expectación de las cosas que sobrevendrán en la Tierra" (Lucas 21:25-26), dispónganse aescucharel mensaje que su Creador les envía. Él,y solamente Él, es el Dios grande. Es a Él a quien debemos obedecer mientras se van desarrollando estos sucesos tal como los ha predicho......email:name.andrade@hotmail.com
            ReplyDelete
          16. Perhaps if you defer the decision as to whether something was proven or not to an objective participant, your offer would have some credibility. Right now it is a joke.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. The only joke is the claim by the deniers. They keep saying that man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. Well, here is the opportunity. So, why hasn't anyone been able to? In fact, there have been only a few submissions that I would characterize as being serious. Most of them have been ridiculous things like, there are natural cycles, or CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere, etc. It is a joke that anyone should believe one of those arguments is a scientific proof.

              Now, if you want to submit something, please do. And, if I am not fair in my judgement then I am the one before the world stage as being a fraud. Right now, it is only the deniers that are being shown to be frauds.
              Delete
          17. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/seven-recent-papers-that-disprove-man.html

            http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

            http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

            http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

            there ya go all copy and past urls
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Are you submitting this as your proof?
              Delete
          18. How about data tampering? Would like to hear your thoughts on this.

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

            I am not a denier of global warming but I think that there has yet to be any one person to show PROOF that there is a MAJOR catastrophe coming if we don't stop using fossil fuels and the like. Most global warming advocates try to scare people saying the world is doomed. I will say though I would like to see the world using only solar energy to power everything, though this is not doable yet it could be in the near future and for the right price too.

            I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this field at all but I would like for you to reply to my comment explaining as briefly as you can your findings on global warming and prove to me it's really what you are saying.

            What are your thoughts?
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Steve Goddard?

              Who is Steve Goddard? And, yes, that's a serious question.
              Delete
            2. Steve Goddard is a pseudonym for Tony Heller, a climate change denier that runs the Real Science blog and works hard to hide his identity.

              http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

              Data is processed to make adjustments for the instruments. Instruments don't all work the same and it is necessary to test them, validate them, document how they perform, and then process the data accordingly. There is nothing new or controversial about this. He is merely taking normal processes that are done in all walks of data collection and trying to make the case that some great world conspiracy is at work to change the data. This guy has a record of making claims like this and then having to retract them.
              Delete
          19. I doubt if you will accept the clear problem of the Soviet Ice Core data. It is clear that these data show three prior patterns such as is happening now, namely rising temperature, CO2 levels, and dust level. This is followed by a decline in all three. I doubt seriously that anyone would endeavor to argue that mankind caused prior peaks.
            So yes, I think we are experiencing climate change and maybe in some minor ways we are contributing and no there are no benefits from ignoring our warmup and probably we really cannot do much. But cleaner air, water, and the land are best.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. The beginning and end of a glaciation is driven, first and foremost, by changes in Earth's orbit and inclination (Milankovick cycles). CO2 fits in to this particular process as a synergistic response to a change in solar input. As solar input decreases, CO2 is more easily absorbed into the oceans or is trapped in permafrost, decreasing atmospheric concentrations and thereby accelerating cooling. The reverse happens during a warming trend. Without the changes in CO2 concentrations, we would not have had the swings in climate associated with glaciations.
              Delete
            2. See my posting on naturally occurring cycles. I believe it addresses your argument.

              http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/naturally-occurring-cycles-are-not.html
              Delete
          20. I think I could give you a good argument, but I'd need accurate climate data from the ends of all of the ice ages that have happened here on Earth. Given that it is impossible to get such data, then arguments for both sides are subject to failure. Neither side can prove their points without accurate data from the past.
            That said, I maintain that while human activity may have played a small role in climate change, nature is cyclic, and this has happened before.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. Obviously, you have not done any homework. Try the National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/). There are others, but this is a good start. I always laugh about when I hear a denier say climate scientists won't give them data. The data is all there online and is free to anyone that wants it. Just one more example of how deniers don't bother to get their facts straight.
              Delete
          21. The earth has gone through several hot and cold phases throughout it's existence.
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. The PETM is a perfect example of a greenhouse gas driven climate change event. CO2 levels spiked 1000 ppm above background over the course of a few thousand years. At current rates, we are injecting CO2 into the air at rates 10 to 100 times as fast. The PETM caused substantial extinctions, not a great as those seen at other times, but enough to change the course of mammalian evolution.
              Delete
            2. So what? Are you saying there is only one possible cause of climate cycles? There are even many naturally occurring ones. And, all of the evidence shows the natural cycle we are currently in is a cooling cycle, not a warming one. Until deniers can show evidence that the current cycle is somehow related to natural ones, your argument is a false one. I have addressed this claim many times.
              Delete
            3. See my posting on naturally occurring cycles. I believe it addresses your argument.

              http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/naturally-occurring-cycles-are-not.html
              Delete
          22. I was an atheist, believed only in science! Today I know that Gods exist. Why? They proved to me that they are infinitely more advanced than us in everything. They created being humano.Agora everything will change, the Bible is speaking of extraterrestrial beings and it says "the end times will come," Everything you see is an illusion, is matrix. Awaken

            * Hercolubus
            * reversal of the magnetic poles
            * Prophecy (Daniel)
            * Carl Sargan
            * Hal Lindsey and CC Carlson, The Lale Great Planet Earth
            * Ufo
            * Time Zero
            * Egypt
            * Rome
            * Atlantida ...
            * Your daughter will be fine

            Warning: The illusion seems real and illusion seem real because that made ​​it seem. Now they will pay.

