Monday, June 23, 2014

Wood Found Under Glaciers

I received the second challenge to my $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. As usual, I quote the submission verbatim:

Dr. Keating...

I respectfully submit the findings of Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier. Here is an article that summarizes the research...

http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/17/scientist-reveals-inconvenient-truth-to-alarmists/

Here is his interview on why, "Our society is fundamentally dishonest." Translated from German to English by Google Translator...

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.derbund.ch%2Fwissen%2Fnatur%2FUnsere-Gesellschaft-ist-grundsaetzlich-unehrlich%2Fstory%2F24948853&edit-text=

Additional questions for you to answer.

1. Can you explain why the Rhone glacier has been ice-free for 5,800 of the last 10,000 years, according to Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s research?

2. Can you explain why the Rhone glacier was ice-free before human industrial influence? Which is the very period of time that global-warming alarmist's point to as the proverbial smoking gun to prove their point.

I am not submitting these findings for a prize. I ask only that YOU refute Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s work with an absolute certainty in this matter. If you can't, as I suspect you won't be able, then concede this, there is NO definitive right or wrong in this case and PUBLICLY accept that your OPINION may not be the correct one. I reverse your challenge, I don't want your money, I want you to take out a full-page ad in either the NY Times or LA Times admitting that you lost this challenge.

 Response:

Let me summarize the article and what is claimed to be proof against man made global warming. Dr. Christian Schluchter (sorry, I can't do the umlats in his name) found some wood at the base of a glacier. The wood is dated as being 4000 years old and is believed to be left over from before the glacier covered the area. Glaciers move things, but also sometimes just cover things up and leave them in place. Either way, this wood shows that somewhere that is currently covered with the glacier was ice free 4000 years ago.  The article is also filled with all sorts of innuendo that has nothing to do with the science involved. If Dr. Schluchter became 'a target of scorn,' as the article states, it was probably because he was taking old news and trying to make the case that it was some new major discovery. This would be kind of like someone saying they discovered gravity and then being convinced they were targeted because no one was listening.

I would like to say I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not even a little disappointed. I am more likely to take out the ad you mentioned to proclaim that deniers have failed to prove their point. Your submission fails the scientific method proof standard (why is that so hard when the deniers all claim it is simple?). Here are the issues with your submission.

There is most certainly a right answer and science is not an opinion. You accept it and understand it, or you reject it. A common characteristic of deniers is the way they reject science. Its unfortunate. We could be spending our time and effort addressing this problem if it wasn't for people like you.


Failure #1: The article you reference is something of an embarrassment - for the author not for scientists. Take a look at this plot to see why:



This is a plot showing global temperature and CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years (today is on  the left). The most obvious thing that just jumps right out is that there has been variation in the climate. Dr. Schluchter's discovery probably didn't make any news because that is something that is well known. Climate changes over time and there are natural cycles.

The reason this is a failure is because no one, not in this article or anywhere else, has ever shown a connection between natural cycles and what is being observed today. What deniers are doing is saying there are natural cycles, therefore it is a foregone conclusion that today's warming trend is a natural cycle. This is a false argument and there is even a name for it. It is called the fallacy of four terms. This is the argument made about cycles by deniers:

There were warm periods in the past.
We are in a warm period today.
Warm periods in the past were naturally occurring cycles.
Therefore, today's warm period is a naturally occurring cycle.

The problem with this argument is that there nothing that says naturally occurring cycles are the the only way a warm period can exist. No connection is demonstrated between naturally occurring cycles and today's warming trend. Let me put in a way that makes it more obvious.

Pneumonia kills people.
Gunshot wounds kill people.
Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease.
Therefore, gunshot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

Again, there is no connection between the first and the second. There are other ways for people to die than just pneumonia.

Here is the real problem with the claims made in this article: We are in a naturally occurring cool cycle, not a warm one. All warming (above the average) in the current trend is man made and it would be much worse if not for the natural cooling cycle.

To directly answer your two questions, I do not refute any of Dr. Schluchter's work, just any conclusion that this shows global warming is not real. The reason why this particular glacial area (and many others) was ice free at some point in the past is because the climate changes in a natural manner. This fact does not detract at all from the data that shows we have changed the climate today with our emissions.

