- 1. First instalment.ReplyDelete
Thank you for the opportunity, Christopher.
In the context in which you raise ‘climate change’ you’re clearly referring to ‘global warming’. In case you’re being tricky though, I will address the broader issue of disproving ‘climate change’ after dealing disproving ‘global warming’.
My proof relies on and cites empirical scientific evidence. It’s the determinant of science.
To prove human carbon dioxide caused Earth's latest atmospheric global warming (now sometimes referred to as 'climate change') requires empirical scientific evidence that answers each and all of the following three (3) questions with a 'yes'.
1. Is Earth's global ATMOSPHERIC* temperature rising unusually either in rate of warming or amount of warming and is it continuing to rise?
*The UN, Al Gore and America's government claim human CO2 enhances their claimed ‘greenhouse’ effect. That's a supposed atmospheric effect based claiming warmed troposphere that supposedly warms Earth's surface. I'm going to be generous though and discuss not atmospheric temperatures AND surface temperatures.
If it's not warming there's no need to go any further. If it is warming unusually, the second question is:
2. Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air determine the global atmospheric temperature?
If not, there's no need to go any further. If yes, the level of CO2 determines temperature, the third question is:
3. Does the human production of carbon dioxide determine the global atmospheric CO2 level?
If not, human CO2 does not cause global warming.
To fulfil your challenge "... prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring" all I need to do is to prove the answer to one of the three questions is 'no'.
Empirical scientific evidence proves all three are answered 'no'.
Let's get started:
Question 1: Is Earth's global ATMOSPHERIC temperature rising unusually either in rate or amount and is it continuing to rise?
The answer is 'no'. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature reveal that every year since 1998 the global temperature has been cooler than in 1998. There is no ongoing warming. This is confirmed by radiosonde (weather balloon temperatures).
Dr. Phil Jones is in charge of temperature measurements cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC, Al Gore, NOAA and NASA-GISS. He admits that ground-based temperature measurements reveal no warming trend since 1995. Statistically, he’s correct.
By the way, is this why the term ‘global warming’ was replaced by the term ‘climate change’?
References are provided on pages 1-19 Appendix 4 here:
It’s easy to see that empirical scientific evidence reveals it is not continuing to warm. Earth’s latest modest cyclical warming is very modest compared with past cyclical warming periods. You’ll notice that temperature in recent decades is lower than in the 1930’s, 1890’s, Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period and 80% of the last 10,000 years. The graphs on page 6 reveal that recent warm period is similar in extent and rate of warming to temperatures recorded in earlier cyclical warming periods.
Please refer to Appendix 7 at the link above. It reveals the ground-based warming trends I’ve cited have been doctored to hide a cooling trend. In reality, Earth has been cooling for a century. Warming has been fabricated by manipulating earlier temperatures to appear cooler and inflating recent temperatures to appear warmer. Note the reportedly active involvement of NASA-GISS and James Hansen in fraudulently concocting warming.
I could say global warming is man-made. It’s made by man. Fabricated by man.
Note the corruption of American temperatures as revealed by American meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts:
- Instalment 2:ReplyDelete
Please note this recent empirical scientific evidence from Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy:
Empirical scientific evidence proves Earth’s global temperature and climate is varying naturally. It proves humans are not causing global warming or climate change.
In accordance with the terms of your offer I’ve done enough to claim your prize. Let’s continue though as this is fun.
Question 2: Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air determine global atmospheric temperature?
This too is answered ‘no’.
The empirical scientific evidence is provided on pages 20-24 of Appendix 4 at my first link above.
Empirical scientific evidence proves changes in temperature drive changes in CO2 levels. That applies seasonally and over the longer-term.
The medium-term is confounded by various other factors.
Ernst Georg Beck’s work reveals atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher than current during the past 180 years.
Note that during the medium-term range from 1958 to 1976 CO2 levels reportedly rose as atmospheric and ground-based temperatures fell and as human CO2 production increased dramatically.
That’s two ‘no’ answers out of two. Human causation is doubly disproved.
Let’s have some more fun by answering the third question.
Question 3: Does the human production of carbon dioxide determine the global atmospheric CO2 level?
Empirical scientific evidence reveals the answer is again ‘no’.
It’s explained in detail and with links to empirical evidence on pages 25-27 of Appendix 4.
Briefly, atmospheric CO2 measurements cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC reveal that Nature alone controls global atmospheric CO2 levels. Please refer to the graph of data at Mauna Loa measuring station showing CO2 levels.