            Under Brazilian pages

            http://thoth3126.com.br/

            https://www.facebook.com/ufologiaparacientifico?fref=ts
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. OK..... I'm not sure what the point was.
              Delete
            2. Aurea, I am so sorry for your conversion from reality. To test your commitment to the Truth, please read all of Bishop John Shelby Spong's books, for a start. Your lack of scientific approach to the challenge is problematic. You cannot and never will challenge science with religious beliefs. This is not an attack on you or your beliefs, but simply noting that nothing in your post has any basis in science.
              Delete
          23. Im gonna give you an answer based off of string theory. The mere fact math wise that there are alternate earths in different dimensional planes. And the fact that we use supercomputer than answer question with yes,no,and both. I make the simple fact that you as a physics professor would acknowledge that the answer can be both yes and no. So by the laws of physics and quantum mechanics there too is a earth that stays the same that is not effected by man kind. I believe its this one and your stuck in one of the others. Show me the money I just won.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. The multiverse is a neat idea, but it certainly doesn't prove, or disprove, that man made global warming isn't real. And, for that matter, prove that string theory is real.
              Delete
            2. John, your attempt at science is based upon applying limited understanding of string theory, which has nothing to do with this scientific challenge of providing evidence that anthropogenic global warming and climate change are not occurring. Perhaps on one of the other Earth's you are more scientifically literate and DO address the actual challenge, as presented.
              Delete
          24. Existe un ala de científicos más o menos veteranos e independientes, que nos informan que en realidad los cambios climáticos han ocurrido siempre, aun antes de que existiera el hombre. En estos cambios climáticos, es posible detectar que el dióxido de carbono, ha aumentado hasta diez veces más que en la actualidad, de manera natural (vapor de agua).
            ReplyDelete
          25. Existe un ala de científicos más o menos veteranos e independientes, que nos informan que en realidad los cambios climáticos han ocurrido siempre, aun antes de que existiera el hombre. En estos cambios climáticos, es posible detectar que el dióxido de carbono, ha aumentado hasta diez veces más que en la actualidad, de manera natural (vapor de agua).
            ReplyDelete
          26. Actually the challenge is pretty easy, if you can empirically demonstrate the following things.

            1. Show that CO2 absorbs wavelengths shorter than 4000 nm, or does not absorb wavelengths in the infrared frequency.

            2. Show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to translate to any warming (show your work regarding sensitivity).

            3. Show that CO2 is not accumulating in the atmosphere, or that CO2 is not released during fossil fuel combustion, or that the CO2 in the atmosphere is unrelated to fossil fuels (use your isotopes!).

            4. Collect $10,000. Really, it is that simple.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. It really is that easy. Now, if someone only had the science to back it up they would have $10,000.
              Delete
            2. Anon. Why are you only looking at CO2? There's nothing in the challenge which relies solely on CO2 levels as the cause of global warming.
              Delete
          27. National Geographic en el número de Febrero del 2007 dice:
            "In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said".

            El informe llega a la conclusión de que lo observado en Marte, prueba que el calentamiento global terrestre no es causado por el dióxido de carbono.

            El profesor de ingeniería química de la Universidad de Auckland (Nueva Zelanda) Geoffrey G. Duffy, asevera que el vapor de agua “causa el 95% del efecto invernadero, y el Sol es el principal responsable; y con ello quiere decir que entonces tenemos a la vista el causante del fenómeno: La irradiación solar.

            “El aumento de las emisiones de CO2 siempre ha quedado a la zaga del incremento de la temperatura”. Según los estudios científicos, se estima que existe un desfase de entre 400 y 800 años entre los aumentos que registran históricamente ambas variables, afirma. Además, el proceso se produce a la inversa. Es decir, primero sube la temperatura, y siglos después lo hace la concentración de CO2 en la atmósfera.

            La Revista Sciense publica:
            “El último calentamiento sufrido por el planeta, fue provocado por una subida de las temperaturas marinas y no por la acumulación del dióxido de carbono (CO2), reveló un estudio difundido por la revista Science. Pero el resultado más extraño de esa investigación señala, que el aumento de temperaturas marinas tuvo su origen en las aguas de la Antártida, el continente helado.
            Según científicos de la Universidad de California el dióxido de carbono no causó el fin de la última glaciación, al contrario; de lo deducido en los registros hallados en las capas de hielo."Ya no podemos argumentar que solamente el dióxido de carbono fue el que generó el fin de la glaciación", dijo Lowell Stott, geólogo autor principal del estudio”.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I'm sorry, but I don't understand Spanish that well.
              Delete
          28. “It’s a cold day in Wagga Wagga” https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/http://www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TERM%20ARCTIC%20ICE%20TRENDS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20WARMING.1.pdf

            Those who seek to deny global warming constantly use transparently obvious tricks, selecting data from a single time, a single place, or both, to deny the larger long-term global patterns. This is easily done as climate is constantly fluctuating, so picking out the mean patterns and trends requires that one integrates the data over the largest time and space scales possible. So if one dishonestly wants to misrepresent the larger patterns, one can always find a particular place at a particular time that does not agree with the all the rest averaged together. This is sometimes referred to as the “It’s a cold day in Wagga Wagga” approach, and is repeatedly used by the climate change deniers to fool people who haven’t looked at the data themselves. The changes in Arctic Ice are no exception! Good data mapping the entire Arctic Ice Cap from space satellites is fairly recent, only since 1979, but the trends are absolutely clear: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/tag/arctic-sea-ice/
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. That is a good resource. Thanks for sharing it. As I keep saying, 'global' warming means the whole globe, not one small part. Just because it might have been really cold in some city doesn't say anything about what is happening over the whole planet.
              Delete
          29. This is bullshit. How could one submit anything using a scientific method if the determination of plausibility/proof, will be decided by one who has already concluded that its impossible to prove? This is what is wrong with mainstream science. That is, the oligarchy of scientific opinions (The people getting funding to further elite agendas) start with a bias. How can you objectively review submissions if you have already concluded one way or the other? You cant. Take your ego, and preconceived notions out of this and replace it with a real appetite for truth without fear of being wrong, and you MAY be enlightened.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. It is not my credibility at risk here. Deniers keep claiming AGW is not real and it is easy to prove. Here is the opportunity for them to do that. If the claim is absurd, then deniers should stop making it.
              Delete
          30. Dr Keating: "No, I am not asking anyone to disprove anything."