Now, if you, or Dr. Schluchter, or anyone else, could show that today's warming trend is a result of natural cycles, then that would be news.

Until then, this proof is shown to be false. In fact, it doesn't even satisfy the requirements of the $1000 challenge, either.

Don't feel too bad. This is the most common argument made by deniers today. It really shows just how little homework they do. They simply pick out some inflammatory article on the web and take it as proof of their beliefs without checking up on it. It sounds good, therefore it must be good. Funny how that works because that is, itself, a false argument.

69 comments:

  1. 'The reason this is a failure is because no one, not in this article or anywhere else, has ever shown a connection between natural cycles and what is being observed today.'

    Yeah, right.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/plot/hadsst2nh/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/mean:30

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, what point are you trying to make here? Explain to anyone how these plots show that modern day warming is a natural cycle. The existence of past cycles is not proof. You are assuming there is only one cause of a trend, and that isn't even true in the historical record. Cycles have been caused by many things. I don't see any evidence in that link to indicate today's warming trend has any natural cause.

      Delete
    2. So are you, you are assuming that the warming we are seeing today has to be man made with no proof to back it up. Where is your proof that it is not a natural cycle? You talk so much about no one showing you scientific proof yet you have yet to do so yourself that man made global warming is real. So I say again show me concrete proof that this is NOT a natural cycle.

      Delete
    3. Branding someone a denier is slander. Linking your intellectual adversary to Nazis...really? How do you justify it? That aside, the models supporting co2 anthropogenic global warming predict warming...but warming has not occurred; the fact is co2 is not a big player in the greenhouse gas world. There are other, ridiculously destructive gasses to be concerned about. So I'm curious as to why the climate change debates hinges on co2? Also, the "scientific concensus" has to now figure out why their models fail to account for the stalled warming that we continue to experience glabally. Well what validity should I attribute to a failed theory? Has the scientific "majority" hedged its bets on junk science in the past? Yes it has.
      And there are big problems to solve right, such as repairing the atmosphere which accepts gobs of pollutants every second of the day. Fishing the pollutants and dispersant's from our waterways...
      So who am I to "deny" the majorities theory...well I'm an artist, a planter of 2 million trees ( yup I did that) and I worked to save Canadian pine forests from pine beetle attacks + I'm deeply concerned about my environment, I reject GMO foods I have quit sugar and I love to eat fresh organic foods, also I'm not politically inclined left or right, add to that I'm well educated and I vet my info. Not exactly a Nazi am I? I accept your apology. :)

      Delete
    4. There is no proven warm trend in the last 15 years according to the MET office. Prove there is a warming trend and you will win me over

      Delete
    5. What I see in your graph, anonymous, is that the AMO appears to be modulating the long-term, mostly anthropogenic (there was also a positive solar effect during the first half of the 20th century - no one disputes that) warming trend. If you look at the AMO alone, you'll see that it's cyclical, like a sine wave or the solar cycle, with no net increase. If it was really the driving influence on global surface temperature, there would be no net increase in temperature, just the same sine wave pattern as the AMO; yet, as the graph shows, both of the temperature indices are distinctly trending upward. If I could (I never have luck with this in woodfortrees), I would add in the trend lines for each of those three variables you've plotted. Then my point would be even more obvious, Perhaps you could do that and post the results here. What I am able to do is get it to show the trend lines alone: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/trend/plot/hadsst2nh/mean:30/trend/plot/hadcrut3nh/mean:30/trend

      Delete
    6. >>We are in a naturally occurring cool cycle

      Citation needed.

      Delete
    7. Natural cooling cycle.

      Here is one reference. They are easy to find, but this is a good one:

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

      Delete
    8. For thatgo916:

      I am addressing a submission concerning the AMO and it should be posted tomorrow (crossing my fingers), July 26 (Thursday).

      Delete
    9. For Owen Suppes:

      Here is a very good article on the subject with some really nice graphics.

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

      Delete
    10. Also for Owen Suppes:

      I never called deniers Nazis, but I did compare the death toll from climate change to the Holocaust. The Holocaust resulted in the death of about 6 million Jews over roughly 12 years - about 500,000 victims per year. Climate change is currently responsible for the deaths of about 400,000 per year. One of the reasons this is happening is because deniers are actively working to prevent anything from being done about the problem.

