Saturday, August 23, 2014

External Factors


These things, tidal waves, heat and electricity, are all important in our ecosystem here on Earth and in many applications of which we employ every day. But they are not dictated solely by what we do or what happens here. Same could be said about the climate. While it is evident that a large portion of the impact is caused by environmental conditions in our ecosystem, it is indefinite which factors and objects of interest may be caused by something from outside our planet. In many cases, you'll note that the amount of outlying change and outstanding conditions is very few. These are conditions that we claim the ability to track through our experimentation, but are not able to confirm solely because we cannot disprove their reliance upon outside factors.

For instance, when you notice the temperature is 2 degrees above what it should be according to the existing factors. You may come to the conclusion that this is due to a certain gaseous chemical in the air, or an excess in electrical currents in the air. But there is some chance that somewhere out there, there is a small percentage of radiation caused by the explosion of a star, that had the luck of traveling through space to our planet and causing this condition that we are exhibiting.

My point is, no matter how preposterous it may seem, there could be something out there that is causing it, and until we can prove global warming or disprove every other possibility there is no way to have a definite answer.

So I am choosing to disprove global warming based off the idea of such hypothetical external factors. The universe is much more vast than that of what we know, and I'd find there a greater possibility that something near or far is causing the conditions you call proof rather than some chain reaction that we don't have the full story on.


Response:

This is an interesting idea and we are actually engaged in studying just such a factor - cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are extremely high energy particles coming from the universe. It is believed they are created when a star goes supernova. These particles actually have so much energy, and there are so many of them, they are capable of making changes in the cloud cover.

The research has indicated that the amount of effects due to cosmic rays is responsible for only small fraction of the observed warming. So, your premise is interesting and has scientific merit to it, but it is not the cause of global warming. I had a previous submission on cosmic rays that I responded to here.

You did not prove man made global warming is not real.


206 comments:

  1. What a mishmash of misinformation. The world has been warmer than today and at that time there was no ice in Antarctica or Greenland and the sea was 60 metres higher. Sure we could grow different crops in Canada. Try telling the farmers in Texas that they must go and farm a swamp in what is now Tundra and all their homeland is desert. http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/climate-threats.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.tylervigen.com/ This is a pretty funny site you might like to refer to at some point.



    It's called Spurious Correlations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Someone put a lot of work into that website. It makes a good point, though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well I for one have enjoyed all your posts and admired your diligence, patience and prose. Even if you did not convert a single Denier you have given those of us with to much time and not enough sense to stay out of the argument plenty of ammunition and links to relevant facts that will keep the die hard Deniers deleting our comments for years to come.
    And once more thanks again for your time, patience and professionalism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have very much enjoyed every minute of your challenge. One of the highlight of my day was to I read the new submissions as they came in and your responses. I've argued with global warming deniers on many occasions and I've heard most of these arguments before. I've even come up with my own set of counter argument to the standard anti-global warming talking points. Your responses addressed them in ways I hadn't seen before and gave me new ammunition to help deal all the nonsense out there.


    I think it is very important for scientists engage in the public debate and not cede playing field to politicians, propagandists, and the fossil fuel industry. I think you have done a great service to everyone.


    I'm hoping that the new challenge you've been talking about comes to pass. In the mean time I will be reading you blog and contributing where I can.


    Thanks for all your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks. I have been passively looking for judges and that has been unsuccessful, to no surprise. Now that I have more time I will get more active in searching for judges and will hopefully have the challenge going early next year.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks. It is good to know there were people getting something from all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks. Nice comments. I agree with you about denialism and I have seen a strong correlation between people who reject global warming and those that reject evolution. I guess if you're going to reject science once, might as well do it twice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I thought it was a great set of posts It's nice to have the wide variety of ways that people abuse logic to prove that a rational idea is irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We always get asked why we would even bother having arguments with people who seem religiously committed to denying that AGW exists.

    We don't have the arguments to convince them. We have the arguments for the observers, and because in order to be able to make your argument well, you have to practice it, and you have to understand all the many ways that reasonable arguments can be undermined by unreasonable logic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would really like to expand this and see it turn into something that could be used in the larger debate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also interesting -http://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2014/09/01/1027557_antarctica-ice-melt-rising-sea-levels.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for sharing that. I hadn't seen it before. Now, I'm wondering if this might not be the part of the reason why Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The lower the salt content, the easier it is to freeze the water.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I thought for a moment that Dr Inferno was back in business. Looks like these people could take the baton that he dropped a couple of years ago.

    I doubt they'll ever surpass the classics though.

    http://denialdepot.blogspot.ca/2010/11/how-to-cook-graph-skepticalsciencecom.html
    http://denialdepot.blogspot.ca/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growth.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those were pretty dismal. You have to wonder about the kind of mentality that would actually believe what he was saying. Thanks for sharing those links.

    ReplyDelete
  16. David R. CrutchfieldSeptember 5, 2014 at 10:14 AM

    Well, no absolute proof that man is not having any affect on global weather, but at best it is insignificant.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855?mod=Opinion_newsreel_2

    ReplyDelete
  17. Like I keep saying, the only way someone can deny manmade global warming is to reject science. You are the latest in a long line of people to prove my point.

    ReplyDelete
  18. All of those statements were submitted as evidence during the challenge and completely debunked. Funny thing is that not a single one of those five scientific reasons are scientific. If you are going to believe that these are proof that AGW isn't real then there really is no amount of science or logic that could ever change your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David R. CrutchfieldSeptember 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM

    So the article link that talks about the science of how the Earth is cooling, is not science?

    ReplyDelete
  20. There are a number of contrarian claims that the planet is actually cooling, or that CO2 leads to cooling. This is not only a false argument, but it is not supported by any science and scientifically valid evidence. So, no, it is not science.

    Take a look at this article:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/


    This is another excellent article on the subject, but is a bit more technical:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

    ReplyDelete
  21. yo creo q se refiere al cambio climatico por las grandes explosiones del sol emite gran cantidad de radiacion habra dias q seran muy largos y noches tambien esto c le llama niburu
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTqpYaeY_0

    ReplyDelete
  22. My Spanish isn't quite what I would like it to be, but I believe this person is pointing at explosions on the Sun as the cause of global warming. If that is the case then, sorry, that isn't correct. Solar activity has actually decreasing over the last several decades.

    ReplyDelete
  23. y devido a esto la capa de ozono se devilita causando un gran calentamiento global por q los polos se derriten fin a mi ddiscurso
    Subject: Re: New comment posted on Dialogues On Global Warming: The $30, 000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I would challenge you to disprove the 4 laws - not theories but laws - of thermodynamics. I would also like to see core samples of out ozone layer to determine if the composition of our ozone has successful increased - significantly - the repulsion or transmission of more thermal energy in our planet.

    Come talk to us when you give us a new universal constant for the Cp/Cv values of air. I would love to create more efficient devices to lower our emissions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I really don't know what to make of this comment.

    First, the laws of thermodynamics are actually theories, not laws. A law is something that is valid for all time and all places, which we obviously can't test. The title 'law' is used because we believe (for reason) that this is actually the case, but that does not mean we have stopped testing them.

    But, I happen to be firmly convinced the laws of thermodynamics are valid, with the possible exception of quantum fluctuations for very brief periods of time.

    Core samples are taken of solids, not gases or liquids, so we cannot take core samples of the atmosphere. The ozone layer is highly efficient at absorbing ultraviolet light (absorbing 97% - 99% of incoming UV light) and this is well established. There is nothing new or controversial about that statement. It does not interact with thermal energy very well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer


    I really don't know what the question is in the last paragraph. I don't even want to try answering it because it is just too weird and I'm afraid I'll say something that will be taken the wrong way.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Professor: Is "rebound" really the word to describe 2013? It seems to me that it was in line with the general trend throughout the satellite record period. By my lights, 2013 simply represented an average bad arctic year that luckily avoided a cataclysmic storm like the one in 2012 which caused the anomalous drop in sea ice. 2014, by dipping below 2013, and almost every other year in the satellite record, demonstrates that the slow crawl to total arctic sea ice collapse continues. It's in line with the slow increase and atmospheric temperatures and the rapid increase in ocean heat. It all just keeps rolling on.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That is very valid question. I refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which defines 'rebound' as "to increase or improve after a recent decrease or decline," (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebound). But, as you said, 2013 was really just an average bad year and 2012 was the one that was anomalous. So, I think you're point is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Dr. Keating: Emboldened by your challenge, I decided to evangelize. As no good deed goes unpunished, today I was confronted with a screed, or argument, or something approximating one or the other. I was wondering if you might have seen it before? It is a response to my question whether the denier had read the NAS booklet or seen its video, my point being that there are multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate AGW. I reproduce it now in all its glory, so to speak, and I'm sensitive, I suppose, to the distinct possibility that its author may have been seriously drunk when writing it. I fully understand you willingly subjected yourself to a month of inanity and I, in fairness should shield you from this, but, well, I don't know man, I just thought of you.

    "I don't have to read the pamphlet to know that their methodology is flawed. Here let's see what the pamphlet says: "like all science, is a process of collective learning that
    relies on the careful gathering and analyses of data, the formulation of hypotheses, the development of models to study key processes and make testable predictions, and the combined use of observations and models to test scientific understanding. Simply put, there are proven scientific and mathematical methods" So what test methods were actually performed? Well Page 3 specifically sites widespread measurement which couldn't possibly cover enough area to be accurate, and if you further look into their methodology points to...Proxy Data. So let's put this in order in order. Their methodology is cherry picked per a social agenda and is fed into models that have been proven to be grossly inaccurate. Show me their parametrization! Why because quantitative data has routinely shown that their models for the diffusion of heat are flawed. Or perhaps the silence is telling. Let's look at NASA, NASA when was the last Buckingham Pi parametrization of Mesoscale Heat Fluxes for General Circulation Models change 20 years ago you say? Hmm how about you IPCC, 14 years and your boundary scale parametrization models are proven to be grossly flawed as well? Clearly they don't have the whole story nor understand each factors influence."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Never mind. It's the models. The models we will always have with us.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I guess I should be flattered that you think of me when you meet crazy people. ;)

    To be more serious, you really are wasting your time talking to people like this. Just look at his quote about Buckingham Pi parameterization.I strongly suspect this is something he pulled out to make himself look impressive. Here's a reference on the subject and I don't see how this is in anyway relevant to what he is saying.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C0932%3AUSTTPM%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    This is a common example of people that think they know more than all of the scientists in the world There is even a name for it: Dunning-Kruger Effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    These people are convinced they have found the one fatal flaw that all other people have missed. There is no possible way to convince them otherwise and you really are wasting your time when you try.