            From the challenge:
            "... that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;"

            That's contradiction. To prove "not-A" is to disprove A.

            I think we would like to know your interpretation of the scientific method, and also how you believe that that same scientific method has been used to prove AGW.

            Were I to answer the challenge (but it's far too much like shooting fish in a barrel), I would only submit that the Earth has NOT been warming over the last 15 or so years.

            As you say, though, your money is quite safe: "5. I am the final judge of all entries..."
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. You did not read the challenge carefully. The challenge is an opportunity for deniers to deliver on their claims. They claim man made global warming is not real and it is easy to prove. OK. Here is your opportunity!

              The reason my money is safe is because global warming is very real, so no denier can possibly prove it isn't.

              As for proving AGW, I did that in my book.
              Delete
          31. Global warming is earth made, I wish I was a capable of putting together data information to confirm it, but it's as simple as this idea we are earth hince only earth can cause global warming
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. You can find all the climate data you want the National Climatic Data Center. Its free to everyone.

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
              Delete
          32. Here is my entry:

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I will respond as quickly as possible.
              Delete
          33. MR Keating I have a proof for you. Will you read my submission? If you debunk it I will appreciate a correction. It is an analysis based upon my understanding of the data submitted as proof of man made global warming. I do not attempt to disprove climate change...only humanities part in it. How do I submit my proof? It is a logical argument with links to data references. It is ready for submission.
            ReplyDelete
          34. The issue is not that climate change is real its that according to a UN report we have till 2030 to get significantly off fossil fuels. Then if you look at how solar is advancing exponentially by 2030 it will be 50% cheaper then fossil fuels meaning we will be significantly off fossil fuels before 2030. Not because its better for the environment, although it is, but because its cheaper. That is why I am not worried about climate change.

            This is from the New York Times:

            The United Nations report says that if the world’s major economies do not enact steep, fast climate policies well before 2030, in order to cut total global emissions 40 to 70 percent by 2050,

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/political-rifts-slow-us-effort-on-climate-laws.html?_r=0

            The link for solar:

            If the trend continues for another 8-10 years, which seems increasingly likely, solar will be as cheap as coal with the added benefit of zero carbon emissions. If the cost continues to fall over the next 20 years, solar costs will be half that of coal.

            The link: http://azizonomics.com/2013/01/25/when-solar-becomes-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. The huge drop in the cost of solar power is very encouraging. It is now cheaper than grid power in some states and getting close to parity in several others. I have been checking into going solar and it would pay for itself in 3-4 years for me. But, keep in mind the majority of the world is behind on the amount of electricity per capita curve and they want to change that in order to improve the standard of living for their people. Will solar be the answer they take, or will they build coal-fired power plants and build lots of gas guzzling cars? The majority of the pollution now comes from the rest of the world other than North America and Europe.
              Delete
            2. Solar will be the answer the science proves it. Sure today it takes 3-4 years to recoup the cost but solar is advancing exponentially and that will not be the case in the 2020's let alone by 2030. In fact by 2033 it will be "nearly free" so people from all over the world will switch. That is why the director of engineering at Google Ray Kurzweil is not worried about climate change and you can't say he is "anti science". So honestly I have won the challenge?

              The link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/environment/futurist-ray-kurzweil-isnt-worried-about-climate-change/7389/
              Delete
            3. This is another video that deals with solar as well. Its from Ted Speaks by Peter Diamandis.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI
              Delete
          35. How do I submit my Proof? I want to know it is actually read. you can disprove something. By showing how unlikely it is. I have actual hard math based upon published and accepted numbers.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I got it and will post my response as quickly as possible.
              Delete
          36. You do realize that there is no such thing as “scientific proof” right? Proofs are for mathematics and logic, not science. You can no more “prove via the scientific method” that man-made global warming is real than anyone can disprove it. Substantial amounts of convincing evidence does not equal a proof.

            We can’t beat the deniers by out-stupiding them, and it would help if people, particularly people claiming to be scientists, used correct and accurate terminology.

            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. If you are going to say there is no such thing as a scientific proof, then why do deniers keep claiming there is? Remember what this challenge is about. Deniers say that man made global warming is real and the science to prove it is easy to show. OK. Then do it. By scientific proof I mean one that uses science as the basis, not some 'God told me so' proof. If it can't be done, then deniers need to stop saying it.
              Delete
          37. Hello, DR. Keating,
            I may have found proof of global warming and climate change is not real. In the Jurassic period. the Co2 level was 1800ppm and currently is 401.88ppm. Co2 freezes when compressed and used in fire extinguishers. Methane is another possible key component on global warming but methane burns easily so it is not so likely to cause excess heat and rises. But, if there is so much heat Earth including fires and explosions, the nitrogen in the atmosphere will combust killing every bit of life including bacteria. And there is so many microorganisms on Earth, they seem to not help nor make the problem worse. I researched the co2 levels via, http://co2now.org/
            I am 100 percent sure global warming is not real. It in fact was hotter to the dinosaurs and last I checked, they did not have cars and factories. And then all of a sudden… Ice age! But what caused it? The co2 condensed and froze. And that is not what else caused it. It was a POLAR SHIFT. Cleveland Ohio used to be the equator 400 million years ago before the dinosaurs and it is currently temperate. So the ice age was a polar shift and co2 freezing. Today the world is not heating but cooling due to heat. The oceans evaporate and the water vapor is pulled and condensed to the Arctic and Antarctic Circle. Since Co2 is hot it rises up and heads to the poles and condenses and freezes and gets colder. The polar ice caps grew in size by 29%. The Earth is warmer due to the sun getting bigger. I researched this topic for 2 years. My conclusion is that global warming is not man made but, natural.
            If global warming is real, there would be mass extinctions and un-bearable disasters. Hurricane Sandy like franken-storms will happen since the industrial revolution.
            In Japan the pollution is so thick by the chemicals they burn like plastic. In the USA, there are more cars than any country and we don’t have that much bad air. Humans just have the natural urge to say something is real when it is not. It is impossible to prove something that we do not have the technology to find out.
            ReplyDelete