It’s further explained here:
If you want NOAA’s actual graph, see the first two graphs at NOAA, here:
All three questions are answered ‘no’. That’s comprehensive proof human CO2 did not, does not and cannot cause global warming or climate change.
You owe me ten grand, Christopher.
In the context of ‘climate change’ in which you offered your prize Christopher, I’ve proven human carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming.
In case you’re going to distort the challenge, let’s be more comprehensive. Let’s consider empirical scientific measurements of supposed effects of human action on climate. All such measurements reveal no unusual change occurring. All variation is natural inherent variation: Storm activity frequency and severity; floods; droughts; snowfall; tornadoes; ocean temperatures; sea levels; ocean alkalinity; glaciation; ice sheets, ice caps; bush/forest fire frequency or severity.
Please refer to links to empirical scientific evidence in Appendix 4a at the first link provided above.
There is no signal anywhere of human’s driving global climate.
Notice though that some agencies truncate data to create the false perception that trends are occurring. Yet when the full data set is used over a full climate cycle and over a full century or more there is no change occurring in any climate markers.
You owe me ten grand, Christopher.
For humanity’s sake, let’s continue
Had all three questions been answered ‘yes’ it would mean that human CO2 affected global atmospheric temperature and climate. Yet, before cutting human CO2 output we would first need to ask a fourth fundamental question:
- Instalment 3:
Question 4: Is warming detrimental?
The answer is ‘no’.
Pages 28-32 of Appendix 4 at the first link above reveal warming is highly beneficial. Empirical scientific evidence and history prove that.
Humans do not control or affect Earth’s thermostat. If we could, we would raise temperature. Warming is beneficial.
Nor do we or can we affect global CO2 levels. If we could we would raise CO2 levels. Higher CO2 is highly beneficial. As Nature has repeatedly proven in Earth’s past.
But we cannot affect either CO2 level of temperature. We need to adapt and live with what we have and redirect our science funding to understanding climate and not reinforcing fraud. Although we have nothing to fear from Nature’s global warming periods, we have plenty to be concerned about with Nature’s cooling periods.
We have something else to be concerned about: corruption of science.
Science has given us our way of life and security and comfort. Science though has been corrupted.
Please refer to Appendices 3, 5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9 10, 11 and 12.
Please refer to Appendices 13 and 13a-16g for an illustration of how the global warming claim has been propagated in the media by a combination of ego, stupidity and government corruption.
To understand the motives please refer to Appendices 14 and 15.
Now, Christopher, let’s see your response. We’ll learn whether your position on climate has been driven by innocent error, stupidity or dishonesty.
Your claim that human CO2, and more broadly that human activity, is causing global climate change is nonsense. It has been completely disproved by empirical scientific evidence, the determinant of science.
Your claim has been enabled and pushed by massive corruption of climate science.
Let’s see whether or not your claim is based on stupidly making assumptions or whether you’ve been innocently misled.
Please advise the name of one scientist or one science agency or one government or any UN body that has provided proof of human causation of global warming or climate change. Only one is needed. Please specify clearly the location of the empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning that you see as scientific proof of humans causing global warming or global climate change.
No one has ever provided such evidence. I’ve searched myself: NASA, Australia’s CSIRO, NOAA, UN IPCC, ...
I’ve asked many academics and politicians advocating the claim that human CO2 caused warming. ALL failed to provide such evidence.
Let’s see what you can do.
How will you send me the check?
Your procedure used is similar to what I used in my book to provide proof that it is real. I asked three question in order: 1) Is the planet warming?; 2) If yes, is it the result of the greenhouse effect?; and 3) If it is, are we responsible for that greenhouse effect? If the answer to any of the three questions is 'No', then the conclusion is there is no manmade global warming.
You're claim about warming is false for two reasons. First, the atmospheric temperature has most certainly continued to rise. Nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1998, including the three hottest (all three hotter than 1998). But, limiting the claim to just the atmosphere is a false argument because it leaves out what the atmosphere is itself keeping warm, namely the ocean. Ocean temperature have continued to rise. The oceans are heated by sunlight, but the atmosphere is preventing the heat from being radiated out into space. Omitting the oceans is emitting 93% of the global warming. Here is a really good article on the subject.
In any event, why consider only the temperature record since 1998? Why not the entire record? You are cherry picking. You have to apply your argument to all data, not just data of your choice. In fact, later on you choose to use the record starting all the way back in the 1950s. You use a 16-year record for one thing and a 55-year record for the other. Why?