    When I meet someone like this and they try to get me in a 'discussion' (read argument or debate), I ask them one question - Is it possible for anyone to say or do anything that will change your mind? If they say, 'No,' I move on and save myself a lot of time and aggravation. I have, literally, never had anyone ever say, 'Yes'.

    What does that tell you?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Christians for Michelle Bachman" are actually a parody group from what I understand. Sometimes it's a bit of a Poe's Law with their memes.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It was all just for a laugh. After the Global Warming Challenge, I was ready to do some laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. That 'thought experiment' was arguable the most useless effort I have yet seen to 'debunk' AGW. So much wrong with it.
    As you point out, where to we draw the line about what the 'root cause' of anything is - probably even the Big Bang isn't the ultimate root cause. This is sophisticated but irrelevant philosophy at its worst.
    Also, the question is: does human activity (ie things that would not be happening if modern human society didn't exist) affect the atmosphere/ocean heat system, and if so, is it causing more heat to be retained in it than would otherwise occur.
    Finally, the somewhat vague (and arguably incorrect) description of the scientific method: "experiments" do not involve "thought experiments". Thought experiments can be part of the hypothesis forming process, and they may be useful to determine if your hypothesis has any prior plausibility (ie doesn't fundamentally contradict theories that are known to be accurate), or they may inform you how to set up actual experiments to try and falsify your hypothesis (attempts at falsification are much more informative than attempts at verifying or 'proving'). A thought experiment (Einstein's Relativity ones are most famous) will still need actual testing in the real world, otherwise it's just a brain fart.

    But this thought experiment didn't even help inform any hypothesis, because it's such a navel gazing excercise.

    ReplyDelete
  34. May I offer a technical criticism of the phrasing of the challenge: "anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring"
    'Proof' is not a term that can really be used within the scientific method, as nothing is ever proven completely (as opposed to Mathematics, where theorems can be proven once and for all). Even a theory as massively supported by evidence like Evolution by Natural Selection has the potential to be completely falsified by some future evidence or experiment (albeit a vanishingly small chance).
    So the challenge should be phrased so that people must FALSIFY the current Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    It would be also necessary to more narrowly define what it is about climate change that is to be challenged: The main 'debate' after all is about global warming (the net accumulation of heat in the earth's atmosphere/ocean system) being primarily cause by human activity, especially the addition of greenhouse gasses (mainly CO2) sourced largely from fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) to the overall carbon cycle.

    If they can convincingly falsify that, ideally they should be able to come up
    with an alternative hypothesis to explain the data we are seeing in
    global temperatures, but this is not really essential to the challenge.
    I would argue that it is clear that CO2 increases are caused by humans (isotopic evidence supports this, and natural sources are not showing any unbalanced input), so should be excluded from the debate.
    There may be another debate to show that temperatures are not actually warming, but again, I would argue that the global warming trend is too well supported by evidence to make this a part of the challenge here.



    From what I've seen, there seems to be a lot of wishy-washy thinking about this challenge, so tightening up the definition would help. Maybe this has already happened, but I've not found it just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There were several submissions where I was convinced they were not serious. But, when I didn't treat them as being serious the submitters got quite angry with me and said I was reneging on the challenge. So, I treated all of them as seriously as I could. But, there were a few times I was sure the submitter was either on drugs, or needed to be.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The challenge was never about 'proving' anything. The challenge was about people who claim global warming is not occurring "and I can prove it!" I have heard and read this statement so many times that I decided to provide a venue for them to do just that. The purpose of the challenge was to show that these people, in fact, cannot do any such thing and need to stop saying they could. As for the wording of the challenge, I would point out I received over 80 submissions from people claiming they could do just that. Here is a list of the submissions, along with a little synopsis of what the challenge claimed:

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. I already did that in my book. The problem is you will reject any
    science that does not support your preconceived conclusion, so I would be absolutely stunned if you were ever good for your word.

    ReplyDelete
  38. There was nothing tongue-in-cheek about the challenge. It was very serious and if someone had been able to produce a valid proof, I would have paid. But, the so-called 'proofs' that were submitted were mostly embarrassingly poor. And, yes, Dunning-Kruger really does run strong in many of the submissions.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh dear.

    That list of scrawny, stumbling excuses for "scientific" analysis is even more depressing than the list of Climate Myths on the Skeptical Science site. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



    You'd think people who were serious about doing work worth x thousand dollars would at least check out the usual forms of these arguments to see whether they're being original/ thorough/ informed enough to make a winning contribution.


    The barrel of disappointment seems to have no bottom. Again.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What is really disappointing is the number of them that truly thought they were disproving all of climate science. In fact, many of them still do.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You're a one man army!

    ReplyDelete
  42. If you haven't, you should catch Jon Stewart's segment on the climate march. Both amusing and depressing. America should be ashamed for allowing such ignorant fools to get elected to Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thank you. I did not see that before. It was excellent. Here is a link to it:

    http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/23/jon-stewart-obliterates-republicans-highlighting-ignorance-climate-change.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. $10,000 to prove a negative . . . uh-huh . . . you bet, Einstein.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ahhh! One of the contrarians that are trying deny science. Every experiment proves a negative, of some kind. For instance, if I tell you the door is locked you can walk over and open it, thus proving a negative. This saying is something contrarians started saying as an excuse for not having to respond to the challenge. It allows them to deny science while still acting like they think they're intelligent.

    The challenge was in response to people stating manmade global warming isn't real and they can prove it - something I hear all the time. So, I provided them a chance to do just that and get $10,000 in the process. But, even with over 80 submissions, no one was able to come even close. Like I keep saying, the only way you can deny AGW is to deny science. And, the contrarian population sure did like to prove me right.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Holy moly. You're just punishing the denialists now.


    I'd like to see a hall of shame erected in which the people who chose money over their species and lied about lead, and tobacco, and now climate science are made properly infamous.

    ReplyDelete
  47. A hall of shame! Now that's an idea. Any suggestions for the initial induction group?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Yes! I vote to induct Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton, Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer, Joe Bast, David Rose, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, all the on-air folks at Fox (except Shep Smith), James Inhofe, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fredrick Seitz.

    On tobacco, Fredrick Seitz (this horrible fellow was catholic in his denialism) and Steve Milloy.

    On lead, Robert Kehoe..

    ReplyDelete
  49. That really is a list. We can call it the Science Denier Hall of Shame.

    There are some other names I can think of. It is an unfortunately long list. Someone that comes to mind right away is Arthur Robinson - the head of the Petition Project.

    Maybe this needs to be a new blog page devoted to just this topic - with its own social media.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nice catch.
    Pangburn's site, which he promotes in a lot of comments columns (I'm not being pejorative about that) is quite technical, and very thorough. A lot of the responses to his postings are of the type "You are not a climatologist, you can't know enough to solve this" which of course is irrelevant if his math and data are correct, or "You are coming at this from a predetermined conclusion", which ditto.
    So, unlike most of the AGW "debunking" (cosmic rays, solar output, etc), Pangburn's AGWunveiled hypothesis stands up under initial quickish scrutinity, but you've put your finger on why; his model which he states includes no AGW term, implicitly includes AGW in some of his "natural phenomena".

    ReplyDelete
  51. It is easy to dismiss someone because they are not what a critic would classify as being a 'scientist' and I see this frequently. There is no real definition of what being a 'scientist' really is. There is no bar or qualifying association like there is for lawyers and doctors, so anyone can call themselves a scientist and there is no way of saying they aren't. But, that does not mean their work is valid. So, we have to take everyone seriously and show if the work is valid, or not. You cannot just dismiss them out of hand. Does it slow down the progress of science? Certainly. But, it is also the way it happens to work.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Oh, the list would be endless if it extended to denial of any science. If you were inclined to compile such a list, you shouldn't exclude Andrew Wakefield, Ken Ham, and Alex Jones.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You have a point. There would need to be some kind of limiting factor or it would go forever.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Arthur Robinson should go back under his bridge.


    Limit it to climate science denial, then. I, for one, wouldn't want to learn enough about Alex Jones to write about him. Same's true of Ken Ham. I watched his debate with Bill Nye and I've seen enough for a lifetime.


    If it had a social media page, could if have a Wall of Shame?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jones and Ham are both climate change deniers haha. You'll never escape having to read about their nonsense!

    rationalwiki.org has some pretty good pages about this stuff. It's not exactly a list of names, but their articles usually touch on the major players.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Unfortunately, I did. It is a very inappropriate name.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You're right lebronjeremy, they are. I liked rationalwiki very much, by the way. Though, I wish I hadn't read the Alex Jones page. I'd managed to block most of his execrable thoughts after Newtown. Dude is freaking sick.

    But if you look at my original idea, the people who I think deserve infamy during their lives and beyond are those who are funded by hyper-moneyed industries to affirmatively lie. Specifically deserving of infamy are people with formal science education. Those people are in a position to fully grok the science and therefore make themselves enemies of their species by sowing doubt where none exists consequently slowing down protective and preventive action. I included the right-wing media overlords because they think up the new ways to sell the ideas of the tiny denialist scientific cabal and they too are funded by extractive industries. But as my entries on lead and tobacco remind me, I'm most concerned with scientists. To that end, I should have included Curry and Lindzen.

    ReplyDelete
  58. A few years ago (before Newtown) I was on the verge of starting a relationship with someone when, one day, I sent her a text asking what she was doing. When she replied, "listening to Alex Jones," I said, "we need to talk." I don't even engage in discussions with his listeners.

