med4kmdJuly 2, 2014 at 2:19 PM
Unfortunately, your link didn't work re: natural cycles.
I am restating my submission here per the scientific method.
Question: Does man made climate change exist?
Hypothesis: Man made climate change as such does not exist as an entity unto itself.Please see my entire argument above.
Experiment: I propose to choose one type of tree to conduct the experiment. I suggest to use very large clear glass jars that have a thermometer and CO2 analyzer within the jar. Choose a young small sapling that would fit the jar by having the jar placed over the sapling with the smaller, top part turned upside down to bury the top 1/3 part of the jar. This will allow for the sapling to grow and to be watered, albeit not within the jar system but around it. Take temperature and CO2 measurements at the same time each day for 30-60 days. Repeat at the same time with a piece of dead wood just laying on the ground (from the same type of tree), and with a jar placed in the ground without any tree. Also include a set of jars the same way, but with a piece of partially burned coal within each jar to mimic the greenhouse gases.Ideally, there should be a similar amount of soil and no other vegetation growing within the jar. All ground areas should get just as much water as the sapling. After 30-60 days, graph the measurements to see if the trends.
Results: (note: as I am disabled, I cannot conduct these experiments in the way they need to be conducted, however I have put alot of thought into it and expect to see differences. It would be ideal to repeat the set of experiments using first no water around the jars, then nearly soaking the area around the jars, thereby increasing the power of the experiment).
Conclusion: As I cannot perform the experiments myself, I cannot equivocally give a conclusion. Taking into account my lengthy argument above, I expect to see similar CO2 & temp (relative to the others) in the jars with the coal and the empty jar Next highest temps would be the dead wood, with the least amount of CO2 in the jar with the sapling. Though I am not sure what to expect with the set of jars set in waterlogged areas vs dry, I'd expect higher CO2 & temp levels in the dry set than the waterlogged set, with the average water set somewhere in between. What will be interesting is to see if the differences are statistically significant.
So please consider this my submission, together with my several paragraphs above.
Thank you.
I am restating my submission here per the scientific method.
Question: Does man made climate change exist?
Hypothesis: Man made climate change as such does not exist as an entity unto itself.Please see my entire argument above.
Experiment: I propose to choose one type of tree to conduct the experiment. I suggest to use very large clear glass jars that have a thermometer and CO2 analyzer within the jar. Choose a young small sapling that would fit the jar by having the jar placed over the sapling with the smaller, top part turned upside down to bury the top 1/3 part of the jar. This will allow for the sapling to grow and to be watered, albeit not within the jar system but around it. Take temperature and CO2 measurements at the same time each day for 30-60 days. Repeat at the same time with a piece of dead wood just laying on the ground (from the same type of tree), and with a jar placed in the ground without any tree. Also include a set of jars the same way, but with a piece of partially burned coal within each jar to mimic the greenhouse gases.Ideally, there should be a similar amount of soil and no other vegetation growing within the jar. All ground areas should get just as much water as the sapling. After 30-60 days, graph the measurements to see if the trends.
Results: (note: as I am disabled, I cannot conduct these experiments in the way they need to be conducted, however I have put alot of thought into it and expect to see differences. It would be ideal to repeat the set of experiments using first no water around the jars, then nearly soaking the area around the jars, thereby increasing the power of the experiment).
Conclusion: As I cannot perform the experiments myself, I cannot equivocally give a conclusion. Taking into account my lengthy argument above, I expect to see similar CO2 & temp (relative to the others) in the jars with the coal and the empty jar Next highest temps would be the dead wood, with the least amount of CO2 in the jar with the sapling. Though I am not sure what to expect with the set of jars set in waterlogged areas vs dry, I'd expect higher CO2 & temp levels in the dry set than the waterlogged set, with the average water set somewhere in between. What will be interesting is to see if the differences are statistically significant.
So please consider this my submission, together with my several paragraphs above.
Thank you.
I am again writing as a continuation of my earlier post. My original one was lost in cyberspace so I hope this one "takes."
After carefully considering the wording of your challenge, I am afraid it is too vague for anyone to answer to your satisfaction as you have not provided clear definitions of "climate change" & "man made". Therefore I believe most people have taken these terms to refer to global warming caused by effects of man made emissions over time. At least this is the understanding I am working under. Still, as I really could use the money and am interested in a good discussion of the topic, I continue with my response.