I sometimes use either term 'climate change' and sometimes 'global warming.' I am not trying to be deceptive or split hairs. Climate change means the climate is changing and it doesn't matter if it is warming or cooling. Global warming means the climate is changing and it is getting warmer. There is a difference, but the issue is not a cooling planet, so I use them interchangeably. Maybe it is bad form, but no deception is intended.
I have addressed the issue of natural cycles many times. The fact that naturally occurring cycles resulted in warm periods in the past is not evidence that today's warming is natural for two reasons: We understand what caused many of those periods pretty well and those causes are not occurring today; and there is no evidence linking today's warming to natural cycles. Today's natural cycles would actually result in a cooling period, not a warming one.
Speaking of deception, the business about the data tampering comes from a denier by the nom de plume of Steve Goddard who has been found to falsify his claims in the past and been forced to retract them. Until his claims are examined by someone credible I will not consider them to be anything other than another denier lie. The other two you mentioned are well-documented to be receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry (via the Heartland Institute) to undermine climate science. Watts, in particular, has been shown to be someone that has no credibility. Essentially, anyone associated with Heartland is automatically assumed to be fabricating their reports.
As for a cooling trend in one part of the world, that doesn't make any more difference than a warming trend in one part of the world. The term is 'global' warming. We are interested in what the world is doing, not one selected part.
So, by the very standard you set, your proof has failed because you failed in the first question.
But, as you said, let's continue.
The last time the atmospheric CO2 level was anywhere near this high was about 150,000 years ago. This one is so easy to find I'm surprised you didn't do it. Here is one source:
You are correct about the 1950s and 1960s. CO2 levels were certainly increasing. See the Keeling curve here (funny, but you try to say later that they weren't part of your proof that man made CO2 is not the responsible):
The surface temperature was also declining before taking off at the end of the 1970s. But, the oceans were already warming. This was when the natural cooling cycle was in full force (that began in the 1940s, or even earlier) and it took a while for man made effects to have a major impact. But, the data shows that warming was already occurring as early as the 1950s, even though there was a strong natural cooling cycle in effect.
So, you failed the second question, as well.
You are wrong here, too. Man made carbon dioxide (along with other man made greenhouse gases) are responsible for warming. Look here:
And, I already provided a link to the very same Keeling curve you are trying to say proves man made carbon dioxide isn't a factor.
Is global warming detrimental? The answer to that one is irrelevant because that isn't what the challenge was about. For the record, the answer is that it is most certainly detrimental. See this article on a report on that very issue:
So, the challenge is to provide a venue for deniers to come through on their claims that man made global warming is not real. You decided to prove that carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Even if you had succeeded in your proof I'm still not sure if you would have satisfied the requirement.
But, it isn't a question that I need to answer because your 'proof' does not carry any scientifically valid evidence. You decided to use some extremist deniers as your evidence and ignored the science. This 'proof' not only fails, but it really fails.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Posted by Tales From The Travels at 2:06 PM
Labels: Global Warming Skeptic Challenge
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I am sorry, but you are cherry picking things yourself in order to back your own claims, christopher Keating.ReplyDelete
Your view and judgement is biased.
You have allready made up your mind on the matter and will claim that anything that contradicts your opinion is false, despite being provided with scientific evidence.
Somehow, this reminds me of how religious people refute proof that states a different view than their own.
You are claiming that there is a tea kettle in orbit between earth and mars.
And he who claims, must provide proof.
The first statement can also be disproven by looking at the continued energy imbalance via satellite at the top of the atmosphere. If more energy is being retained then there is more energy in the system. Satellite measurements show that more energy is being retained. Where that energy goes doe snot matter as it can be redistributed anywhere in the system. Could the atmosphere cool as a result? Certainly as long as that energy is being retained elsewhere for a certain time period. Namely, the oceans and ocean currents/oscilations.ReplyDelete
With statement 2 the poster is completely ignoring the equations involved as well as the numbers in determining where that excess CO2 is coming from. He is basically stating "since CO2 has risen in the past naturally it must be occurring this time". The poster should look up something known as Le Chatelier's Principal.
"If a chemical reaction is at equilibrium and experiences a change in pressure, temperature, or concentration of products or reactants, the equilibrium shifts in the opposite direction to offset the change."
As the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing the oceans are attempting to maintain equilibrium to counteract that change. The atmosphere is currently increasing at a rate of about 2ppm or roughly 15.6 billion tons per year.
While human emissions account for over double this as per the CDIAC after converting to units of carbon dioxide.
What this means is that as humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere the increase is being counteracted by the oceans uptake and allowing only half of the CO2 humans emit to stay in the atmosphere while the rest is being absorbed.