    By the way, I wasn't critical of the idea of an anti-science wall of shame (I actually like the idea); I was only commenting on the unfortunate length of the list.

    I'm in agreement, though. Alex Jones and Ken Ham are fools; guys like Watts and Spencer are charlatans and liars and, therefore, more worthy of shame.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The Co2 as a percentage of all gases in the atmosphere has increased
    over the last 100 years by 0.01% yes 0.01%, from 0.03% to 0.04%.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Are you math challenged or are you intentionally lying? The pre-industrial CO2 level was about 280 ppm. Today, the level is about 400 ppm. That is an increase of about 43% (400 - 280/280 x 100%). If you're going to reject science, please don't be so obvious about it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Where's my $30,000? Guess it's about the same as the rest of CO2"Climate Science's" promises = 0!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Are you really deranged enough to think you provided any kind of proof against AGW? You didn't even provide a valid argument. Go back to Spencer and WUWT. If you are going to pull out this kind of 'evidence' then it just goes to show how little you have bothered to do any homework and how much you have been deceived by the denier industry. Your claims are not original, clever, or accurate. I addressed the issue of models many times and devoted a posting on the topic:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html

    ReplyDelete
  63. Andre,

    Sorry for the delay, I'm just catching up with your comment. You wrote:

    You did not prove man made global warming is not real.

    As a scientific skeptic, I have nothing to 'prove'. The AGW assertion is yours. It is you who has the onus of supporting it. But you have not made a good case.

    Manmade global warming [AGW] is a conjecture; an opinion. It is not a hypothesis, because a hypothesis must be able to make repeated, accurate predictions. AGW has never been capable of predicting anything accurately.

    For example, the most significant event by far, for the past 20+ years, is the fact that global warming has stopped.


    None of the GCM's [computer climate models] were able to predict that. And all the alarming predictions have turned out to be flat wrong: disappearing Arctic ice, global warming rising more than 2ºC [it completely stopped rising, many years ago], the eradication of Polar bears, ocean "acidification", increasing extreme weather events, etc., etc. No predictions of global calamity have happened. Not one.

    Finally, regarding your long post trying to explain that CO2 has risen, causing global temperature to rise: that is exactly backward. In fact, changes in CO2 are caused by changes in global temperature (T), not vice-versa.

    There is a mountain of empirical evidence supporting that fact. On all time scales from decades, to hundreds of millennia, ∆CO2 FOLLOWS ∆T. Thus, the alarmist crowd got their causation backward. With their incorrect premise, naturally their conclusion will be incorrect. And it is:

    ∆T causes ∆CO2. Temperature does not follow CO2; CO2 follows temperature.



    I can provide charts from years to hundreds of thousands of years showing that very cause and effect relationship. But there are NO charts I have ever found that show T causing changes in CO2.


    If you can find a chart that shows CO2 causing a subsequent rise in T, please post it. Until then, it is clear that the reason CO2 is rising is because T has been rising. Thus, AGW is a baseless conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This may be the most tired and false of all of the denier claims I received. To be absolutely clear - No, the onus is not on me to prove AGW is real. That has already been done by thousands of climate scientists. And yet, despite the absolute mountain of scientific evidence, there are those that say they are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined by claiming manmade global warming is not real and they can prove it. This challenge was to provide them a venue to do that. The result was that no one could. In fact, no one even came close. There are those, even after more than two months, that say I cheated them and they proved it, but these are people that are living in denial and are actually proving my point - the only way you can deny manmade global warming is to deny science.



    There is nothing about AGW that is an opinion. It is scientific fact. Sorry, anyone that says anything else is rejecting science. Pure and simple. The claim that we have not been able to predict anything accurately is totally false, to a very great degree. But, it is also irrelevant. Climate change is a fact of nature and and not a fact of man's opinion. If you are going to base your objection on any other idea you are automatically wrong. We are talking about nature, not what man thinks of nature.


    I have already gone though your submission and shown how it is not valid. You can accept it, or not. It doesn't matter because nature does not care what you think. The globe is warming, the climate is changing, it is due to manmade emissions and you have not provided even the smallest amount of evidence to suggest otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  65. What an idiotic competition - Climate skeptics accept that mankind has changed things - its the degree of change & temperature increase that is challenged - We accept that a doubling of co 2 will give us a degree of warming or so - but we don't care - a changing climate is natural - an increase in co 2 would be great for humanity up to around 2 degrees - anyone that disagrees is insane - we don't deny natural climate change but!! As alarmists do - they want everything to remain exactly the same which is stupid - 9000 years ago there was half the ice in the Arctic - 14,000 years ago it covered everything - climate change is natural part of life & adapting to it is what humans have always done !! Facts are Co2 has been higher than today - see becks work - see the new paper released based on the end of the last glaciation !!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Christopher Why didn't you take up the 10 k challenge put out a couple of years ago ??

    Here is a challenge to you now - this debate page is setup to debate the IPCC Hypothesis of an enhanced Greenhouse effect (CAGW / AGW / ACC) - the burden of proof is with the Alarmists - I challenge you to show that this Hypothesis (no scientific credibility ) has enough evidence to reject the null Hypothesis & move it to a Theory

    Dana Nuccitelli declined - maybe you have more evidence

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1442196242728601/

    ReplyDelete
  67. I am not aware of what 10 k challenge you are speaking of, but it is irrelevant. I wrote a book showing that AGW is real and completely undeniable by anyone willing to accept science. I am sure you will reject the science in the book and then make offensive statements that provide no proof, but sound exciting. The reason I am sure is because by your very statement you have already shown you reject science. Your statement shows just how little you have bothered to do any homework. For some reason, I have no idea what it was, you decided AGW isn't real and have rejected any science that doesn't conform with your preconceived conclusion.

    IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a review board. Therefore, if he wish to discuss scientific work you need to go to the science produced by the climate scientists, which you clearly have not done.

    The fact is, the science is so overwhelming the only way you can reject it is to reject science. Over 80 people have submitted claims here and not a single one of them showed any scientific validity. If you think you are so clever and smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined, why didn't you make a submission?

    Come back after you've bothered to do some homework, and I don't mean WUWT. Read some credible source instead.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I am amazed at how many deniers claim no one is saying there is no AGW. A have thousands of comments and over 80 challenge submissions right here that proves that statement false. It is also pretty easy to find as many statements made over the years, and continuing today, as you want that shows you are just trying to rewrite history.

    Deniers, and the less offensive contrarians, don't want to admit they were wrong all this time and are now trying to wipe that mistake out by saying it never happened. Well, it did and it is.

    To say we don't care about a changing climate because the climate has always changed is a monumental demonstration of ignorance. When the climate goes through a natural change it takes centuries or millennia to occur. That gives everything a chance to adjust. We are changing the climate in mere decades and things are not adjusting in any kind of manner that is good for us. Read some of my postings on the economic expense of climate change. And, be sure to write a check to your favorite billionaire. They are the ones adjusting - and they are doing it by taking the money of all of us guys on the bottom, including you. Then, you'll make statements like the one you made above. Amazing.

    And, I always love it when deniers make the bold statement that they have 'facts.' No, CO2 has not been higher today at anytime in the last 800,000 years. It was higher than today's millions of years ago, but that is really irrelevant. You want to say it is ok because there have been natural changes in the last 800,000 years, but then you want to dismiss it when it turns out that today is different than anything that occurred over the same time span.

    Do some homework and get your facts straight. Stop believing what you read on WUWT and start thinking for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I posted a resonable reply but as usual, name-calling results. That is because you have no facts. I am not a "denier". That is a juvenile pejorative that has no place in a scientific discussion.

    What, exactly, am I "denying"? The climate always changes. Only Michael Mann claimed that it didn't change prior to the industrial revolution. Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] know that the climate always changes — naturally.

    Your comment is made of assertions, nothing more. But assertions are not enough. We need measurements. Science is nothing without measurements.


    I cannot prove that AGW does not exist. No one can. That would be tantamount to proving a negative. But the fact is that there are no measurements of AGW, which is a belief-based conjecture, not measurement-based. The AGW narrative is seen everywhere in the media. But it is made up entirely of assertions, not of testable measurements.

    There are no measurements quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming, out of the total global warming of ≈0.7ºC over the past century and a half, that are directly attributable to human emissions. If you believe there are such measurements, then post them. Show us the specific fraction of the total global warming that is directly attributable to human emissions. If you can do that, you will be the first — and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.


    So your challenge is to post empirical, testable measurements showing the specific amount of global warming that is putatively caused by human activity. Good luck with that.

    Next, you assert that:

    The globe is warming, the climate is changing, it is due to manmade emissions and you have not provided even the smallest amount of evidence to suggest otherwise.

    You got one out of four. The climate is changing. But of course, the climate always changes, naturally.

    But the globe is not warming. Global warming stopped many years ago:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend

    That is satellite data: the most accurate data there is. I have many similar charts, all showing the same thing: global warming has stopped.

    As for 'manmade emissions', the primary emission is CO2, which has not caused the predicted global warming. As harmless, beneficial CO2 continues to rise, greening the planet, temperature has not followed:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend



    AGW is a conjecture. That is all. There is no proof of AGW. There are no measurements of AGW. It is merely an opinion. To rise to the level of an hypothesis, AGW must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. But the AGW conjecture has never made accurate predictions. Further: those promoting AGW failed to predict the most significant event of the past several decades; the fact that global warming stopped. Even the IPCC now admits that fact. But not one climate model was able to predict it.


    The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore what we observe is neither unusual, nor unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a much greater degree. The fact is that we have been enjoying a truly "Goldilocks" climate, and the "carbon" scare is repeatedly debunked nonsense.


    CO2 is harmless — no global harm has ever been identified due to CO2. CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere: the planet is measurably greening. Agricultural productivity is skyrocketing as a direct response to more CO2. There is no crisis, except in the minds of people who have bought into the measurement-free AGW conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Any discussion on the existence of AGW is not scientific. By definition, a scientific discussion is one that discusses science. There is no science to support the idea that AGW does not exist and an overwhelming amount that shows it is real. So, do not call your claims a scientific discussion. It is a denial of science claim. Nothing more. And, this comment you left is full of examples of that.