      I'll tell you what, when you stop preventing measures that would help keep these people alive I'll stop making comparisons. As for an apology, I'll consider it when deniers all start apologizing for the casualty list they have actively worked to create. Don't play all high and mighty, its not very convincing.

      Delete
    11. For thatgo916 concerning natural cycles: Take a look here:

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

      But, as I keep saying, this challenge isn't about me having to prove anything. It is all about the deniers that say AGW is not real and they can prove it.

      Delete
    12. Further to my reply above to the OP "Anonymous," I figured out how to add those all-important linear regression trend lines to your graph. It should now be crystal clear that the AMO has been net zero in trend during the period in question while temperature (Northern hemisphere, in this chart) has - as we already know - been significantly positive: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:30/plot/hadsst2nh/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/mean:30/plot/esrl-amo/trend/plot/hadsst2nh/trend/plot/hadcrut3nh/trend

      Delete
    13. Syd, good work. That is the reality of the AMO over the last several decades.

      Delete
    14. Christopher Keating look here:

      http://news.yahoo.com/ice-age-reboot-ocean-current-shutdown-viewed-culprit-180323460.html

      Just posted to yahoo today, shows there are many factors to our climate and how it warms and cools. Apposed to you and all the other man made global warming fanatics screaming about CO2 like its a cancer when it is a life giving element and we would be dead with out it. Like CO2 from our cars is the only thing driving climate change, cow farts put out more greenhouse gases in a year then cars do. The reality is that there are a multitude of different factors that drive our climate and no one factor can have that big of a impact on the over all cycle. In fact if there was actual climate data from the last 300,000 years it would be easy to disprove you, because in the over all picture our current climate is not any where close to outside the coldest or hottest this planet has ever been. You are just preying off the fact that there isn't enough concrete long term data about our climate to disprove you and the rest of the man made global warming cult. But there isn't enough data to prove you are right either and that's what you fail to realize. In short you are trying to make select facts fit your narrative of the conclusion instead of being open minded and letting the facts from all side guide you to the conclusion. In your own words you are cherry picking.

      Delete
    15. thatgo916,

      That "there are many factors to our climate and how it warms and cools" is not exactly news to climate scientists - and by that I mean the very same ones who have arrived at the consensus about current anthropogenic global warming. This is climate science 101, and you would know that if you would only take the time to acquaint yourself with the subject before assuming you're an instant expert and an informed critic of the parts you can't/won't accept or understand. This particular study has absolutely nothing to say about why the planet is warming today. Any of the scientists who wrote it would tell you that.

      Delete
  2. A simple equation, using only natural cycles (ocean cycles and sunspot cycles), calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2>0.9. The analysis is at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have seen that and it is extremely flawed. He based his entire calculation on solar activity (not solar cycles) and the idea that warming is caused by water vapor but he doesn't provide a driver to put the water vapor in the air. CO2 is the driver to put water vapor in the air and it is just silly to say there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. Look at that plot presented above and tell me you can't see a correlation.

      Delete
    2. By the way, this is called numerical analyses and is the process of generating a mathematical curve to fit some observed curve. It is a great tool (I did several in grad school for the thesis), but it is not scientific evidence.

      Delete
    3. CO2 is the driver to put Water vapor in the air? Really? You can say that with a straight face when CO2 lags the temperature increase?

      Delete
    4. I sincerely hope you are not trying to make the claim that climate and weather are simple things and there is only one thing involved. CO2 is the principle driver behind climate change and always has been, even in all of those past warming cycles deniers like to produce as 'proof.' That doesn't mean it is the only thing.

      Delete
    5. Co2 is not "the" driver for warming. In fact it never has been. You're thinking of water vapor, which is the primary driver and it always has been...accounting for approximately 86% of the greenhouses in play

      Delete
    6. The water vapor would not be there if not for the higher temperatures. Water vapor cannot be the driver, it is a result.

      http://climate.nasa.gov/carbon_dioxide_key_points

      Delete
  3. haha this should be fun :). I really hope for more challenges.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What would be really interesting would be to find out what fraction of those who make submissions eventually acknowledge - or even recognise - the problems with what they've submitted. My current view is that it will be a potentially negligible fraction, but I'd really like to be proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you and I, too, would like to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, my personal experience is that there is no amount of evidence or logic that can convince deniers to change their minds.