            Replies





            1. I'm not really sure what to make of this line of thought. Nitrogen is not combustible, so that claim is not valid. As for the 'it was warmer in the past' argument, I addressed this topic and the issue of natural cycles in this post here:

              http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/naturally-occurring-cycles-are-not.html
              Delete
            2. Nitrogen is combustible... When it is frozen or split into ions.... so are humans due to SHC. Spontaneous Human Combustion and last time I checked, Humans have nitrogen in our bodies.
              Delete
          38. You can look at fitflop sandals, I think it is good.
            Website is:
            fitflop行動塑身鞋
            FitFlop Taiwan
            ReplyDelete
          39. https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-0/10492060_10152243629021275_8401347302070915101_n.jpg
            ReplyDelete

            Replies






            1. Excellent! Thank you for sharing it.
              Delete

34 comments:

  1. Interesting reading your Blog. Although my take on the whole AGW/Climate change argument is different I think. I am not going to go to the trouble to work it all out in a lab notebook and follow the Scientific Method either, I have better things to do but here is my take on this subject.
    If MAN is contributing to "Global Warming" How much is that contribution to the total?

    As I live in America and it is my Government that wants to correct our behavior as it relates to "Global Warming"....How much does America contribute to this total?

    If my government did everything possible to change how we live to help reverse "Global Warming" exactly how much of an effect would it have on the total?

    my point is that even if the United States stopped contributing to the man made effects to "Global Warming" the effect it has on the whole would be negligible.
    Sincerely
    A guy that actually got an A in Chemestry many moons ago

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a disturbing amount of truth to what you say. America has been historically the worst offender in regards to pollution simply because we were the most industrialized. We have been cleaning up our act (our emissions are down to pre-1994 levels) but the rest of the world is rapidly catching up. China and India, in particular, are significant contributors now. But, we will have a hard time convincing the to do anything about their emissions if we are not willing to do something ourselves.

      Delete
  2. You certainly have painted a target on your back. We have plenty of records (not ice cores) that we can access back to 750 BCE in our atmospheric history. We can establish these facts:
    A. Egyptian Cooling - 750-450 BCE
    B. Roman Warming - 200 BCE - 600 CE
    C. Dark Ages Cooling - 440 - 900 CE
    D. Medieval Warming - 900 - 1300 CE
    E. Little Ice Age Cooling - 1300 - 1900 CE
    F. Modern Warming - 1900 - present CE

    In 1983, Denmark's Willi Dansgaard and Switzerland's Han Oeschger drilled two ice cores, each a mile apart and one mile deep, in the Greeland Ice Sheet. It represented 250,000 yearts of Earth's layered climate history. No such long-term climate history had ever before been available. They were astounded to find a smaller, moderate, and persistent temperature cycle superimposed on the big, ice age, climate swings. The smaller cycle was 2500 years. They wrote a report in 1984 linking that cycle, unerringly, to the cycles of the sun. They dismissed volcanoes as a causal factor because there is no such cycle in volcanic activity. They noted that the cycle shifts were abrupt, sometimes gaining half of the eventual temperature change in only a decade or so. (W. Dansgaard et. al., "North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores", 288-98). They wrote, "Since the solar radiation is the only important input of energy to the climatic system, it is most obvious to seek an explanation in solar processes." In other words, IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!

    Water, not CO2, is the largest greenhouse gas. If you accept my notion that the Sun is responsible for global warming we can easily see how evaporating water vapor from the oceans causes cloud formation. The 2001 IPCC report told us that those who model climate change don't know how to model the important matter of clouds and their effect on the Earth's termperatures. The report says that the climate modelers don't even know whether a given cloud factor increases or decreases warming, let alone by how much (Climate Change 2001, chapter 7, section 7.2.2.4: "Cloud Radiative Feedback Processes".) Clouds reflect about 75 watts per square meter. Even if you doubled CO2, it would only change the surface heat flux by only 2 watts per square meter. It is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to CO2. Water vapor and CO2 are related to each other very closely. J. Veizer, in 2005, found that "Observations on all time scales point to the sun as the principal driver of climate.....with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers....."THE TINY CARBON CYCLE IS PIGGYBACKING ON THE HUGE WATER AND CLOUD CYCLE, NOT DRIVING IT."
    (J. VEIZER, "Celestial Climate Driver: A perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle, Geosciences Canada 32, No. 1 (2005): 13-20.)

    I am conveying the fact that we cannot trust the climate models at all. Global Circulation Models assume that Earth's climate would be stable iin the absence of human emissions, as assumption we know to be false. These models also assume that climate would be smoothly linear, which we also know to be false. Our Earth surface thermometers are heavily skewed by urban heat islands and land use changes; they may overstate surface warming by 40%. These models cannot accommodate such observed events as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the Climatic Heat Vent. These are not trivial errors. They question the very worth of those models.

    IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remove the personal attacks and you make some good points. No one is saying there were no cycles in the past. We are just saying it is a false argument to say because there were natural cycles in the past that this must be a natural cycle. The evidence is strongly against that conclusion. And, you are right about the Sun. Solar activity is a very significant component in the equation. Unfortunately (or maybe, fortunately) the solar activity has been decreasing for decades. That means we are in a naturally cooling cycle, not a warming one.

      http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/naturally-occurring-cycles-are-not.html

      Delete
    2. Exactly, we are in a cooling cycle, all caused by less activity in the sun. The sunspots have decreased. We just had one of the worst winters in the last 100 years. Egypt had snow on the pyramids for the first time in 104 years, Israel had snow on the Temple Mount for the first time in 100 years. The U.S. Great Lakes were 80% frozen solid, an all-time record. And you think that all of this is caused by man-caused climate change related to CO2. Even your physics can't be stretched that far. It is time for you to pony up and realize that AGW is a political football to try to get money out of people's pockets. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Oh, by the way, don't start on blaming methane, either. If you didn't know, termites outweigh all humans on this earth. Their byproduct is methane. They produce the most amount of methane of any thing on this earth. Nothing that man can do can adjust for the amount of termite methane that is constantly produced.

      Delete
    3. Not exactly true. This winter was nowhere near a record cold one, even in the U.S. This was actually a pretty mild one for the Midwest in historical terms. It use to get much colder than it does today. At the same time, the West Coast, Alaska, Siberia, North Africa, Southeast Asia and the Arctic region all had a record warm winter.

      Delete
    4. Mr. Keating, you are dead wrong about the Midwest in historical terms. I don't know where you are getting your information, but the Midwest had (4) polar vortexes this last winter. I was wrong on the 80% ice on the US Great Lakes....it was 93% covered by ice. The previous record was 91.1% set back in 1977. These ice records started in 1973. The Great Lakes started to melt in June and as the latest ice has melted, the upper Midwest has had flooding like crazy. I lived in Kansas for 20 years between 1952 - 1972 and there was nothing as cold during those years as the Midwest had this last winter. You are simply wrong and can't/won't admit it. IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!

      Then there is the problems with Michael Mann, the hockey stick idiot. He and his lying buddies, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia Univ.; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatoligist specializing in tree ring anaylsis; Tim Osborn, a CRU climate modeler and Mike Hulme, a director of the Tyndall Center of Climate Change Research, were senders and receivers of emails between each other to falsify and hide data that showed that they used proxy measurements that they changed to "measured" temperatures. They used temperatures from urban heat islands and heat island tree-ring data from the same localities. Mann's "hockey stick" always had data ;points that were incorrect. James Hansen, at the CRU, was identified as deleting data as much as 16 times in weather measuring, all to the effect of making the past cooler and the present disastrously warmer. Mann's graph data, tied to tree rings, were nothing but proxies and no actual measurements. He used 1961 thermometer data from the Yamal region when he found them and intertwined those 1961 reading with his tree ring proxies. It was a hoax from the start.

      Delete
    5. I am always amazed when people don't do even the most basic homework before making comments. Here is what NOAA had to say about this last winter:

      http://www.weather.com/news/winter-ncdc-state-climate-report-2013-2014-20140313

      Notice it said it was the 34th coldest since 1895. That means there have been 33 colder winters in the last 120 years. Before that, it was much colder. The records show that the Great Lakes froze over every year. Chesapeake Bay use to freeze so solid that you could walk across it. This presented a problem because the Bay has tides, so the ice would rise and fall and tear out the lighthouses. They had to design special lighthouses to survive the ice. Here is a humorous, but factually correct depiction of the issue:

      http://xkcd.com/1321/

      As for the hockey stick, anytime I hear someone go into a diatribe about it I know I am talking to someone that has decided to reject science. I don't know why deniers hate it so much, but what they really hate is the fact that is correct and has been proven so by separate agencies. Here is a article about it from Scientific American:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

      Delete
    6. Dr. Keating.....When you call FACTS, diatribes, you are as ignorant as the deniers you are trying to put down. The hockey stick graph was debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick: "Corrections to the Mann, et all., "Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series, 1998", ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 14:(2003) 751-71. The Mann team had to publish "a correction of error" in the journal NATURE on July 1, 2004. Mann is a fraud and a liar. Mann tried to tell us that the National Academy of Science "affirmed" his findings in their 2006 report. That is a big fat lie! The 2006 NAS report said they couldn't establish the hockey stick from Mann's work. You really haven't gotten out of your academic office enough to see the other world out there. I feel sorry for the academic box you have put yourself in. I have more education than you do. I have my doctorate. I have published. But I keep an open mind and because of that I have discovered the lies and politics that exist. There is nothing more untruthful than Scientific American. I have talked to their editors in New York. The magazine should be called Political American.....there is nothing scientific about that magazine. I have pointed out to them, many times, over the years how they cherry pick "articles" to push the liberal, unscientific, view. Their editors are the most liberal people out there. Every time they find themselves in a box, because of the comments they get, they either delete the comments so nobody else can read them or try to get other PhD's to add comments to refute the facts. If you can't see through Scientific American, there is no hope for you. You are as blind as the rest of the global warmists. You haven't the guts to get out and see what there is out there. "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain. IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!

      Delete
  3. My knowledge of the theory is basic, but here is what I understand: The theory is that broadband sunlight hits the Earth's surface, IR radiation is sent spaceward and bounced back by excess CO2 to the surface, thus warming it. If the CO2 is such a great reflector of IR then is should be reflecting an equal and opposite amount of IR back into space. If you don't believe this then ask any Astronomer how many IR telescopes are based in the midwest. I looked at several of the entries and there was much discussion of CO2 IR absorption. But as you well know, any molecule cannot just keep absorbing radiation without releasing the energy it absorbed, so absorption isn't the issue, it is just the vehicle. The issue is the released energy and where it goes. If you say it is Earthbound, I say there is just as much spacebound. The net energy gain is zero.

    If you wish to change the discussion to "it changes the insulation factors of the atmosphere, consider this. CO2 has about the same specific heat capacity as the O2 that it is replacing. Once again, the net gain is zero.