    "Only Michael Mann claimed..." Where in the world did you ever come up with something like that and how is it possibly relevant. We know climate changes in natural cycles. The reason we know is because climate scientists have done the hard work to prove it. So what? There is nothing to support any claim that what we are seeing is a natural cycle.

    "Your comment is made of assertions, nothing more." Again, it is so false that it is very weird to even read it. Go to the National Climatic Data Center for all the measurements you want.

    The claim about proving a negative is denier-speak for "I don't know what I'm talking about and have no science to support me, but I want to sound intelligent." Yes, you can prove a negative and every experiment does just that. For starters, I can say the door is locked and you can walk over and prove the negative by opening it.

    The rest of your comment is equally weird. Every point you tried to raise has been previously brought up in challenge submissions and shown to be false. You REALLY did a poor job on your homework.

    You asked, "What, exactly, am I "denying?"" The answer is simple - science.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Once more, that is argument by assertion.

    So instead of asserting that there are measurements, somewhere, suppose you post those measurements. Post empirical, testable measurements, quantifying the specific fraction of a degree of global warming — out of the total of about 0.7ºC of global warming from all sources — that is directly attributable to human emissions.

    I have asked that same question multiple times, only to have you and others give me double talk. But you never post any measurements. Instead, you assert that they exist. Show me.

    Some folks claim that all global warming is due to human activity. But not even the IPCC will say that. Other folks say that "most", or "some" global warming is due to human emissions.

    Those assertions are not science. They are only vague opinions. They are no different than the claim that "every point" I raised has been shown to be false. Shown by whom? Where?

    I am not aware of any such measurements. Those are merely vague, nebulous, baseless claims. All I am asking for is a simple, testable, verifiable measurement showing conclusively that human activity is causing global warming. Instead, all I get are appeals to authority. Not good enough.


    So humor me: post a measurement that I can verify as conclusively quantifying that X amount of human CO2 emissions are causing Y amount of global warming. That would be easy — if human emission are, in fact, causing any part of global warming.



    If you can't do that, you lose the argument. Simple as that. Because baseless assertions are a big FAIL. This is science. Any physical process can be measured scientifically. That includes the temperature rise from human CO2 emissions.


    Quantify that, in a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement, and I will concede the argument. But as I said above: if you can post such a measurement, you will be the first to be able to do so. You want that Nobel Prize, don't you?


    Finally: it has been proven beyond any doubt that changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in global temperature (T), on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. But there are no measuerements which show that changes in T are caused by changes in CO2. [I can post measurements for you, showing conclusively that ∆T causes ∆CO2. Just ask.]


    The alarmist crowd got causation backward, that's all. They started with the wrong premise, so naturally they arrived at the wrong conclusion. CO2 does not cause any measurable change in T. Rather: ∆T causes ∆CO2.


    With the correct causation, the "carbon" scare is deconstructed. That explains why there has been no global warming for almost twenty years, as [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise.


    So please, post measurements, if you have any. That's all I ask. You can win this argument with testable, verifiable, real world measurements showing the fraction of a degree of global warming putatively caused by human emissions.


    You do want to win the argument, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  72. I cannot believe you actually posted this comment. Your claim is that AGW isn't real because no one will do your homework for you. I told you one excellent source for data and you clearly didn't even bother checking it out. There are many others. And, the data is free to anyone with an Internet connection. But, instead of doing your homework, you make silly little claims.


    All of your claims have been addressed in this forum and many other forums. Again, your argument is that someone else didn't do your homework for you, therefore there is no AGW.


    And, no, I don't want to win an argument because there is no argument. The science is conclusive that manmade emissions are responsible for global climate change. There is no argument there, only acceptance or denial.



    How pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @Christopher Keating,

    Please stop with the tantrums and the name-calling. I am posting verifiable scientific facts, such as the fact that CO2 follows temperature. Thus, CO2 cannot be causing temperature to change. Temperature causes CO2 to change, in the same way that a warming Coke causes CO2 to outgas.

    You argue with vague claims that have no substance: "...all your claims have been addressed...", &etc. Actually, none of my points have been addressed.

    Baseless assertions are meaningless. Produce verifiable scientific evidence. If you can. So far, you have produced no evidence at all to support your beliefs.

    You say:

    ...no one will do your homework for you.



    Again, you employ projection: It is you who wants me to do your homework for you. I have repeatedly asked you, politely, to post verifiable measurements showing the fraction of total global warming contributed by human activity.


    But you reply with sneering and bluster, never answering that central question. If you cannot answer such a basic question as that, then your entire AGW argument is based on belief, nothing more.


    Post measurements, please. Argument by assertion is insufficient. It is completely unconvincing. It is tantamount to saying, "Because, that's why!"


    Not good enough.


    Measurements, please.

    ReplyDelete
  74. There have been no tantrums or name calling on my part. In fact, I really don't have any emotional response to you at all. Dealing with people like you is like shaving - I have done it so many times it isn't even annoying any more.

    And, without question, you are not producing any facts. One more time - you would know this if you did your homework. I will point you to credible sources (sorry, WUWT doesn't qualify), but it is up to you to do the homework. After this, I am done with you. When you have something worthwhile to say, please feel free to do so. But, I think you are just here to take up my time, so move along.

    Topic: CO2 follows temperature

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=CO2_doesn%27t_lead,_it_lags




    Topic: All of your other claims

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki





    Topic: Measurements and data

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/

    http://nsidc.org/

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/MD_index.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Deniers, and the less offensive contrarians, don't want to admit they were wrong all this time and are now trying to wipe that mistake out by saying it never happened. Well, it did and it is."

    What utter rot !!

    "To say we don't care about a changing climate because the climate has always changed is a monumental demonstration of ignorance. When the climate goes through a natural change it takes centuries or millennia to occur."

    Again sheer rubbish - the rate of change is not unusual & that's supported in the peer review - that argument has been debunked for years !!
    A doubling of Co2 from current levels at the current rate of increase will take over 400 years & give around a degree of warming

    Facts are the IPCC Enhanced greenhouse Hypothesis - (yes its still a Hypothesis that has no scientific credibility )
    Has been falsified all along & you know it

    Integral to the hypothesis was the hotspot in the upper troposphere - no one has found it

    Integral to the Hypothesis was that Long wave radiation should reduce with increases in Co2E - in fact they are increasingly leaving the planet

    Integral to the Hypothesis is in fact warming - without it there is no hypothesis - the current & historical Hiatus of which this is the third just shows that co2 has little to no effect

    Integral to their hypothesis was that co2 would rapidly increase - emissions may be - but the airborne fraction is reducing & that's supported by James Hansen

    The water vapor feedback has also been falsified as atmospheric water vapor follows SST's

    A new paper confirms that co2 was higher at the end of the last glaciation - Becks work confirms co2 levels at over 500 ppm in the 1800's - your house of cards is crumbling which is why your reduced to these theatrics

    This whole debate is a joke - this is a challenge to you for a real debate - one with many other scientists present & on neutral territory - I doubt but that you will bother much less leave this post here as all alarmists censor debate
    This is the page & we can go from there
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/

    ReplyDelete
  76. Oh by the way there is at least 1000 people watching this post just in case you decide to delete it - if you do we will know that you didn't have the evidence to defeat us in debate

    ReplyDelete
  77. Yes you just confirmed what I thought - you have set this up purely to smear anyone that disagrees with your claims

    ReplyDelete
  78. I suppose you consider Skeptical science as credible - when they have Dana working for the oil industry & John Cook writing when they don't even have any qualifications

    ReplyDelete
  79. I wont make a submission because you don't have a balanced & fair playing field - this is just theatrics

    ReplyDelete
  80. Oh & warming isn't happening - 18 years of no warming right now & if you use RSS you can go back as far as 1983 with no statistically significant warming - trend change in that time has been 0.2 degrees which is in error margin - that in itself shows that ACo2 has little to no effect - Aco2 E GWP has been calculated at 0.28% which is effectively nothing

    ReplyDelete
  81. You won't make a submission because the challenge is closed. It ended July 31st.

    The challenge was all theatrics, but it was also very serious and I would have paid, if anyone could have produced a submission that proved man made global warming is not real, and used the scientific method to do so. All entries were judged fairly and I provided a full response for all submissions for anyone to read. This, I might add, is far better than any of the denier challenges out there.

    I made the challenge because I knew there was no science to support claims opposing AGW. I would not have put my $10,000 on the line if I had thought there was a chance I would lose. And, quite frankly, the submissions I received ranged from very bad to extremely bad. There were only a handful that made me think they submitter knew anything at all about science. Which, of course, is exactly the point I was trying to make about contrarians. They don't know anything about the science. They wouldn't be contrarians if they did.

    And, by the way, Skeptical Science always provides references to back up everything they say. The only people that don't like them are the people they debunk - the contrarians.

    ReplyDelete
  82. How can we prove its wrong when you cant prove its right ?? Show me how in the peer review that the IPCC has rejected the Null Hypothesis ..?? & why is it still a hypothesis with the claims of consensus ?? & why cant any alarmists come up with empirical evidence for CAGW ??

    ReplyDelete
  83. I can, and have, debunked everything you have to say. At least 1000 people checking to see if I deleted it? Wonderful! And, don't try to bully me because I won't stand for it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. If you can't prove its wrong stop making the claim you can. That was what the challenge was all about. Deniers and contrarians making statements that they cannot support with any science. Like I said, the only way you can reject AGW is to reject science. The science is overwhelming and is conclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  85. First of all there is plenty of peer review showing the IPCC hypothesis is false - there is NO empirical evidence to support the Claims of CAGW or the IPCC enhanced greenhouse effect -

    No one has rejected the Null hypothesis - maybe you should help Trenberth write his next paper on it because he cant do it as he wanted it reversed - until then its a hypothesis with no scientific credibility

    ReplyDelete
  86. If the science is overwhelming & is conclusive - where is it ?? Why is it still a hypothesis ..?? Why hasn't the IPCC rejected the Null hypothesis - why haven't you written a paper to reject the null hypothesis - Trenberth wanted it reversed because he couldnt

    ReplyDelete
  87. What a crock! There is no such peer-reviewed because the IPCC is not a scientific body. It is a committee that reviews and compiles reports and data from various climate scientists and sources. You have really just shown how little you know about climate science and AGW. By the way, assuming you even know what a null hypothesis is, it most certainly has been rejected countless times. Really, do some homework!