      Delete
    2. Chris – I wonder how you got through school without learning about vapor pressure.
      I don’t know where you got the idea that “…warming is caused by water vapor…”. It certainly did not come from my stuff. My explanation of how sunspots might drive climate change is described in the paper under “How this phenomenon takes place”.

      Are you unaware that solar cycles are a plot of sunspot numbers? The equation uses the time-integral of the difference between each sunspot number and 34 (which is the average sunspot number 1610-1940).

      The graph that you show has fooled a lot of people. With the time scale used it is not obvious that temperature change precedes CO2 change. I used an expanded scale and overlaid the temperature and CO2 to show this at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html

      The equation uses coefficients (for sunspot numbers it’s a proxy factor) derived by maximizing R2 using average global temperature measurements 1895-2012. The equation calculates credible average global temperatures 1610-2012 and predictions to 2037. The effect of CO2 change can be included or zeroed out on the spread sheet. Including it or not made no significant difference in R2 which means that CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.

      There is a large scatter (s.d. approx. 0.09 K) in reported average global temperatures so 2014 or 2015 could set new high temperature records (probability in 2014 is approximately 1 in 4). But the future trend is relentlessly down as shown in Figure 1 of http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    3. All you have done is to develop a mathematical equation to fit the observed data - numerical analyses. It is a very useful tool, but it is not any kind of proof. It is possible to devise an equation to match anything you want to climate cycles, or to do the same for any other observed data.

      Delete
    4. "All you have done is to develop a mathematical equation to fit the observed data"

      Of course, just like the folks at East Anglia.

      Delete
    5. The analysis is a straight-forward application of the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. The equation, so derived, provides a demonstration. It calculates what has happened since before 1900 with 95% correlation and credible values back to 1610. No one else has come up with anything anywhere near this close to the measured data.

      The method used at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 was within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.

      As shown in Table 1:
      R2 accounting only for the influence of ocean cycles and sunspot numbers is 0.904906. R2 accounting for the influence of ocean cycles, sunspot numbers and CO2 change is 0.906070.

      Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, and ice change) must find room in the unexplained 10%.

      That tiny difference in R2, whether CO2 change is considered or not, should be proof enough to anyone that CO2 change makes no significant difference.

      I have made my prediction public. It will be right or wrong depending on what nature does.

      Delete
  5. Seriously, "CO2 is the principle driver behind climate change and always has been,..."??? WOW, could you direct me to the empirical data that supports that statement??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a place to start. I'm not going to do the heavy lifting for you, though.

      http://climate.nasa.gov/carbon_dioxide_key_points

      Delete
    2. Nothing new at this site.
      Anyone paying attention knows that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and CO2 is a ghg. But, since 2001, CO2 has increased by 30% of the increase 1800-2001 while the surface temperature trend has remained flat.

      That and corroborating data going back much further demonstrate that change to the level of atmospheric CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature. NASA's assertion that CO2 increase is responsible for Global Warming is wrong.

      Going along to get along might preserve a NASA job for a while but eventually (I think it has already) nature will make a misguided assertion untenable.

      Delete
    3. You'll find more on this site, i.e. the latest IPCC report on the physical science: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

      See "TS.3.2 Radiative Forcing from Greenhouse Gases," p. 53

      As to your argument that a brief pause in the surface air temperature warming trend disproves AGW, see "Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" on p. 61. Also see http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 and any long-term graph of the instrumental record. The current "pause" is a baby compared to the one during the mid-20th century.

      Delete
    4. Also see my earlier reply to you here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/2014/06/second-10000-challenge-submission.html?showComment=1403889201304#c358491149530513553

      Delete
    5. You call this proof of C02 as being the "primary driver behind climate change and always has been"?
      Firstly, not every warmer agrees with you on CO being the driver. I can find many sites that will disagree with you on that. Here is one...

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-lag

      And here is a statement from there.....

      One of the things people noticed after Al Gores movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind warming. This is actually true.