    Now for the truth of the matter: When we are talking about a temperature rise, we are talking about thermal dynamics. Consider the number of BTUs produced by the average citizen in the industrialized world. It is a bunch (not very scientific, but understandable to all). I believe that the true cause of any global warming (the theory so true, you had to rename it), is the heat of day to day living. Unfortunately for those of us being subjected to nonsense like carbon exchanges and such, an electric car will produce the same amount of heat as a fossil fuel one (Physics 101, professor).

    I believe that I am right about the CO2 issue, but by definition, I was supposed to disprove man made global warming, I will compromise, just send $5000.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I addressed this in your other comment below.

      Delete
  4. Climate change may be real but it is not caused by me driving my car or breathing out carbon dioxide. It is not naturally caused by an excess of CO2. The oceans create 97% of the CO2 on the planet and humans will never come close to that.
    More and more people are waking up to the fact that climate change is occurring because of geo-engineering or SRM sun radiation management. This is commonly known as chemtrails. When you look up at the sky and you see the thin veiled gray clouds (not cirrus) they are man made. We are told the Air Force is doing this to protect us from the sun's rays but instead they are keeping the heat in, thus making it warmer.
    The chemicals in chemtrails (aluminum, strontium, barium, fluoride) are killing us and all life on earth and must be stopped. Knowing about this and allowing it to continue is suicide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to believe in the chemtrail conspiracy theory that is your business. I am not going to address it. But, I will address your other points.

      Most CO2 produced comes from natural sources, that is true. However, you left out the part where natural processes also absorb all of the naturally produced CO2 and even much of the man made emissions. The result is that all naturally produced CO2 is absorbed by nature, but we produce enough every year to add to the total in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 levels go up every year and the increase is all due to man made emissions.

      Delete
  5. Let me try this again, only with a little more punctuation and a bit of rewording.

    My knowledge of the theory is basic, but here is what I understand: The theory is that broadband sunlight hits the Earth's surface, IR radiation is sent spaceward and bounced back to the surface by excess CO2, thus warming it. The excess CO2 should be reflecting an equal and opposite amount of IR back into space. If you don't believe this, then ask any Astronomer how many IR telescopes are based in the midwest. I looked at several of the entries, and there was much discussion of CO2 IR absorption. But as you well know, any molecule cannot just keep absorbing radiation without releasing the energy it absorbed, so absorption isn't the issue, it is just the vehicle. The issue is the energy released when the CO2 molecule returns to an unexcited state, and where it goes. There should be an equal amount headed to space as there is heading Earthbound. The net energy gain on the Earth's surface is zero.

    If you wish to change the discussion to "it changes the insulation factors of the atmosphere, consider this. CO2 has about the same specific heat capacity as the O2 that it is replacing. Once again, the net gain is zero.

    Now for the truth of the matter: When we are talking about a temperature rise, we are talking about thermal dynamics. Consider the number of BTUs produced by the average citizen in the industrialized world (not just body heat, but the heat from the stuff we use). It is a bunch (not very scientific, but understandable to all). I believe that the true cause of any global warming (the theory so true, you had to rename it), is the heat of day to day living. Unfortunately for those of us being subjected to nonsense like carbon exchanges and such, an electric car will produce the same amount of heat as a fossil fuel one (Physics 101, professor).

    I believe that I am right about the CO2 issue, but by definition, I was supposed to disprove man made global warming, I will compromise, just send $5000.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are completely correct about IR radiation coming in from space. It is all absorbed by the atmosphere. You are also correct about IR telescopes. We have to put them on the tallest mountain peaks in the driest regions of the planet, but them on high flying aircraft (SOPHIA) and send them into space.

      You are also perfectly correct when you say just as much reemitted IR should go down as up and that is the point. Before it was absorbed, the radiation coming up from the surface was ALL going up. After reemission, just as much is going down as up. And, that happens every time a molecule absorbs a photon and reemits it. That means photons are taking longer to get to space and heat is being retained in the atmosphere.

      Your other comments are basically correct, but incomplete. The amount of energy we produce as individuals is large (just pack a bunch of people in a closed space and see how quickly is gets uncomfortably hot). But, it is insignificant compared to the amount of incoming radiating we get from the Sun every day. As for electric cars not saving energy, I have said this for many years, they do not save energy. What they do is to transfer the energy generation from one place to another. So, instead of buying oil from a bunch of people that hate us, we can power our cars from power plants running on resources produced in our own country.

      Delete
  6. I'm not sure if others have already covered this, but let me explain why this piece of human trash (Keating) put together this juvenile unscientific publicity stunt. No credible, knowledgeable skeptic has ever disputed anthropogenic global warming. He made up that lie based on the comment of a small percentage of uninformed illegitimate skeptics in a pathetic attempt to slander all skeptics and make us appear ignorant and himself superior (so much ego involved from the warmists (and grant money)). What is in dispute here is CATASTROPHIC anthropogenic climate change, which is nothing but a scam for money and power. So you can just through hoops for this idiot or just ignore him and move on. You could scientifically argue that every living thing that breathes and maintains its own biological temperature is heating the planet - and you wouldn't be wrong. So trying to 'prove' that Carbon Dioxide is not contributing to heating the planet is a ridiculous waste of time - all skeptics know that it is - what we are disagreeing with is the degree of change, the impact of that change, and of course the cost and effectiveness of the proposed solutions (none of which would do anything to alter our climate even if the catastrophic predictions were true - which they are not). However our infinitely complex climate system (clearly impossible to accurately depict in a computer model) has a long history of change long before human CO2 emissions and NOTHING that the unethical scam artists like Keating have produced will show our current climate events to be anything but normal. There are only three types of people still pushing this horrible scam; liars, thieves and the ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is now the denier joke du jour. I love the claim that no denier has ever claimed man made global warming is not real. I have hundreds of comments on this very blog to disprove that one. You guys are just trying to rewrite history.

