https://tinyurl.com/ogjqvp5
My “Scientific Method” Challenge to “Man-Caused” Global WarmingReplyDelete
QUESTION:
Is man-caused pollution, and the additional Co2 emissions produced from said pollution, sufficient in volume as to be the causing factor of global warming and does current data support such a charge?
Background Research:
1) An extensive examination of the reports and studies of all man-caused pollution beginning with the industrial revolution which began in the in the early 1800’s and the corresponding industrial booms in the early to mid 19th century. This includes reports of man-caused Co2 in metric tons from various sources, including Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. This research shows, quite clearly, that man-caused polluting mechanisms, i.e. factories, power plants, personal and industrial vehicles, personal and commercial airliners and boats and trains etc. have drastically increased over the last 75 years and the volume of man-caused Co2 emissions is exponentially higher.
2) An extensive examination of the reports of all temperature data from the NOAA, dating back to 1948 (which is the earliest data we have of Mean Temperatures by the NOAA’s NCDC.) This data will provide mean temperatures for several key locations on the planet that I will use in connection with research point 1) to see if a link of man-caused pollution and increases in temperature is actually occurring.
HYPOTHOSIS:
Given the recorded levels of man-caused pollution being produced in recent years, and the corresponding increases in Co2 emissions, and given the assumption that man-caused pollution and the resulting Co2 is the direct cause of increases in global temperatures worldwide, we should see drastic increases in global temperatures in direct relation to the increases of man-caused pollution and Co2 as outlined in the Background Research.
Testing the Hypothesis:
I will use data from the NOAA’s monitoring stations in four, historically warm, locations (Phoenix, AZ, Las Vegas, NV, Athens, Greece, and Darwin, Australia) and two stations in historically cold locations (Myggbukta or Danmarkshavn in Greenland and Barrow, Alaska). Note that Australia and Greenland are both islands so that I am examining data in areas surrounded by oceans.
Test data will be taken from the month of August and the following month of February, going back to August 1948 and February 1949 and ending with August 2013 and February 2014.
For our hypothesis to be proven correct, there should be a reasonable correlation of increases in global temperatures as it relates to the increase of man-caused pollution resulting in increased Co2 emissions. If no such correlation exists, then the foundation of our hypothesis cannot be founded in the scientific data.- TEST DATA #1: (m) denotes Mean temperature in degrees F.
SOURCE: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
AUG 1948: Phoenix = 91.4(m), Las Vegas = 86.7(m), Greece = 83.7(m), Australia = 52.9(m),
Greenland = 35.1(m), Alaska = 36.0(m) ESTIMATED Co2: 76 mil. metric tons.
AUG 1958: Phoenix = 92.7(m), Las Vegas = 90.5(m), Greece = 82.9(m), Australia = 51.3(m),
Greenland = 36.0(m), Alaska = 42.2(m) ESTIMATED Co2: 192 mil. metric tons.
Co2 emissions SOURCE: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems
FEB 1949: Phoenix = 54.7(m), Las Vegas = 41.5(m), Greece = 45.7(m), Australia = 81.0(m),
Greenland = -8.5(m), Alaska = -6.3(m)
FEB 1959: Phoenix = 54.0(m), Las Vegas = 47.7(m), Greece = 45.5(m), Australia = 83.6(m),
Greenland = -11.2(m), Alaska = -8.5(m)
Does this procedure show a corresponding increase in temperatures as related to the increase in man-made Co2 emissions from 1948 to 1958?
No, it does not! The estimated Co2 carbon emissions, from man-made, fossil-fuel sources in 1948 was 76 million metric tons. (SOURCE: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html) In 1958, it had increased to 192 million metric tons. This is an increase of 152.65%! The average temperature increase of the six stations from Aug. 1948 to Aug. 1958 was just 4.94%. However, the Feb. 1948 to Feb. 1958 data reflects a DECREASE in average temperatures by -8.38%! Test data #1 conclusion: While average temperatures did increase in August, the amount of increase did not correspond to the increase in the amount of man-made carbon emissions and the average February temperatures actually decreased.