      Secondly, there is a scenario when C02 leads temperatures. If you look at the ice core sample data, you will see a time when C02 rise is leading a temperature change. It is on every ice core sample that I have viewed. I'm sure that you'll be able to find those charts...I'm just not gonna do the heavy lifting for you but here is a start.

      Anyhow, if you follow the time that temperatures start to rise, you will seen that C02 rose afterwards. C02 continues to rise, lets say, parallel to the rise in temperatures though it lagging.
      The time that the C02 continues to rise is after temperatures begin to recede. It make it look as if C02 is rising above temperatures. However, Temperatures actually drop before the C02 drops. In essence, it still lags behind. Please look closely at a ice sample chart.

      I know that this does not prove that we are cooling and I probably can't prove that no more than C02 rise is proof, when it lags a temperature rise, that temperatures will rise. However, with proof (ice core data) that C02 continues to rise when temperatures start to decline and with the current pause (or drop) of a increase of temperatures for the past 15 to 20 years, we could actually be witnessing the beginning of cooling phase as many ''coolers'' are stating.

      Proof of is is not something I can do but I don't think that you presented proof C02 leads temperature rise nor that we are continuing a warming trend. I think that I may have presented data that provides logic that a rise in C02 means we are continuing a warming trend.

      Delete
    6. You call this proof of C02 as being the "primary driver behind climate change and always has been"?
      Firstly, not every warmer agrees with you on CO being the driver. I can find many sites that will disagree with you on that. Here is one...

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-lag

      And here is a statement from there.....

      One of the things people noticed after Al Gores movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind warming. This is actually true.

      Secondly, there is a scenario when C02 leads temperatures. If you look at the ice core sample data, you will see a time when C02 rise is leading a temperature change. It is on every ice core sample that I have viewed. I'm sure that you'll be able to find those charts...I'm just not gonna do the heavy lifting for you but here is a start.

      Anyhow, if you follow the time that temperatures start to rise, you will seen that C02 rose afterwards. C02 continues to rise, lets say, parallel to the rise in temperatures though it lagging.
      The time that the C02 continues to rise is after temperatures begin to recede. It make it look as if C02 is rising above temperatures. However, Temperatures actually drop before the C02 drops. In essence, it still lags behind. Please look closely at a ice sample chart.

      I know that this does not prove that we are cooling and I probably can't prove that no more than C02 rise is proof, when it lags a temperature rise, that temperatures will rise. However, with proof (ice core data) that C02 continues to rise when temperatures start to decline and with the current pause (or drop) of a increase of temperatures for the past 15 to 20 years, we could actually be witnessing the beginning of cooling phase as many ''coolers'' are stating.

      Proof of is is not something I can do but I don't think that you presented proof C02 leads temperature rise nor that we are continuing a warming trend. I think that I may have presented data that provides logic that a rise in C02 means we are continuing a warming trend.

      Delete
  6. Wouldn't a real scientist know that it is impossible to prove a negative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing I am trying to prove is that the claims by deniers are not valid. I am merely giving them an opportunity to prove their claims that AGW is not real.

      Delete
    2. What happens when you prove a positive with which the negative can not coexist?

      Delete
    3. Then you have proven that the deniers need to stop making their crazy claims.

      Delete
    4. By your own statement (see below) no one has been able to prove that AGW is valid.

      However, it has been demonstrated (http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/) that CO2 change has had no significant effect on average global temperature for all of recorded history.

      It has been demonstrated that CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature.

      It has NOT been proven (or demonstrated) that AGW exists.

      Delete
  7. First, I really appreciate what you're doing here for all of us who spend some, much or more-than-we-really-should of our time trying to reason with those who are determined to be unreasonable about climate change. I'm looking forward to watching a high quality body of climate myth vs climate reason develop on these pages, one I can learn from myself and refer others to. It may not not have much value in swaying the true disbelievers, but it will be another invaluable resource for people who sincerely want to learn and understand what's happening to our climate in the face of the aggressive movement to confuse and misinform.