      Now, keep in mind that I am not asking anyone to prove, or disprove, anything. I am providing a venue for deniers to go through with their claim that man made global warming is not real. If one one has ever said that, then we're all good. Of course, that doesn't explain the numerous submissions I have received from people claiming to disprove man made global warming.

      Are other things in dispute also? Certainly. I never claimed anything else, this is just addressing one issue out of many.

      Delete
  7. Here is my argument:
    I do not believe in man made global warming.
    However, if you pay me $10,000 I will believe in man made global warming.
    As you have not yet paid me the $10,000, I am forced to conclude that man made global warming does not exist.
    As a possible counter-argument, can you name any man made global warming "scientist" that has NOT been paid at least $10,000?

    I was wondering, did Einstein have to do a similar $10,000 offer to prove his Theory on Relativity? Is this something any real scientist would do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me. No one is paying me for my work. I am retired and do it at my own expense.

      Your point about Einstein is one of the things we point out about deniers. We didn't have to go through this on other science issues. It is only on the issues where some one with lots of money has a stake, first tobacco and now climate change. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

      Delete
  8. Sure, just as soon as you define "climate change", I'll happily refute it. Please define what you mean by "climate change" and please clarify if it is "climate change" we're refuting or is it "man caused" climate change.

    Further, please define what you would consider as "change" vs natural variability. The climate changes from day to day, season to season, and year to year. Without definitions of what constitutes climate change, it's impossible to prove or disprove. Much less the human contributions to it. But, any sophomoric person would already know this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You want to know how this looks like to me (and I guess to many other skeptics)?
    One that looks like a fervent acolyte of the Global Warming religion asks "deniers" of his religion's apocalypse to scientifically prove that his religion is wrong.
    He does not give you a theory to examine or disprove but just general beliefs.

    He will be the sole judge of your submissions, if you manage to convince him you will get payed - he says.

    It is like telling : you need to scientifically prove that there is no God. How can you prove or disprove that? And I will be the sole judge of your submissions. ROFL, sorry but stupider then this is hard to get.

    Then you use continuously the term "deniers".
    You know it is insulting but you like using it.
    Deniers of what? Of the apocalyptic religion or only the apocalypse? Is the apocalyptic religion science? No. One cannot prove religion wrong. So, if you can't prove his religion wrong one should straw ashes and sand on his head and shut up, start paying indulgences to get his sins pardoned and accept being insulted?

    Dear Christopher please listen for a moment to what skeptics say before insulting them as deniers, here is Ivar Giaever – nobel Laureate speaking at Landau:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdTlXuTwvEQ
    "Global warming has become a new religion: because you can't discuss it. And that's not right"

    (btw, a short rant – I tried to google “Ivar Giaever, Landau, speech” and many other combinations but there was no way to find it, so this is why maybe googling will not help you find skeptics arguments, you need to start searching on skeptics sites to understand what sketics say. You could start at “Wattsupwiththat” and learn from there)
    - CO2 is currently greening the planet
    - the effect on climate is so small it cannot be proven with the data and measurements we have, the science so far stands on shaky feet, does not stand on its theories, it is just a house of cards:
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/after-carbon
    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.at/search/label/greenhouse%20effect

    Of course it was not thought to engage a dialogue isn't it? This is why you try to turn the hard proof on the other side. You know that current temperatures are within existing historical variations which should be enough proof that current climate may be caused by nature.
    How big a "climate change" was it within the last 20 years is difficult to say, scientists are not able to quantify it.
    In terms of temperature it was cooling during the 50s to the 70s and warming during the 80s and 90s and stationary since then.

    Btw, that 50-70s cooling somehow almost disappeared from current data sets, interesting isn't it?
    Also Co2 human emissions are significant only since the 50s, I hope you know that and the cooling warming before must have other causes?

    I am curious, have you read about climate history and tried to understand the variations? I do not mean the last 150 years.
    Have you looked at the big picture to understand it?
    http://climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory.htm#General%C2%A0
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html
    There is a lot more to climate then just the CO2 and temperature:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

    but yes, the question is, can you look out of the box of your GW religion? Can you put down arguments and discuss scientifically? Discuss a hypothesis with what proves or disproves it? That would be engaging in dialogue. You have got now the skeptics attention, what do you do with it?
    Lars P.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh, and by the way - as you say above:
      "yes, I am saying that this is not a natural cycle. There are natural cycles and deniers have never produced even a smidgen of evidence to show that this current warming trend is a natural cycle.... The warming is all man made."
      Here is a proof of natural variability which could explain the warming in the 90s - a change in Earth albedo which has a higher effect then any CO2 variations in the period:
      http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html
      Now do I get the 10.000 $?

      Delete
    2. The definition of a religion is when someone believes in it on faith and will not change their viewpoint in the face of evidence. A science is something that follows the scientific method and continually adjusts as new evidence is discovered. That makes climate science a science and climate change denialism a religion. Apparently, you are a true believer in the religion.

      Delete
  10. Dr. Keating on June 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM I wrote you and presented an alternative possibility to climate change based on the "Electric Universe Theory". I explained the nature of plasma and how the sun is connected to the earth through electric fields and how the earth responds to these changes in electric input by accompanying changes in temperature, weather, and climate, and how these responses can overrride changes based on any man-made activities. On the 25th of June, I sent you five links as evidence to my position, and again on the 26th I sent you one more link as further evidence and asked you for feedback for the evidence I presented.

    Not only have you not addressed what I sent you even though you claim to have done your graduate work in space plasma physics and are well familiar with its properties, but all my postings and your responses have disappeared from your site.