Employing the "scientific method" as much as possible, I am saying that climate change as such is not a (wholly) man made effect. By using the science of dendrochronology (the study of tree rings), with the understanding that trees provide varying beneficial effects for man & the earth. Trees provide shade, nutrition (for man, animal, insects, etc), protection against erosion, heat, severe rain, and other severe weather. Trees produce oxygen while metabolizing CO2. The wood they provide gives warmth through shelter and fire. They also provide information on growth & weather patterns via their rings. Rings tend to be thicker and further apart from others during "good" growth years, correlating with warm, moist weather. Thinner rings closer to each other reflect colder, drier weather.
As trees are found all over the planet, including those that grow surrounded by water, in Siberia, in the tropics, some living hundreds, even thousand of years, we have a good, reproducible record that is fairly easy to assess, record, and compare. This helps greatly as we can all agree natural weather patterns tend to be cyclic, and this helps to understand those cycles better to predict future ones.
(Continued below)
After carefully considering the wording of your challenge, I am afraid it is too vague for anyone to answer to your satisfaction as you have not provided clear definitions of "climate change" & "man made". Therefore I believe most people have taken these terms to refer to global warming caused by effects of man made emissions over time. At least this is the understanding I am working under. Still, as I really could use the money and am interested in a good discussion of the topic, I continue with my response.
Employing the "scientific method" as much as possible, I am saying that climate change as such is not a (wholly) man made effect. By using the science of dendrochronology (the study of tree rings), with the understanding that trees provide varying beneficial effects for man & the earth. Trees provide shade, nutrition (for man, animal, insects, etc), protection against erosion, heat, severe rain, and other severe weather. Trees produce oxygen while metabolizing CO2. The wood they provide gives warmth through shelter and fire. They also provide information on growth & weather patterns via their rings. Rings tend to be thicker and further apart from others during "good" growth years, correlating with warm, moist weather. Thinner rings closer to each other reflect colder, drier weather.
As trees are found all over the planet, including those that grow surrounded by water, in Siberia, in the tropics, some living hundreds, even thousand of years, we have a good, reproducible record that is fairly easy to assess, record, and compare. This helps greatly as we can all agree natural weather patterns tend to be cyclic, and this helps to understand those cycles better to predict future ones.
(Continued below)
- Turning to weather reports - those have been recorded in a consistent way since about 1880. As this correlated with the Industrial Revolution occurring in many countries at this time, it is difficult to extrapolate detailed information prior to this due to lack of records. Though there are some time periods for which we know something about the weather, i.e. the Little Ice Age, it is often not enough to make definitive statements about that time period.ReplyDelete
Perhaps, the trends that are being discussed today are not being interpreted correctly. There appears to be a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but it is not a linear, or bell-shaped, nor any shape relationship.Still, there is a concern that the changes observed are strictly man made, due to "greenhouse emissions." Though there many that believe there is a correlation between emissions and climate change, it is not an easy one to grasp or define.
Maybe it's the way people look at the various factors. For example, think about the following: You live next door to a small family - a lovely middle age couple with their young adult daughter. We know the dad's height is 6 feet, mom's height is 5'4". What is the daughter's height? Well, this is nearly impossible to answer. The law of averages would say she should be somewhere in between her parent's height - so about 5'7". However, we don't know her true age (in order to suspect whether or not she is finished growing) or if she has any health problems that could affect her growth/height. Also, is everyone measured in their bare feet, or do the women have 4" heels on? By the same token, we have some measurements dealing with the climate which seem to have a correlation, but comparisons show the relationships are not straightforward and it is extremely difficult to assess all potential contributing factors.
It could be that at least some of what we are observing through these measurements are due to effects of which man is only partly to blame. Again, I will use trees as an example. Over the last 50 years or so, we have seen the detrimental effects man has experienced due to a significant reduction in the number of trees and forests. Keeping in mind all of the beneficial effects I listed above for trees (for which now I will just use the word "protection" to define), reducing their numbers would cause less protection from the elements, leading to even more detriment in a domino effect. Though many trees are removed by man, many are also destroyed in fires started by lightning, swept away by avalanches, ruined by disease, etc. Removal of 1 or 2 trees by whatever means would not be enough to effect a very noticeable change, removal of a critical number of them would allow for damage to viewed in a somewhat domino effect. Hurricanes often remind us of this. Damage is not only done by the winds, but by waterlogging, resulting in water damage with subsequent mold and mildew growth that can result in lots of clean up and restoration, possibly leading to illness due to stress, allergy, infection, etc. 