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm a little bit embarrassed that you have chosen my blog as your forum to demonstrate your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The IPCC has created the Hypothesis of the enhanced greenhouse effect - (CAGW)

    The IPCC has not rejected the null hypothesis & neither has anyone else

    ReplyDelete
  90. If the Null hypothesis had been rejected it would be in the peer review literature and its not

    ReplyDelete
  91. Do you normally spend your Saturday evenings demonstrating your ignorance. All of the scientific proof you need is readily available to anyone that is willing to do the homework. I guess you're not one of them. Move along. I'm going to delete your comments until you say something worthwhile.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Typical you smear without backing your statements with science

    ReplyDelete
  93. Its Sunday morning for me - I have done the homework - I have been studying this for many years - Please Just supply one peer reviewed paper that shows at least a correlation between co2 & warming over the ages & conclusively proves that ACo2 e drives warming - based on empirical evidence & I will go away & leave you alone - I might even change my mind

    ReplyDelete
  94. Oh & It must be supported by the majority of scientists please - I only ask because after 7 odd years - not one scientists has ever supplied the above & I was hoping that seeing that you know so much that you could do it for me

    ReplyDelete
  95. This is science 101 - how is it ignorance ..?? The first test of science is the Null hypothesis & yet you cant show that it has not been rejected - a simple task for someone as smart as you are ..??

    ReplyDelete
  96. Are you saying that you do not know that Curry & Trenberth have been in discussions over the Null Hypothesis ..??

    ReplyDelete
  97. No, you have not done your homework. I can tell by the comments and claims you have made. Anyone that has done their homework would not say the things you have been saying - pure and simple. I very seriously doubt you will ever change your mind. It is pretty apparent you have decided you are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. I don't say that as an insult, I say it as an observation. If you had done your homework you would know that climate science is not some, one topic. It consists of thousands of scientific results converging an untold number of experiments. The reason you don't see the "one" paper linking CO2 to climate change is because there are thousands of them. Finding one today is like finding one announcing the discovery of gravity. Old news and its not going to get printed. Still, here is a recent one that discusses the topic.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281990%29047%3C0475:CCATMA%3E2.0.CO;2

    ReplyDelete
  98. Here is the details of the discussion so far - I thought that you would be fully aware of it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/03/trenberth-null-and-void/

    ReplyDelete
  99. Once again - it is not my duty or responsibility to do your homework. Instead of spending time asking people to do it for you, why don't you search the scientific literature for yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Oh so censorship is happening hey - I knew that you wouldnt stand for it

    ReplyDelete
  101. As I suspected, you're a WUWT victim. Just a piece of advice, if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of the denier crowd, stay away from WUWT. Anytime you cite that website, you lose.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Climate science, going back over a hundred years, consists of thousands of individual papers. Each involves the null hypotheses. The fact that you don't know that is the demonstration of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  103. It isn't censorship, its editing. I don't have to allow someone to bully me on my own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  104. So you cant supply one paper - you claim 97% of the literature & the scientists - yet you cant provide one paper based on the above ..?? That seems funny dont you think ??

    ReplyDelete
  105. Amazing! You demand it must be supported by the majority of scientists, but then you cite WUWT, a website proven to be fraudulent and supported by the fossil fuel industry! What a hoot!

    ReplyDelete
  106. OH but how did I do that ..?? I have perfectly polite - I have not smeared or done anything wrong at all

    ReplyDelete
  107. Wow! You will be an example of people that reject science. Why don't you bother checking before you insult people. I provided you with a link to a paper because you are too lame to do the work yourself.



    BTW, you have been turned off for the night.

    ReplyDelete
  108. You just want to hide the facts that I produced which you have not refuted - just because your opinion disagrees with mine - does not make you right

    ReplyDelete
  109. Did you miss something ..?? I have been doing this full time for over 7 years - not one scientist - nor an alarmist has ever supplied what I requested - not one alarmist has ever rejected the null hypothesis - yet you claim consensus & even now you cant produce

    ReplyDelete
  110. Its just an article on the discussion - many others have also written about it - the facts are in the peer review -

    ReplyDelete
  111. I watched the video about 13 common misconceptions about global warming, but I doubt if it will convince anyone who dos not want to be convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  112. My sentiments exactly. I was doing an interview recently and the interviewer asked if I didn't think that debunking contrarian claims didn't actually make them dig their heels in and become more entrenched in their thought. I said I thought that was completely correct. But, those people are basically lost and you will never be able to change their minds. The purpose of debunking is to reach out to people that haven't made up their minds as of yet. Also, it better equips people to be able to answer these kinds of questions when you meet someone that is genuinely trying to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I liked your book. I have never previously seen a good book like yours with such a high proportion of negative reviews. It is very clear that nearly all the reviewers had never even read it. I expect my review to get a lot of negative votes from climate skeptics.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Thanks for the nice review. When I was writing it I had a conversation with a brother and we came to the conclusion that I would receive a lot of very negative reviews from the contrarian community. If anything, I'm a little disappointed that they aren't more personal. Every time one of them attacks me I know I am on track. If there was no substance to my claim, they would just blow me off.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Quote - "As a percentage of all gases in the atmosphere", thats the bit your missing, then the maths works.

    400ppm(parts per million) - 300ppm = 100ppm

    x(%) = x(ppm) / 10000

    ∴ "As a percentage of all gases in the atmosphere" Co2 has increase over the last 100 years by 0.01%.

    ReplyDelete
  116. My original statement still stands - you are either math deficient or are intentionally trying to deceive. To say "As a percentage of all gases in the atmosphere" CO2 has increased over the last 100 years, you mean to say that CO2 has increased by .01%, you mean it has increased from .028% to .0283%.

    Your statement shows you are intentionally trying to deceive. As a function of percentage of the atmosphere, CO2 has increased from about .028% of the atmosphere to about .040%. This is NOT an increase of .01%. This is an increase of 43%. If you want to expand the statement, the correct way to say it is that CO2 increased from .028% of the total atmosphere to .040%, a 43% increase.

    Again, you are either mathematically deficient, or you are intentionally trying to deceive.

    ReplyDelete
  117. What? Did you truly say none of those sites produced data? I have read some absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid comments from deniers, but this is right up there at the top of the list. Excuse me for being insulting, but this is a simply STUPID thing to say and demonstrates exactly what your mentality is. These sites are the foremost data centers in the world.



    I will confess, I didn't read a single word after I read that. There is nothing here worth reading after that.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I stated correctly that "...no testable, verifiable, empirical measurements were posted in any of them, quantifying the human part of global warming."


    I said nothing about data. But of course, empirical measurements are data.


    If you can post even one (1) verifiable, empirical measurement, quantifying the amount of global warming [either as a fraction of a degree, or as a percentage of total global warming] that is caused by human emissions, I will concede that I am wrong, and you are right, and I will go away.


    Of course, to be fair the reverse applies, too.


    Make certain it is a testable, verifiable measurement, quantifying how much global warming, specifically, has been caused by human activity out of the total of about 0.7ºC.


    If you can produce such a measurement and it withstands falsification, you will be the first ever — and on the short list for the Nobel Prize!


    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  119. If C02 caused warming, then why oh why, does not your can of coke warm up? What is dry ice made of again? Do you want my address to send a check?

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm hoping these were merely rhetorical questions, but I will answer them anyway.

    CO2 is not a heating agent, it absorbs infrared radiation and then reemits it in a random direction. I don't know about your carbonated drink, but my sodas always heat up - to room temperature in fact. They are certainly not getting colder as I drink them. And, dry ice consists of CO2 that has been mechanically chilled to the freezing point of CO2. That is not anything controversial.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Well said. If you know anything about the scientific method, you know that science is a poor mans attempt at describing the infinite Godhead behind it all. Exactly right on math. And, the earths systems are far too complex to reduce to a few algorithms and computer models. The Climate Change agenda was cooked up by the Club of Rome in the 50's and it is a wealth distribution mechanism. A fascists dream. I mean if it were really happening 'oh the hysteria' then the governments of the world would have to dismantle their war machines. The greatest consumer of resources out there and we would have to live happily ever after. But instead it is a ploy to get us to have cognitive dissonance and the whole thing has completely abused the essence of what science is.
    It is a fantastic process for us to learn about the world. And if everyone could understand what the measurement problem really is, and that The Climate Change agenda is a political ploy to hoodwink the future.