    I've looked everywhere and they are no where to be found. What gives? Are you really a scientist who seeks the truth or just a person that wrote a book and wants publicity to gain fame and help sell the book? I am really disappointed in your non-response and apparent dishonesty to find the truth on this important matter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Keating on June 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM I wrote you and presented an alternative possibility to climate change based on the "Electric Universe Theory". I explained the nature of plasma and how the sun is connected to the earth through electric fields and how the earth responds to these changes in electric input by accompanying changes in temperature, weather, and climate, and how these responses can overrride changes based on any man-made activities. On the 25th of June, I sent you five links as evidence to my position, and again on the 26th I sent you one more link as further evidence and asked you for feedback for the evidence I presented.

    Not only have you not addressed what I sent you even though you claim to have done your graduate work in space plasma physics and are well familiar with its properties, but all my postings and your responses have disappeared from your site.

    I've looked everywhere and they are no where to be found. What gives? Are you really a scientist who seeks the truth or just a person that wrote a book and wants publicity to gain fame and help sell the book? I am really disappointed in your non-response and apparent dishonesty to find the truth on this important matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw it. I even commented a little on it. I just didn't think it was worth my time to spend much time on it.

      Delete
    2. Did you even view what I sent you as evidence? I doubt it. You just dismiss it of not being worthy of your time, typical expected response from a dogmatic so-called scientist.

      I'll get back to you when science can no longer deny that the sun controls temperature, lightning, weather and climate on earth and the other planets through EM interactions. The whole universe is an electric circuit, including all living things.

      Keep an extra $30,000 in reserve. You'll need it when I can show that I gave you the proof first but you chose to ignore it.

      Delete
    3. If you have a submission, I will gladly accept it. But, your claim was that there is the universe is made of plasma and the EM force is stronger than gravity. So? That is commonly accepted science and does not address how man made global warming is not real.

      Delete
    4. So... the electricmagnetic force causes an electrical linkage between the earth and the sun, and it is the sun's electrical variabity that governs temperature, weather and climate on earth. Even if there are human effects they are negligible and overridden by solar activity. So... it is not human activity but rather the electrical activity of the sun that is causing the present global warming and other climate effects. That is the point and it answers the challenge that you pose.

      Delete
    5. Your submission has been accepted and I will respond as quickly as I can. Your submission is "$30,000 Challenge Submission - The Electric Field" and you can track my progress here:

      http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html

      Delete
  12. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/infilling-is-massively-corrupting-the-us-temperature-record/

    As I have said before.... the GW theory problem is the math. Backfilled data that looks curiously like it was mined to get the desired results, and statistics methods that would get you a failing grade in a freshman statistics class... `

    If the trend is towards warming, and the data-set is the annual temperatures of the earth (in the millions of data points) you cannot move the mean under a bell curve to the left with 50 years of data that does not reflect a 1,000 Standard deviation moves.... which means that the last 50 year temperatures would have to reflect the temperature after the sun explodes...

    ReplyDelete
  13. As this contest is a logical fallacy as science does not prove or disprove, it merely a collection of data that is analyzed and interpreted, but I need $10,000. And if a Physicist is dumb enough to put up his own money then I have enough resources to allot 13 minutes for an investment.

    All global models that predict man made CO2 as the major contributing factor of global warming effects on a reduction of Arctic sea ice has not trended in with the projections for the last 15 years even though CO2 has slowly increased over that time. Logically the planet can't be warming if there is less latent heat energy to keep water in liquid form, unless there is new evident that the rate of radiation that the earth emits has lessened or the earth has added a significant amount of surface area.

    This is evidence establishes a "impossibility" has occurred, outside the given expectations of 100,000s of Computer simulated hours and based on the most popular global fluid dynamics, and yet it has happened. Given global climate models are shown to be flawed, and in some cases fraudulently produced with meeting expectations as a goal of the programing, and thus the basis of "man made global warming" is flawed by all accounts of standard modeling projection analyses.

    If an engineer changes his building program to meet their ideal characteristics, and the subject fails, like a building or a bridge, typically an investigation will recriminate him for using faulty models. Why aren't "climatologist" held to the same standard?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/imagine-45-days-after-predicted-irreversible-collapse-antarctic-sea-ice-?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Antarctic-Ice

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/imagine-45-days-after-predicted-irreversible-collapse-antarctic-sea-ice-?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=Antarctic-Ice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of your arguments have already been submitted and debunked. However, I have accepted your submission because you have put it all together in a different way. I will post your challenge and my response as quickly as I can. It will be called "$30,000 Challenge Submission - Sea Ice" but there are over 25 submissions ahead of you, so please be patient.

      Delete
  14. Regarding Option 1, please read this, and the broader report:

    http://www.nipccreport.org/rep...

    Regarding Option 2:

    Se here: image of CO2 concentration versus temperature back to Cambrian time:

    http://worldview3.50webs.com/6...

    And here, last 400,000 years. Very wide natural variation in temperature prior to man's existentence, together with very variable CO2 concentration. Careful analysis would show CO2 concentration lags temperatrue change:

    http://www.grida.no/images/ser...

    And here, big, cyclical variations in temperature since Roman times not correlated to CO2:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com...

    For the record, I would suggest the climate and global temperature is changing. It always has and always will, driven by changes in orbital patterns and irradiation form the Sun.

    Yes, increased CO2 concentration will have an impact, but the impact diminishes as CO2 concentrations increase. And yes, man does have an impact on this. Perhaps 0.5-1 deg C from a doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times.

    This is not alarming and does not justify spending billions on solar and wind energy. In any event the West's spending on all this stuff is not making a significant impact on CO2 concentrations and even less impact on temperature.

    This is the crux of the sceptic or "denier" position: not that we deny the climate is changing or that man is having some impact. But I certainly deny that the impact is significant, and I object strongly to the response to the alleged threat because it is expensive and useless.

    I have also seen some of your responses. To refuse to entertain some content because it references WUWT is an unscientific approach. Of course Mr Watts mat have made some mistakes at some point, who hasn't? But to reject everything on his site is a ridiculous position to take.

    ReplyDelete