TEST DATA #2: (m) denotes Mean temperature in degrees F.
SOURCE: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
AUG 2013: Phoenix = 94.6(m), Las Vegas = 89.2(m), Greece = 85.1(m), Australia = 78.3(m),
Greenland = 43.7(m), Alaska = 39.6(m) ESTIMATED Co2: 9,986 mil. metric tons.
FEB 2014: Phoenix = 64.4(m), Las Vegas = 57.0(m), Greece = 54.0(m), Australia = 82.8(m),
Greenland = 18.3(m), Alaska = -6.9(m)
Does this procedure show a corresponding increase in temperatures as related to the increase Co2 emissions from 1948/1950 to 2013/2014?
No, it does not! The estimated Co2 carbon emissions, from man-made sources in 1948, was 76 million metric tons. In 2013, it has increased to an estimated 9,986 million metric tons, an increase of 13,040%. Let me spell that out: Man-caused Co2 emissions have INCREASED by Thirteen THOUSAND, Fourty percent since 1948! Of the six stations included in this report, the mean temperature increases, including both August and February data, shows an average temperature increase of just 15.86% But according to the entirety of monitoring stations worldwide, calculating that data month to month, year to year since 1880, the AVERAGE global temperature increase has been 0.11 degrees per DECADE!!!
0.11 degrees per decade is just over 3/4 of a degree over the last 70 years. The global mean temperature for 2013 was reported at 49.08 degrees. An increase of 3/4 of a degree would equal a 1.55% increase in global temperatures since 1948!
THE RESULTS:
Conclusion: Given that the amount of man-made Co2 over from 1948 to 2013 has increased by 13,040% how do global temperatures only increase by 1.55% if man-caused Co2 is the causal effect of global warming? If man were the cause of global warming, a 13,040% increase in supposed “warming causing Co2 pollution” should have yielded a much greater global warming than just 1.55% over the last 70 years! This model was used by former Vice President Al Gore and his now infamous “hockey stick” graph that time and history has thoroughly debunked!
There may be global warming, there may be global climate change, but with less than 200 years of recorded data over 6,000 years of human history, we cannot BEGIN to accuse the activity of man as having any effect on our planet’s overall climate. Please see my sister article at https://tinyurl.com/ogjqvp5
Mr.
Keating... my submission on Page IV is to be considered ALONG with the
submission in the provided LINK. The reason I resubmitted is due to the
fact that you had requested the "Scientific Method" in refuting the
premise of "Man Caused Global Warming". I did not want there to be any
"loophole" of claiming that my submission was not in the "Scientific
Method" format. The submission here on Page IV is purely and undeniably
in the proper format utilizing proper scientific methodology. I do
reference my linked article which should be used as an additional
"Background Research" portion of the submission! Thanks!
Response:
Well, we started right off the bat with a false statement:
From August to February we undergo SEVERE “climate change” do we not? After all, going from 98 degrees on Aug. 20 to 15 degrees on Feb. 8 is pretty severe, yes?
Moving from August to February is just seasonal changes. Climate is long-term, not seasonal. Now, if you want to discuss the average of those changes over a period of time, then you would be discussing climate. And, if we found that those averages were changing from one time period to another, we would have climate change. And, if we found that those changes were caused by man-made effects, then you would have man made climate change.
But, the challenge is directed to people who claim global warming is not real and they can prove it. By that statement, they are demonstrating they understand what the term 'manmade climate change' means.
You state, correctly, that man made emissions of greenhouse gases has expanded exponentially over the last 75 years. Here is a chart of the growth of just CO2:
 |
| Source: EPA |
This graph shows the rate of emissions was rising pretty steadily until we hit about 1950 when the rate of growth exploded. The growth rate continues to increase and world wide emissions are now estimated to top 35 gigatons per year. What is not included in this graph is the fact that nature can absorb around half of our emissions.
