KiwiBuzzJuly 23, 2014 at 10:56 PM
Christopher Keating,
From what you have already said, it seems to me that no one will succeed in winning your prize. As you are both judge and jury, you will always find some reason to dispute any argument that the sceptics bring up.
If you are not convinced by this evidence, nothing will convince you.
1 the world has not warmed for the last 17 years thus proving that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming. (That it causes some warming is not in doubt, but we can now be certain that it is not large.)
2 the climate models cannot predict El Nino events which is the major climate disturbance. This proves that they are not an accurate model of the Earth's climate system and proves that they are worthless.
3 the climate models have never been properly validated as they should be (proof is in the fact that they have failed to make accurate predictions) and they are not fed with accurate input data because it is not possible to gather accurate data from all over the world for a single time period. Therefore they are worthless.
4 sea levels have not risen at any abnormal rate and proof of this is provided by the extremely accurate sea level gauges installed by the Bureau of Meteorology all around the Australian Coast and in the Pacific Islands.
5 studies of sunspot defects and other natural cycles tell us there is a high probability that the world has started on a cooling cycle. A vast amount of evidence demonstrates that when a short sunspot cycle is followed by a long sun spot cycle - as has recently happened - the next sunspot cycle is cold
6 it is often claimed that various phenomena are signs of increased warming. Maybe they are. But this is not prove it is man made or that it is caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels.
7 it is often claimed that the world is warmer than it has been for the last thousand years and therefore any further warming would be seriously abnormal. But as glaziers retreat in Greenland, they reveal the ruins of old farmhouses and recent evidence is that, 5800 years ago, the European Alps were devoid of glaziers.
8 1000 years ago during the Middle Ages warm period, the Polynesians voyaged backwards and forwards to New Zealand. To do this in open canoes, required calm seas and warm weather. Otherwise they would have died of exposure. When the Little ice age came along, two-way voyaging stopped.
But, as noted, I suspect that none of this will convince you. I fear that you will remain supremely confident that the failed models are the Word of God.
From what you have already said, it seems to me that no one will succeed in winning your prize. As you are both judge and jury, you will always find some reason to dispute any argument that the sceptics bring up.
If you are not convinced by this evidence, nothing will convince you.
1 the world has not warmed for the last 17 years thus proving that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming. (That it causes some warming is not in doubt, but we can now be certain that it is not large.)
2 the climate models cannot predict El Nino events which is the major climate disturbance. This proves that they are not an accurate model of the Earth's climate system and proves that they are worthless.
3 the climate models have never been properly validated as they should be (proof is in the fact that they have failed to make accurate predictions) and they are not fed with accurate input data because it is not possible to gather accurate data from all over the world for a single time period. Therefore they are worthless.
4 sea levels have not risen at any abnormal rate and proof of this is provided by the extremely accurate sea level gauges installed by the Bureau of Meteorology all around the Australian Coast and in the Pacific Islands.
5 studies of sunspot defects and other natural cycles tell us there is a high probability that the world has started on a cooling cycle. A vast amount of evidence demonstrates that when a short sunspot cycle is followed by a long sun spot cycle - as has recently happened - the next sunspot cycle is cold
6 it is often claimed that various phenomena are signs of increased warming. Maybe they are. But this is not prove it is man made or that it is caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels.
7 it is often claimed that the world is warmer than it has been for the last thousand years and therefore any further warming would be seriously abnormal. But as glaziers retreat in Greenland, they reveal the ruins of old farmhouses and recent evidence is that, 5800 years ago, the European Alps were devoid of glaziers.
8 1000 years ago during the Middle Ages warm period, the Polynesians voyaged backwards and forwards to New Zealand. To do this in open canoes, required calm seas and warm weather. Otherwise they would have died of exposure. When the Little ice age came along, two-way voyaging stopped.
But, as noted, I suspect that none of this will convince you. I fear that you will remain supremely confident that the failed models are the Word of God.
Response:
These are tired, old claims that have all be thoroughly debunked, including in previous submissions. But, I'll go through them again.
1. You look at the 7% of heating taking place in the atmosphere while ignoring the 93% that is taking place in the oceans. Take a look at the total ocean heat content and tell me again about how there has been no warming for the last 17 years:
2. You start with a true statement, go into the realm of unreality and end up in the land of 'WTF!'. It is true models cannot predict El Ninos. No, it does not prove anything about models except they can't predict El Ninos. This certainly doesn't prove they are 'worthless.' Do your homework. Besides, the accuracy of models has nothing to do with disproving the reality of AGW. The argument about models is a false argument.