    ReplyDelete
  122. So really what the problem would be would be in that theory is the increase in radiation (from the sun which we have no control over) combined with the theory that we are in an absolutely closed system of ever increasing manmade C02 polluting...which when combined would cook us. Even that is a false outcome. Our system is not that closed. Everything would adapt. We would be ok. I am not arguing that we are trashing the place. And causing micro climate changes with draining aquifers and changing the albedo on the planet wrt forestry and urban heat islands. But the C02 thing really weak. Plants would thrive. If we want to stop the burning of C02 - then the governments of the world would have to dismantle their war machines as they are the biggest consumers out there and we would have to live happily ever after. The agenda is a wealth distribution one - a fascists dream. If we want to end the discussion then lets work on getting all of the houses off the grid and leave petrol for transportation etc...But you see that is not what the Club of Rome wants that is not what the socialist UN agenda wants. they want to control all of the resources of the world. Why don't they just enforce that all homes need to get off the grid? That would spur huge innovation. Here is the exerpt from the book

    "The First Global Revolution" by the Club of Rome go to page 115 and read this:

    "The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man"

    "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designing them as the enemy, we fall in to the trap about which we have warned, namely mistaken symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

    Seriously. The science is being morphed to fit the bill. Its all been cooked up. Like everything else. In all honesty I was an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Draft 5. And I actually have a masters in environmental science. It is an example of blatant misuse of science including omissions of complex earth system dynamics. It is being used for the political insubordination of the free market and personal sovereignty. Hard science is a beautiful craft that reveals both our understandings of our world and the world of learning, critical thought and further understandings of life. Intellectual rigor in our thinking is as valuable as clean water or forests. Our impact on the planet is irrefutable. As is our thinking of our place in it. We are meant to be taking care of the world. Creating a system of centralized control of resources by a few people makes the everyday man, state and nation impotent in thought and action. You strip away mans ability to think, learn, grow and create something other than children, you do get a population problem. It is the only sense of personal control he has left. And then you get a resource problem. Instead, we need open vibrant minds who challenge the status quo. We need diversity in our life strategies that embraces and values talent of the individual and gives them permission to believe in themselves. To take care of themselves and not be dependent on the state to do it for him. A dignified world values the ability of the self mastery of the person and their craft. An environmentally healthy world would embrace a science that supports that dignity. A freer political state would enable intellectual competitiveness and leadership.
    No, we can not control the sun. And C02 might hang onto some radiation for a while. But then a plant has it for a while, then we take a breath....we are going to be OK ....seriously.
    Global Warming is not a threat. It is theatre of the Globalists.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Squarzelfitz YagoslavovichOctober 19, 2014 at 7:37 PM

    It is not up to the skeptics to disprove your theory. It is up to you to prove it. So, where is your empirical evidence directly linking co2 to global warming?
    The burden of proof is on you.
    By the way, I have empirical co2 and temperature charts showing both long and short term negative correlations between co2 and temperature, but since you determine what it takes to win the prize I suspect that no amount of evidence would suffice. The plots show temperature leading co2 by six months. The temperature precedes the co2. Here's one to start with

    ReplyDelete
  124. Your comment is false in several respects.

    First, it is not up to me to prove AGW is real. The challenge was made to people who have made the claim that AGW is not real and they can prove it. I provided them with a forum to do so.

    Second, the scientific validity of AGW has been proven ad naseum. I did so in my book and that was directed towards the general public. If you will read the peer-reviewed scientific papers you will see that the amount of science supporting AGW is not only overwhelming, but there is not even one piece of credible scientific evidence that disputes that.

    As for your graph above, I really have no idea what it is you are trying to show. It certainly does not conform to any of the scientific data that I have seen.

    ReplyDelete
  125. As usual, you have it backward. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the alarmist crowd to falsify the climate Null Hypothesis. They have failed.


    As climatologist Roy Spences writes, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that nothing currently being observed exceeds past parameters. What we see now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.


    Thus, there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. In fact, global warming has stopped.. Even the IPCC now admits that fact [although they call it a "pause" — a 'pause' that is still in effect almost twenty years later].


    Your fake offers of payment are disingenuous, because you do not turn your money over to an acknowledged neutral party, with full authority to make payment. So of course, no matter what, you will welch. Prove me wrong.


    But you will not do that, just as you would not do it with your other fake $30,000 nonsense.


    Face it, Planet Earth is busy deconstructing your belief system. Global warming has stopped, despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. So, who should we listen to?


    You? Or Planet Earth?


    Because you cannot both be right.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I love the way people like you simply dismiss and reject science. I also love the way you guys keep trying to rewrite the challenge.

    Climate scientists have proven, conclusively, that AGW is real. Manmade emissions are changing the climate and, yes, the science on this issue really is settled. The issue now is to improve our understanding of how the dynamic climate works and reacts to the changes imposed on it.

    But, the challenge was specifically made to deniers that keep saying manmade climate change is not real and they can prove it. Since I know any claim like that is totally false and has no supporting science, I provided them with an opportunity to do that and even said I would give them a prize if they could. No one could - to no surprise of anyone that has any scientific understanding. And, yes, I absolutely would have paid if anyone could have proven AGW isn't real. But really, do you think you are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined? What hubris!

    As for the null hypotheses, it is a key element of all scientific experiments. Saying things such as, climate scientists have to "falsify the climate Null Hypothesis" is denier-speak for "I don't know what in the world I'm talking about but it makes me sound intelligent, so I'll say it." It's not the only one ("correlation does not equate to causation" is another notable example of the same kind of denier-speak), but it is one that is used quite a bit. Please, go learn about the null hypotheses before you embarrass yourself again. By the way, that was one of the submissions to the challenge (and, not a very good one, either):

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/30000-challenge-submission-null.html

    And, here is an honest piece of advice for you, if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of the denier community, don't ever cite Roy Spencer. He is a well-known fraud and it has been shown that he falsifies his research. His claims have been debunked many times. He goes well the the WUWT crowd, but that only proves the point I'm making. As soon as I hear someone cite Spencer I dismiss anything they have to say, just as I immediately dismissed you as someone that needs to be taken seriously.

    I love the way deniers (and yes, you are most certainly a denier) try to claim global warming has stopped. This has been debunked so many times and so completely that I am convinced anyone that says it is just plain lying. They know it isn't true, but keep saying it anyway. But, you would know that if you ever bothered to read anything besides denier blogs. Take a look at the just the most recent data (pay attention to the statement about global warming and NOAA):

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/10/last-12-months-hottest-ever-recorded.html

    I also love the way deniers like you criticize the way I ran my challenge. Tell me, do you make the same criticisms of the denier challenges that run the same way? By the way, I took those rules from a big denier challenge - The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge, made (and solely judged) by Steve Milloy of the Junk Science website. There were two major differences - mine didn't charge an entry fee and I provided a detailed response to all entries. But, of course, you are not interested in facts, you have already proven that with your comment.



    As for your comment that the Earth and scientists can't both be right, you once again proved your ignorance. The Earth does what it does, scientists merely try to understand it. What we understand is that the Earth is changing and we are responsible. There is no conflict there.


    So, while you go about embarrassing yourself by flaunting your lack of homework and by rejecting science, the world is continuing to warm at a rate that has never been observed in all of history. Fortunately, we are making progress against people like you and you will go the way of the people that insisted smoking was harmless.

    ReplyDelete
  127. David Crutchfield did not 'prove your point'. He merely pointed out that there is no absolute proof that human activity affects global weather.


    That is true. Skeptics cannot prove a negative, which is always the alarmist tactic. What skeptics can do is point out that there are NO empirical, testable measurements showing that human activity affects the weather.


    If you disagree, then post youre verifiable measurements quantifying the effect of human emissions on weather.


    You can't, of course. Becuase the fact is that extreme weather events have been steadily declining across the board: hurricanes, tornadoes, rainstorms, snow, etc., etc. They are ALL declining.


    That decisively falsifies your conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  128. You constantly label those with a different point of view as "deniers", "denialists", "contrarians", and similar pejoratives — then you claim to be objective.


    You are not being objective. You are emitting propaganda and insults as your argument, nothing more or less. That's really all you have.


    Try having a discussion without the insults, for a change. The reason you can't, of course, is because you are losing the science debate. Global warming has stopped. Current climate parameters are neither unusual, nor unprecedented. In fact, the past century and a half has been a true "Goldilocks" climate. That will not last. But it has nothing measurable to do with CO2. Nothing.


    See, empirical, testable measurements are your downfall. You have NO verifiable MEASUREMENTS quantifyinng the percentage of global warming, out of total global warming, that is attributable to human emissions. [If you disagree, then post the specific percentage.]


    That means your whole argument is based on an unquantified conjecture. A Belief. An opinion; nothing more.


    Skeptics have facts. You have a falsified conjecture. No contest. Skeptics win the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Once again, you demonstrate you just don't like any science that conflicts with your world view. The science is conclusive - AGW is real.

    It is also false that you cannot prove a negative. The funny part of your statement is you previously claimed the null hypothesis has to be falsified. Not very consistent, are you? Let me give you an example of proving the negative: I tell you the door over there is locked. You get up and open it, proving it is not locked. You just proved the negative. Every experiment proves a negative. Just one more example of the denier-speak I referenced earlier.

    I most certainly disagree with you and the evidence is there for anyone to see. It is not up to me to do your homework for you. If you would like to pay me for my time, I'll be glad to, but I don't come cheap. By the way, I did provide my proof in my book. It has science in it so I'm sure its over your head.

    By the way, if extreme weather events are declining, as you say (did you get that from WUWT?), why does the entire insurance industry say that they are increasing?

    This decisively falsifies any claim that you know what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I call them 'deniers' because they deny science. When people are polite and civil (which you are totally lacking in), I call them contrarians. If someone is rude to me and tries to bully me, they will get it back in kind. A denier industry tactic is to bully scientists out of the public forum so they have it all to themselves. It won't work with me. I am prepared to stand up to the bullies. Don't insult me and I won't insult you. Be civil to me, and I will be civil to you. You have done neither, so you are treated the way you act.

    I have, and continue to have, civil discussion with many contrarians. You have not earned the right to be called a contrarian. You are a denier, and a pretty ignorant one at that.

    The science is there, any time you wish to examine it. You have clearly not bothered. That is not an insult, it is merely an observation of just how much is lacking in your comments. If you had bothered to read ANY science on the topic you would not be saying many of the things you have. I have posted a very large amount of science and scientific links to support my claims. NO ONE has provided even the first bit of scientific evidence to contradict the science, including you. You make broad, meaningless statements such as "Skeptics have facts," but provide none of them.

    Why is that? Take a look at my blog and you will see that I have provided the science that supports my claims. Where is yours? Stop making stupid statements and provide some evidence. I have already made the bet that no one could, and no one did. They didn't and you can't either.

    ReplyDelete
  131. You assert:

    The science is conclusive - AGW is real.



    And I say: prove it. Post at least one verifiable, testable, empirical measurement quantifying the specific percentage of anthropogenic global warming, out of the total global warming of ≈0.7ºC.


    Baseless assertions are fine, but they are not measurements, thus they are not science. They are merely opinions, and they are certainly not "conclusive" of anything.