Now, look at the average global surface temperature:
Comparing the two we see that the late 1940s corresponded to the end of a long-term warming trend, before a cooling trend started and continued into the 1970s. But, even in the 1960s we can see the cooling trend had stalled. Then the temperature sky rocketed beginning in the late-1970s. But, that is only part of the story. Look at the world heat index:
 |
| Source: Washington State Department of Ecology |
There are many errors in your statistical analysis. The first being we are discussing 'global warming' and not the warming of four individual locations. So, that point alone invalidates your work.
The next error you made is to suppose that man made global warming means that ONLY man made emissions are resulting in a changing climate. There are natural variations in the climate that are well documented. In fact, they are so well documented we know that these natural variations would result in a naturally occurring cooling period if we were not here. Nature absorbs about half of our current CO2 emissions, currently about 18 billion tons per year. By your count, the amount of emissions during the years you selected would have been mostly absorbed by nature and the CO2 content of the atmosphere would have gone up only marginally.
Here is a plot of CO2 levels in the atmosphere since 1958. Pre-industrial levels are quoted as being 280 ppm. This data shows the 1958 level at about 315 ppm. That represents a 12.5% increase over pre-industrial levels. The increase over 1949 levels would be considerably smaller. Certainly not the 153% increase you quoted. We can use this graph to get an estimate by calculating the increase between 1960 and 1970. Since the rate of increase is going up, we know the increase between 1948 and 1958 would be no more that that increase.
Fortunately, a 40% increase in CO2 levels does not translate into a 40% increase in the greenhouse effect. We would all literally be roasted if it did. The total increase in greenhouse efficiency has been about 1%. This is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. To see how this is significant, consider this: the solar input is about 10^25 joules of energy per day. An increase of 1% is an additional 10^23 joules of energy. The entire world population uses about 10^21 joules of energy per year. So, the extra amount of energy we are storing in the atmosphere EVERY DAY (with that 1% change) is more than what we would generate, as an entire race, in 100 years!
So, you took some selected cities and some selected dates to prove your point. This is what is known as 'cherry picking.' Tell me, why didn't you pick dates that are in the time period where we say man made global warming has been taking over? Why not compare temperatures between any two years between 1978 and 2014? You could have even picked the cherished 1998 that you deniers love to cherry pick as a starting point. What I'm guessing is that you did and you found the results did not fit your pre-conceived conclusion, so you rejected them and went fishing until you found what you wanted.
In any event, cherry picking data for a few cities and a couple of dates does not provide any evidence concerning man made global warming, either for or against. So, you did not provide any scientific evidence.
Now, on to your 'paper'. I always love the way deniers accuse climate scientists of being 'alarmists' and then follow that up with statements such as your claim that climate science is all about taking billions of dollars away from people. All the while, you are making these statements without a shred of evidence. The real story? It is estimated climate change is costing the world economy over a trillion dollars a year and killing nearly 400,000 people every year. That is what is going on right now, not at some time in the future. Just look at California. It is estimated the ongoing drought is costing the state $2.2 billion and 17,000 jobs. And, the people losing those jobs are the ones that can afford to lose their jobs the least. And, yes, much of the drought can be blamed on global warming. Why didn't you mention any of that in your 'paper'?
So, let's talk about this paper of yours. You begin with the statement that CO2 is two-thirds oxygen and one-third carbon. Then you ask, 'What is so dangerous about carbon? .... This is science, pure and simple.' Surely, you are not really trying to make the case that CO2 is harmless. I sincerely hope you are not advocating that, since carbon and oxygen are harmless, CO2 is therefore harmless. What about all the people that suffocate from too much CO2? And, if CO2 is harmless, then surely CO is also harmless and it is just a scam of the public that they are encouraged to buy carbon monoxide detectors for their homes. By your line of reasoning it is just an industry to take money away from poor people. Pure and simple.
As for the rest of your paper, it is pretty amazing that you rant and rave about the lottery being a tax on the stupid and you go on about how people need to stop being uneducated. You say proving AGW is just a matter of simple math, and then you get it all wrong. The worst part is, I had to read this entire thing just to find out you didn't even present any scientific evidence.