3. How many false statements can you put into one sentence? Apparently, quite a few. Start with my posting on the subject. This is enough to show just how false your statement is. If that isn't enough for you, do an Internet search on 'climate model accuracy' and read something besides denier blogs.
4. I am not sure what is defined as an 'abnormal rate', but here is a plot of sea level rise from NOAA. Would you like to claim there is no sea level rise?
5. You finally got something at least partly correct - the solar activity is decreasing and we are in a naturally occurring cooling cycle. If left to itself, the climate would be cooling right now, not warming. We are the difference between the natural cooling cycle and the actual warming.
6. You are right again. You cannot seize on one piece of evidence and claim it is proof of anything. However, the amount of scientific evidence supporting the reality of man made global warming is monumental. I have discussed many of these pieces of evidence in my postings and it is easy to find this information on the Internet. Now, if it is impossible to prove AGW with one, or even 8 pieces of evidence, why do you think you can prove it isn't real with just 8 pieces of evidence? Especially since we have already seen that some of them are invalid and at least one (number 5) works to help prove AGW is real?
7. Yeah, so? The climate changes. You know how we know that? Because climate scientists have figured it out through dent of hard work. Again, take a look at my posting about natural cycles and the graphics that it contains.The fact that there are natural cycles to the climate says nothing about the recent trend until you can show that what we are seeing today is a natural cycle. In your point number 5 you yourself showed how this is not a naturally occurring warming cycle.
8. I do not know if this tidbit of knowledge is accurate, but it is irrelevant. The climate changes, we know that. So, what? One more time, take a look at my comments about naturally occurring cycles.
You are partly wrong in your final statement. Some of these points have actually worked to help convince me AGW is real and they should do the same for you, since you are the one that brought them up. Instead of worrying about the word of God, you should be more concerned with the reality of the science that you are ignoring.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
1. You look at the 7% of heating taking place in the atmosphere while ignoring the 93% that is taking place in the oceans. Take a look at the total ocean heat content and tell me again about how there has been no warming for the last 17 years:
 | ||||||
| Source: NOAA |
2. You start with a true statement, go into the realm of unreality and end up in the land of 'WTF!'. It is true models cannot predict El Ninos. No, it does not prove anything about models except they can't predict El Ninos. This certainly doesn't prove they are 'worthless.' Do your homework. Besides, the accuracy of models has nothing to do with disproving the reality of AGW. The argument about models is a false argument.
3. How many false statements can you put into one sentence? Apparently, quite a few. Start with my posting on the subject. This is enough to show just how false your statement is. If that isn't enough for you, do an Internet search on 'climate model accuracy' and read something besides denier blogs.
4. I am not sure what is defined as an 'abnormal rate', but here is a plot of sea level rise from NOAA. Would you like to claim there is no sea level rise?
 |
| Source: NOAA |
5. You finally got something at least partly correct - the solar activity is decreasing and we are in a naturally occurring cooling cycle. If left to itself, the climate would be cooling right now, not warming. We are the difference between the natural cooling cycle and the actual warming.
6. You are right again. You cannot seize on one piece of evidence and claim it is proof of anything. However, the amount of scientific evidence supporting the reality of man made global warming is monumental. I have discussed many of these pieces of evidence in my postings and it is easy to find this information on the Internet. Now, if it is impossible to prove AGW with one, or even 8 pieces of evidence, why do you think you can prove it isn't real with just 8 pieces of evidence? Especially since we have already seen that some of them are invalid and at least one (number 5) works to help prove AGW is real?
7. Yeah, so? The climate changes. You know how we know that? Because climate scientists have figured it out through dent of hard work. Again, take a look at my posting about natural cycles and the graphics that it contains.The fact that there are natural cycles to the climate says nothing about the recent trend until you can show that what we are seeing today is a natural cycle. In your point number 5 you yourself showed how this is not a naturally occurring warming cycle.
8. I do not know if this tidbit of knowledge is accurate, but it is irrelevant. The climate changes, we know that. So, what? One more time, take a look at my comments about naturally occurring cycles.
You are partly wrong in your final statement. Some of these points have actually worked to help convince me AGW is real and they should do the same for you, since you are the one that brought them up. Instead of worrying about the word of God, you should be more concerned with the reality of the science that you are ignoring.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