Remembering that trees take in CO2, producing oxygen, perhaps the increased CO2/temperature effects are more from a reduction in tree population (planet wise) than from emissions. Just as the human body will show variations temperature, metabolics, respiration depending on stress, nutritional level, etc in an attempt to heal itself, the earth will show variations against time of whatever is being measured. As the atmosphere acts as a protective covering between the earth and space, it also acts as something of a sieve to minimize effects of those things that enter the atmosphere which could potentially be detrimental - i.e. it filters sunlight and burns up meteors and space debris. It would make sense that certain elements and gases that enter the atmosphere are also put through this sieve and the increased temperatures recorded could just be the earth's attempt to rid itself of these elements/gases. This atmospheric "sieve" would be something like a secondary protection the earth itself has sensing that in the case of CO2 and trees, that once some certain amount of CO2 enters the atmosphere likely due to a reduction in trees for any reason, the excess CO2 will be burned up, allowing the earth to try to balance itself out.ReplyDelete- Granted, my argument by virtue of what I propose would require testing I cannot do, I provide a logical argument for my position. It would help to have some clear definitions to this challenge as well. I notice that you do not use natural climate cycles as a valid argument, but I don't understand why. By the same token, I don't accept that these effects are fully man made as per my points above. I hope you will take all this into consideration for your challenge. I must say I agree with those who state the challenge needs to be better defined, with the help of an impartial 3rd party, especially as it involves a substantial reward. I am hopeful you will be fair in you judgement, as there was a similar challenge a few years back by "junkscience.com" albeit for a $500,000 US reward that was never awarded for a lack of a convincing argument for the 5 responses they said they received. I get that this is to help promote your new book, but please thoughtfully consider other points of view.Thank you.
Response:
To begin with, I'm not sure I see any argument that man made global warming is not real. You propose some kind of experiment and I don't know what the relevance of the experiment is. What are you testing and how does it relate to the issue of man made global warming? Even if there was something to this experiment, you stated that you did not do it and you do not know what the results would be.
The next thing I think you claim is that we don't know where the CO2 is coming from . Yes, we do. Fossil fuel burning puts out CO2 with a different mix of isotopes than naturally occurring CO2. We can track those isotopes and are able to identify the extra CO2 in the atmosphere as coming from our fossil fuel burning.
You stated you don't understand why I don't use natural cycles as a valid argument. In fact, I do allow natural cycles and cite them frequently. What I don't allow is the false argument that the warm period we are observing today is just a natural cycle. The evidence shows that the natural cycle we are currently in is a cool cycle, not a warm one. So, natural cycles do not explain why we are experiencing a warming trend.
I, again, deny any claim that the challenge is not well defined. It is very simple: You say you can prove man made global warming is not real and you can prove it. I am giving you a venue to do so. That is all there is to it. If you do not understand that claim then you either don't make it, and this challenge is not for you, or you need to stop making the claim.
You also state I am doing this to promote my book. Anyone that believes that doesn't know anything about publishing books. 98% of all books written will sell fewer than 1000 copies. I don't know what this figure is for science-oriented books, but I am sure it is significantly less. You write books because you want to, not because you think you'll make money.
You also compared my challenge to the JunkScience challenge. This challenge is actually in response to the JunkScience (what an appropriate name) challenge and precedes my book by several years. In fact, I was one of those five people that submitted to the JunkScience challenge and I started my challenge shortly after in response. I made my submission because I didn't want him to be able to say no one could do it.
Since you mention that challenge and criticized me about the judging, I want to point out that the JunkScience challenge also had the challenger as the sole judge. One big difference was that I have posted my responses to all challenges. JunkScience did not post any response other than to say no one won the challenge. Why not? What was he afraid of? Another big difference is that he charged a $15 submission fee, while I charge nothing.
Now, tell me who is more credible?
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