    Any physical process that is greater than the background noise can be measured. If you can post measurements showing the human % of all global warming, then I will concede that you are right and I am wrong.


    But you know the other side of that coin...

    ReplyDelete
  132. You would never do well in a debate class. Once again, you make these broad, meaningless statements and pretend they are some kind of proof. Once again, I tell you the science is already posted on this blog. Why haven't you bothered to read any of it? I did what you asked, why won't you do what I ask? Provide any evidence at all to support your claims.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Re: insurance companies. They are in the business of making a profit. If they can convince rate payers to pay more, fine for them. But to use that as a scientific argument fails.

    Here is verifiable data:



    ClickB

    ClickC

    ClickD

    ClickE



    Different data from many different sources, and all showing that extreme weather events are moderating. [I have more if you like, just ask.]


    It is an accepted fact that extreme weather events are declining, while CO2 continues to rise. That deconstructs the argument that human activity is causing weather related problems. Like all the other alarmist predictions, the predictions of more extreme weather events has been deconstructed.


    As a matter of fact, exactly none of the alarming predictions have happened. They were ALL flat wrong. So, a question:


    When one group has been 100.0% wrong in all it's alarming predictions, why shouyld rational folks give them any credence? Is that not the same thing as giving Chicken Little credence, when she runs around in circles clucking that the sky is falling?


    Science is all about measurements. I post measurements to support my arguments. But I never get the measurements that I request. That makes me very skeptical of your argujments. If you have no measurements, then all you havce are baseless assertions. In science, assertions are not nearly good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  134. You are so incredibly silly that I am going to stop reading your comments and responding to them. But, one last response to show just meaningless your comments are. When we talk about global warming, we mean the globe. The U.S. is less than 2% of the globe. That is called cherry picking, selecting the data you want to support the conclusion you have already reached.

    ReplyDelete
  135. First, if you feel insulted, please show me the insulting labels I supposedly use. You are always equating scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] with mass murderers. Now that is an insult.

    But I do not call you names. So I reject your psychological projection. It is you who does the insulting, and that is easily verifiable in your comments. Case closed, as far as I am concerned.

    Next, you claim:

    The science is there, any time you wish to examine it.



    Yes, I wish to examine it. But you keep it a secret, if in fact you have any measurements at all. I keep asking for even ONE measurement showing the % of AGW out of the total of all global warming — yet all you keep posting are baseless assertions; mere opinions. Beliefs.


    That just isn't good enough. I am asking for scientific facts that support your argument. I am asking for measurements.


    Yet, you have NO measurements. ZERO. All you have are assertions. That isn't science, that's only your 'carbon' scare talking.


    Next time, try posting some actual science: post measurements. If you can.

    ReplyDelete
  136. First, Roy Spencer is one of two scientists responsible for the satellite data used by the U.S. govewrnment. You don't like what he says, I get that. He contradicts your beliefs. But Dr. Spencer is a scientist. You should keep that in mind.


    Next, you continue to use pejorative labels. That is merely a crutch that takes the place of thinking.


    Finally, if it were not for psychological projection you would have little to say. I have demonstrated that I do my homework. You, OTOH, argue by assertion and totally bogus offers of non-existent money.


    No contest.

    ReplyDelete
  137. OK, one more comment. Really, I have serious things to do instead of wasting my time with you.

    You said, "First, if you feel insulted, please show me the insulting labels I supposedly use"

    Let's see:
    "You are always equating scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] with mass murderers."

    "You are emitting propaganda and insults as your argument, nothing more or less. That's really all you have."

    "The onus is on the alarmist crowd"

    "Try having a discussion without the insults, for a change."

    "Your fake offers of payment are disingenuous, because you do not turn your money over to an acknowledged neutral party, with full authority
    to make payment. So of course, no matter what, you will welch. Prove me wrong. But you will not do that, just as you would not do it with your other fake $30,000 nonsense."

    "As usual, you have it backward."

    ReplyDelete
  138. Wow! You really have failed to do your homework. Read about Spencer some time. Everyone else has.

    ReplyDelete
  139. NOTE: I have to wonder why none of the deniers have taken advantage of my offer.


    Delete rule #5, and I will certainly take you up on it.


    Place the money in a neutral escrow account, administered by a nationally redcognized prize administration company, and I'll have at it. No doubt, plenty of others will, too.


    But being the same person who pays out and decides is thoroughly bogus. Who do you think you're kidding with self-serving rules like that?

    ReplyDelete
  140. Every comment above is absolutely factual and verifiable. Name a single one that isn't.


    But your "denier" pejoratives are nothing but insults. What, exactly, am I denying? Name something specific.


    Michael Mann denies that global T changed prior to the industrial revolution [the long, flat handle of his hokey stick]. Thus, he is a denier, no? So as usual, you have it wrong.


    But as a skeptic I know for a fact that the climate has always changed; always will.


    So again: exactly what am I denying?

    ReplyDelete
  141. If Dr. Spencer is half so bad as you allege, he would not be a long time provider of government climate data.


    Tell me: is everyone who doesn't accept your assertions a demon? Because you demonize everyone who doesn't believe in AGW.


    And for about the tenth time, I challenge you to post even ONE measurement showing the % of AGW out of total global warming.


    You keep ignoring that question, and I know why: because you have no such measurements. Therefore, your AGW belief is an opinion, without a verifiable basis.


    It all comes down to a simple measurement, doesn't it? Post a testable, verifiable AGW measurement, and as I have said, you win the debate. Keep dissembling, and you lose the debate. Simple as that. Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  142. More insults. The fact is that you cannot post a simple measurement.

    You want more global data showing that global warming has stopped? OK then, no problem.

    Here are 4 separate databases, showing that fact, and I have plenty more:

    http://tiny.cc/7nqgox

    ReplyDelete
  143. No one claims GW has stopped.


    o 2010 warmest surface temp.


    o 2012 lowest Arctic ice extent


    o SSTs currently warmest on record.


    o Last 12 months warmest on GST record


    o UAH last 10 years warmest in their records.


    So false.


    Best,


    D

    ReplyDelete
  144. That link to WoodForTrees is hilarious. If you delete all the data series from the plot, you see the linear trends remaining were arbitrarily chosen. Oh, sure, let's just tack on two line segments anywhere on the data we want, with absolutely no analytical or computational justification!

    ReplyDelete
  145. Are you a troll, or just not very bright? You'd be the guy in Galileo's time who would refuse to look into the telescope. The moon is a perfect sphere! It has no irregular features! You have _no_shred_of_evidence_ there are irregularities on the moon! Put that telescope away, it's all lies!
    If you want any credibility at all, try explaining your position in terms of heat flow or energy conservation. "the climate has always changed" is purely qualitative and useless. How'd you like a doctor to not treat your infection with antibiotics because "your temperature has always changed"? That's not a fever from bacterial meningitis! Human temperatures change all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  146. 1. Once again you insult me, now with the "troll" label. As I have noted numerous times, that takes the place of a responsive answer. Either post a measurement, or admit that you have none.


    2. The moon has nothing whatever to do with this. See #1.


    3. Once again: what, exactly, am I denying? You seem to be confusing me with Michael Mann.


    4. I am happy to discuss heat flow. I am an engineer. Post your measurements.


    5. Post a testable, empirical measurement of AGW — IF you have any. If you do, you will be the first.


    All of your incessant insults and analogies are designed to misdirect from the fact that you have no measurements of AGW. Thus, the entire 'carbon' scare is nothing but a giant head fake.


    AGW may exist. But if it does, it is simplly too minuscule to measure, and thus it can and should be disregarded for all Policy purposes. It is only a minor non-issue.


    Prove me wrong. Try to do so without your usual insults, pejorative labels, and misdirection. Just answer one very simple question:


    Do you have even one (1) measurement of AGW?

    ReplyDelete
  147. "AGW may exist. But if it does, it is simplly too minuscule to measure"

    As an engineer, can you explain in terms of engineering principles why AGW would be simply too miniscule to measure?

    ReplyDelete
  148. See, you are dissembling by turning the question around. That is a typical tactic of the alarmist crowd: try to force a scientific skeptic to prove a negative.


    The AGW conjecture is yours to defend.
    as a skeptic, my job description is to falsify it. Whatever remains standing after the smoke clears is considered to be current scientific khnowledge. That's how the Scientific Method works, and I don't discuss non-scientific methods.


    Are we at an impasse? You seem to be unable to post a measurement quantifying AGW. That's why you are trying to turn that uncomfortable situation around, by getting me to post your measurement.


    I can do that, but first things first: first, post a measurement of AGW showing the % of human-caused global warming out of the total of all global warming, or conversely, admit that you have no such measurements.

    ReplyDelete
  149. You made an assertion: "AGW may exist. But if it does, it is simplly too minuscule to measure"

    By your assertion, there can be no measurements made. So, you should be able to support your assertion on engineering principles, and that is what I am asking for.


    You have stated you are an engineer, and that you are "happy to discuss heat flow". So, happily discuss heat flow. Use it, or some other principle, to explain why AGW is simply too minuscule to measure, if it exists.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Wrong as usual. AGW could be measured — if it rose above background noise. So obviously AGW is only a tiny, 3rd-order forcing. So it can be completely disregarded as inconsequential.


    Every physical process can be measured. I assume from your evasive misdirection you have no AGW measurements. That confirms my suspicion that AGW — IF it even exists — is down in the noise. It is simply too small to measure.


    If I'm wrong, post a measurement of AGW.


    I will gladly hold your feet to the fire until you either post an AGW measurement, or admit that you can't.


    See, YOU are defending a conjecture, therfeore the onus is on you. That is how the Scientific Method works, and as I've stated before, I confine my comments to the scientific method. Anything else is simply a Belief.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Amusingly, you went from
    "AGW may exist. But if it does, it is simplly too minuscule to measure"
    to
    "AGW could be measured — if it rose above background noise."



    I encourage you to organize your thoughts and try again.


    Define "background noise" in the context of AGW measurement.


