1) Measure global temperature changes starting from the date of your (Mr. Keating) choice (50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200, etc - your choice) to the present. Write down the rate of change of the temperature rise.
2) Measure the global output of carbon from 2 different ranges: start at any date you want go up to 1980. Then measure the carbon output from 1980 to the present. Write down the rate of change from those two different date-ranges.
3) Compare the rates of rising temperatures to the rates of increased carbon emissions. Whatever data you use, you will see that as the rates of carbon emissions go up, the rates of temperature rise goes down. Yes, temperatures are still rising, but at a much slower rate than carbon emissions.
In other words, as carbon emissions go up, temperature goes down. The data is crystal clear.
I have just proved that carbon emissions, if anything, actually lower global temperatures. Is this a bad thing? YES. Should we work to reduce carbon emissions? PERHAPS. But I still dis-proved man-made global warming. I fully expect the $10,000 prize, assuming that I'm the first to put this argument forward. I have already presented this argument to several law professors the University of North Carolina, who all agree that my argument is sound and that your offer is legally binding.
I look forward to hearing from you. I can be contacted via my website listed below.
This is actually a good example to use in your classroom. It is an example of a false argument. The reason it is false is that you have selected an isolated part of the globe to qualify as "global" warming while leaving out the biggest piece of the equation in the hope that the audience doesn't notice. Where is ocean warming in your logic? Show me that the "globe" hasn't been warming as CO2 levels increase.
So, let's do just what you asked, but be sure to use the total heat content of the planet and not just one isolated part. "Global warming" means the whole globe, not just one part.
For the CO2 levels, I used the Keeling curve at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the most authoritative reference. This is the data they have since the 1950s:
We can get the CO2 level for any period of choice starting at anytime since the late 1950s.
For the heat content, I used the global ocean heat content from NOAA:
Using these plots I got the following start/finish/change values for the CO2 (rounding to the nearest increment of five):
From the ocean heat content I got these figures:
You stated in your challenge:
Whatever data you use, you will see that as the rates of carbon emissions go up, the rates of temperature rise goes down. Yes, temperatures are still rising, but at a much slower rate than carbon emissions.Then, I divided the change in heat content by the change in CO2 to get the rate of change in heat per rate of change of CO2. Here are the results:
As the rate of increase in CO2 increases, the rate of temperature increase gets even larger. By your standard in your challenge, this completely blows the roof off denier claims.
Note a couple of important points from this data. First, the so-called 'pause' did not happen. Surface temperature is not rising at the same rate as before, but the ocean heat content is continuing to increase. Second, notice that as the rate of CO2 increase goes up, the rate of heat content increase goes up even faster. And, remember, the heat stored in the land, air and ice is not included in these calculations. The rate of increase in heat content would be even greater if that extra heat was included.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real. In fact, you gave some very definitive proof that it is real.