The diatribe you went into about the average temperature translating into the daily temperature is so terrible that I need to address it.
Take a look at this graph:
This shows the temperature record for the last 2000 years. Today is the big spike on the right. The big hump in the middle is the Medieval Warm Period deniers keep referring to, followed by the Little Ice Age to the right of it. Notice the average temperature difference between the Little Ice Age and today is about 1.6 degrees C. According to Mr. Jones' logic, that mean the Little Ice Age was having winter temperatures that were less than 3 degrees F colder than what we have today. What's the big deal there?
Take a look at this one:
This is a similar plot, except it goes back 800,000 years instead of 2000. Today is on the left side in this graph. The big dip just to the right of today is the last ice age. Notice that it is only 6 degrees C colder than today. So, the average temperature during the last ice age was all of 11 degrees colder than today's average. Mr. Jones will tell you that is nothing to worry about. Eleven degrees? It changes that much between dawn and noon every day.
Oops, that's the part Mr. Jones never mentioned. Averaging takes out all of those daily variations. Given a large number of a given date (June 11th, for instance), the daily ups and downs will average out. In order to have an average temperature that is different than that long-term average, you would have to have temperature extremes far greater than the change in average. An eleven degree average difference would result in daily temperature changes of many tens of degrees. In this case, enough to take a continent covered with a mile-thick sheet of ice and melt every bit of it.
Mr. Jones then goes into this silly and senseless math exercise of trying to make all of the world's fossil fuel emitters into one, big pollution pipe. His argument is that this pipe is so small compared to the size of the planet that it can't possibly make a difference. Then, he implores people to accept this as common sense and to stop being uneducated.
In response, I would just point out the Keeling curve I included above showing how we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. Apparently, that big pollution pipeline is fully capable of changing the planet.
In any event, the paper had no science in it and anything that approached being a scientific argument above has been debunked.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
A personal note to Mr. Keating on this challenge: You are very cleaver in stating “climate change” in the descriptor of the challenge. What exactly IS climate change? From August to February we undergo SEVERE “climate change” do we not? After all, going from 98 degrees on Aug. 20 to 15 degrees on Feb. 8 is pretty severe, yes? But is man the cause of that? In fact, the fallibility in your challenge is in the term, “man-made” or “man-caused”.
There are many that will cite increase activity in storms or hurricanes, extreme weather anomalies like tornadoes, floods and droughts but history is filled with documented cases of storms and extreme weather anomalies well before the 19th century and the industrial revolution, but was man the cause of those events? The TITLE of this challenge is “Global Warming Skeptic Challenge” so I will address my submission to this title, “Global WARMING Skeptic Challenge.” If my submission effectively shows, using a purely scientific approach, that man-caused activity is not the cause of global warming, then YOU must show me, using the same scientific approach, how my submission fails your challenge. I will provide evidence and testable and verifiable data along with the sources. In your refutation, YOU must provide evidence and testable data to disprove my submission. I look forward to your reply!
A PERSPECTIVE TO CONSIDER:
If I hypothesize that showing popcorn commercials is the primary cause of increases in sales of popcorn at my movie theater, then I should be able to demonstrate, with verifiable data, that the more popcorn commercials I show, the higher my popcorn sales by the same ratio. To claim that it is the cause requires consistent and provable data. For example, if my popcorn sales average $100 per movie with no popcorn commercials, and I show 1 commercial per movie and my sales increase to $110, and then I show 2 commercials per movie and my sales increase to $120, then I can reasonably conclude that my hypothesis might be correct. But if continued data reveals that showing 3 or 4 commercials results in my sales lowering to $115 per movie and then I show no commercials and I sell $130 in popcorn during that movie, then I MUST conclude that the commercials, while possibly helping, cannot be the causal factor of my increase in sales since a consistent correlation is not represented in the continued data.
This will be my scientific method to Mr. Keating’s challenge! While man-caused pollution can certainly be a CONTRIBUTING factor (just like dumping my bottle of water into a flooding river is contributing to the flooding), it cannot be concluded to be the causal factor!