    Explain in engineering terms how you would solve the engineering problem of determining whether a measurement was "above background noise", and if so whether it was in fact a measurement of AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Amusingly, you still hide out from answering a simple question that I've asked repeatedly, both before and after you showed up here: do you have even one (1) testable measurement, quantifying the percentage of human-caused global warming, out of the total of all global warming [≈0.7ºC]?


    What's that you say? You have no such measurements? Well then, you are not discussing science. You are merely speculating.


    I will be happy to answer all of your questions, engineering and otherwise. But first, post a measurement of AGW. Every time you ignore that request, you are digging you hole deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Actually, I'm just ignoring you. You are just a troll here to take up my time and hijack my blog.But, as long as you remain somewhat civil I will allow you to continue commenting.

    I have actually responded to your questions multiple times with specifics, but I notice you have refused to answer my questions and the questions put to you by other commenters.

    Like I said, I'm busy with serious issues. You are not one of them and I'm not wasting my time with you. Keep posting if you want. I will not answering you anymore, but I will delete any uncivil comments, or even blacklist you if it continues.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Mrkeating,


    If you think you're wasting your time, by all means, don't bother. I thought I was replying to "ordeal". Is that also you? I don't mind being ignored, that happens sometimes.


    Regarding your 'specifics', I'm not sure what those were. But there is only one specific I've ever asked for: a real world measurement specifically quantifying the percentage of global warming caused by human emissions.


    As I've written previously, if you or anyone else can post a verifiable, empirical, testable measurement quantifying the % of global warming caused by humans [AGW], then you win the debate. That's fair, no?


    But so far, no one has ever posted those measurements. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  155. At least the climate change deniers will die too. That is my only consolation.

    ReplyDelete
  156. What are "environmental skepticism" and "a denial of a human-made climate change"?

    There are charlatanry in any form in anything and any form of a science-wrapped money-grabbing charlatanry the tales of human-made climate change and “save the planet-trade carbon” present contemporary benefiting much a usual cast of privileged to milk from.

    More:
    “The X-Challenge: Knocking on the Door” with links -
    http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-x-challenge-knocking-on-the-door-7102784.html

    And I DO need this money, $US 30000, because Australia is not a place for educated and professional engineers short of biological linkage with the "mother-country" England is.

    Michael Kerjman

    ReplyDelete
  157. First, let me say the challenge closed July 31st.

    But, even without the deadline, I have to say (with no malice involved) I REALLY have no idea what it is you just said.

    ReplyDelete
  158. 12 days, and still no measurement of AGW posted.

    ReplyDelete
  159. 12 days and you're still proving you can't read what's posted.

    ReplyDelete
  160. "Climate scientists have proven, conclusively, that AGW is real."

    A lie repeated 1000 times is still a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  161. You are the one writing insults.


    You need serious medical help.

    ReplyDelete
  162. @Christopher Keating

    There is something seriously wrong with you.



    You are cra-zy.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Possibly, but at least I don't live in denial. I accept reality and science. I'm guessing you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Oh, please. You guys realize you can't back up your claims with science so you resort to bullying, intimidation and physical assault. You are just upset because I won't cave in to you. What is really offensive is the fact that deniers are blocking efforts to do something about climate change. Speaking about people who need medical help, why don't you try explaining this to a psychiatrist and see what they say about your mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Really, you need to see a psychiatrist.
    Now would be good.

    ReplyDelete
  166. No, YOU are a denier.
    Seek. Help.

    ReplyDelete
  167. You have lost touch with reality.


    Don't you have a family? A friend who would help you?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Climate change is serious subject, but you aren't. Is this series of childish comments the best you can do on this topic? Go back to your grade school buddies and let the adults discuss this.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I'll top that. I'll pay you $10,000,000 if you can prove that UFOs don't exist. What? You can't prove it? Denier! That means they must exist!

    ReplyDelete
  170. Oh, please. This is such a tired false argument and I have dealt with this many times. This is nothing more than an attempt to avoid the fact that you have no science to support your claims. This is just one of many instances when I have dealt with this strawman:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-hummingbirds.html

    ReplyDelete
  171. Ummm... We haven't even completed the Ice Age (look into it) so of course its gonna get warmer, regardless of human interference... The earth is constantly evolving, and for anyone to think that it will stay habitable for humans for long doesn't know science or the history of the earth... we all gonna die, you are just fear mongering who gives a shit, enjoy the time you have instead of trying to delay the inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Of course I've looked into it, as have all of the climate scientists. Did you really think you're the only one that knows that? And, did you realize we know that because of the climate scientists that did the hard work to figure it out? The fact is, we are actually in a cooling phase of the natural cycles. Without AGW the climate would actually be getting cooler right now. Your logic of claiming it's inevitable is silly. Why do you take a shower? It's inevitable you'll just get dirty again. Why shave? It's inevitable your beard will grow out again. Why brush you're teeth? It's inevitable you're going to lose them. I could go on, but I hope I made the point.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Amusing graph you posted there. Did you even bother to read it? I shall read it for you!

    At the top of the image there are three very important words: "Rate of Change". ... It even shows them twice!

    The quantities being compared are not temperature and CO2, no indeed, the quantities being compared are _rates_of_change_ for temperature and CO2. And for no useful reason at all, these are 12 month _moving_averages_ of 12 month rates of change!

    But hey, at least the graph lets you know when your annual moving averaged annual rate of change for temperature goes negative.

    Because, you see, there is no such indication for the CO2 annual moving averaged annual rate of change. All it says for the CO2 annual moving averaged annual rate of change is, "Scale Adjusted to Match". Adjusted to match what? Adjusted how? For all you know, that plot for CO2 annual moving averaged annual rate of change could be all positive -- in which case, and assuming the graph is even truthful in the least, you posted redacted evidence against your own position.


    And one more bonus for amusement: After all this obfuscation by annually averaging annual rates of change of publicly available quantities that could simply be plotted directly, the author of the graph announces his "conclusion" that one plot leads the other plot by _six_months_. Hey, that is exactly _half_a_year_, right?



    For fun and education, think of this: If you spin a bottle, does the top lead the bottom, or does the bottom lead the top? After all, the top and the bottom are exactly one half-spin away from each other, right?

    "Leads by 6 months", that is just too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Where I live last winter and this summer we had record lows. This fall we are having record lows. Same thing for friends south of me oh, also family and friends north of me. Hell even my family on the east cost says the same.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Everyone I know says the climate in their area is cooler than 10 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  176. That would be relevant if the subject was U.S. warming, but it isn't. We're discussing global warming. The U.S. makes up less than 2% of the surface area. With the complexity of the climate it is to be expected there will be variations from one place to another. Even still, the National Climatic Data Center disagrees with you. October was the fourth hottest October ever recorded in the U.S.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/10

    ReplyDelete
  177. That would be relevant if the subject was U.S. warming, but it isn't.
    We're discussing global warming. The U.S. makes up less than 2% of the
    surface area. With the complexity of the climate it is to be expected
    there will be variations from one place to another. Even still, the
    National Climatic Data Center disagrees with you. October was the fourth
    hottest October ever recorded in the U.S.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/10


    Once again, the only way to deny AGW is to deny the science. And, we aren't even factoring in the ocean warming.

    ReplyDelete
  178. By his logic, we don't need nuclear reactors or fossil fuels! Instead, why not just somehow "harness" that heat that's in the atmosphere?

    ReplyDelete
  179. So we have energy coming in from the sun, that CO2 absorbs it and spits it out, some back to space, some back to Earth. And the energy can get reabsorbed again by another molecule and repeat the process. In other words, CO2 is preventing the energy from escaping Earth as quickly. And of course, if u add CO2, it makes it even harder for the atmosphere to release energy back into space.



    So, great explanation, too bad it doesn't actually disprove AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Please take two mionutes to read some facts and not conjecture or bad arguments. Facts are that there will always be climate change, Man's part in it is miniscule in real terms as this article points out http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/02/why-has-there-been-global-warming-literature-unambiguously-shows-because-its-entirely-normal-stupid/

    ReplyDelete
  181. I have seen these false arguments before and I will tell you they are scientifically invalid and designed to mislead and deceive. Would you like for me to go through it point-by-point for you, or have you already made up your mind?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Hello Christopher, I'm always learning and like to hear both sides. The arguments sound plausible and veracious enough. If you have counter points I certainly would appreciate hearing them. thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  183. I'll be glad to do a review in the next day or two.

    ReplyDelete
  184. I posted a review of the article here:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/01/notrickszone-review-too-many-tricks-in.html

    ReplyDelete
  185. You can progress by reading "The X-Challenge: knocking on the door" in articlesbase.com , M.Kerjman, and following the links from a text.

    ReplyDelete
  186. That link takes me a recipe for homemade brownies. The one above was just about as relevant (in-vitro fertilization).

    ReplyDelete
  187. You still haven't provided even one empirically correct prediction as derived from the "CO2 drives climate" hypotheses which separate those hypotheses from the Natural Climate's natural activity, which means that the CO2 Climate Change hypotheses are Scientifically Falsified! Thus "CO2 Climate Change" is not real. Your debt to me is increasing daily as, in effect, I am loaning you money.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Your statement is a false one. I have even provided many examples of the validity of global warming on this blog. The reality is the naturally occurring cycle is for a cooling period, not a warming one. That, alone, is enough to prove it cannot possibly a natural cycle. There is more and it is easily found with a simple search. Ironically, many people claim AGW cannot be real because the natural cycle is taking us into a new ice age.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Dear Mr Keating,

    It's first time such phenomenon is.
    Please, go to articlesbase.com and find on KERJMAN in Site Search.

    ReplyDelete
  190. It's first time such a phenomenon.
    In articlesbase.com Site Search on "Kerjman" the publication was found and it's address is http://m.articlesbase.com/science-articles/the-xchallenge-realm-of-senses-886833.html

    ReplyDelete
  191. I looked at your article and some of your other ones. They are bizarre, to say the least. I had a difficult time even following what you were trying to claim.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I am not privileged to claim anything but barely embedded a very realm.

    ReplyDelete