    Now, to my question. What was my question? Ah - why does your graph indicate that CO2 concentration today is still only about 280 ppm? I noticed that you referred to the graph in another post in which you acknowledged that CO2 has been slightly higher than now a few times during this period. Of course, we're now at ~400 ppm, so it hasn't. Is the 280 ppm figure on the graph meant to be the baseline for "now" = baseline Holocene? I just wanted to point that potential cause of confusion out. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know already.

    Again, I really appreciate what you're doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! You're right. I use that plot to show the historical record and I never really noticed it doesn't have the current level on there. I will need to work on that.

      Thanks a lot for bringing that to my attention.

      And, you're right. The reason I do this is not to change anyone's mind because I don't think it can be done. But, there are lots of people out there that are trying to figure this out and I would like to help them make an informed decision.

      Delete
  8. Christopher, I came here as a link from your main challenge, and haven't read all the comments there, so please forgive me if you answered this over on the main page: Can you give us your best example, your best evidence, for anthropogenic global warming? Preferably one scientific paper that you feel proves a connection between human activity and warming?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. When we say 'global warming' that is just what we mean, the whole globe. As such, we are talking about a very complicated situation. You cannot take snowfall in Detroit as evidence against global warming. Neither can you take a hot day in summer in Detroit as evidence for. I presented a proof of AGW in my book and I used over 200 references. There is no single paper out there that I could site, it has to be many papers covering a whole host of topics related to the issue.

      I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but it is the reality of the situation. Science is seldom easy.

      Delete
  9. Thanks chris, keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  10. All I am getting from any of this is, I have no proof to prove global warming; however you need to show proof it isn't happening. I am no scientist, just an ordinary guy. I have been hearing this hullabaloo about global warming for 20+ years now and it is a money grab; nothing more.

    You always hear about the melting northern ice sheets, yet no mention of the rapidly freezing/growing southern ice sheets. I live in Fl, and if we were heating at the scale you claim, I would currently be under water. The major cause in history(including the last century) of increased CO2 is volcanoes. Always has been, always will be. Just like all the methane garbage and cows. The largest release of methane is and always has been the ocean floor. I won't link you anything because you are a fraud and not worth the time. If I did and I won the $10,000; I would give it all away because I would not want nothing from a scammer. Every time some posts something scientific, you do everything to discredit it. This is a lost journey because no one will ever satisfy you in providing proof. You are a pathetic attention whore seeking his 15 minutes o fame. Sad, just sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, volcanoes do not add a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is easy to see by looking at the Keeling curve which shows the CO2 level. If volcanoes added amounts nearly as large as you suggest, you would see big spikes in the curve when eruptions occur. No such spike can be observed in the data.

      So, if I awarded you for you posting, that would make me a scammer? Sound logic.

      Delete
  11. Hi Chris,

    Great work. I'm really glad someone is taking the time to aggressively debate these topics. Here is some useful data on the question of Volcanoes and their affect on atmospheric CO2:

    Volcanic Eruptions and CO2

    Mt St. Hellens = 10 million tons of CO2
    Rinjani Volcano = 48.16 million Tons of CO2
    Mt Pinatubo = 50 million tons of CO2

    All Volcanoes in the world in a year = 700 million tons of CO2

    Fossil Fuel burning = 35 BILLION tons/year.

    1. Fossil Fuels = 3,500 times more than St Helens.
    2. Fossil Fuels = 720 times more than St Rinjani
    3. Fossil Fuels = 700 times more than Pinatubo.
    4. Fossil Fuels = 50 times more than all the volcanos in the world for one year.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
    http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/newfer09/ShinoharaoutgasRG2008.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rinjani

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very helpful. Thanks. I hope it makes a difference with some people.

      Delete
    2. Change to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has no significant effect on temperature anyway.

      CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through May, 2014) increased since 2001 by 27.51 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.7% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2014, 398.64 ppmv).

      The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (average of 5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs through 2013 have been added.

      No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.51 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

      Delete
    3. Dan,

      You're overlooking other important reservoirs for the heat imbalance caused by the greenhouse effect: notably, the oceans and the cryosphere (ice and snow). I've seen Christopher already address this elsewhere on the blog, as have climate scientists in general in numerous articles and papers. You would have an argument if there was no evidence that heat has still been accumulating at the more or less expected rate in the system as a whole.

      I'm not a scientist, but as a science writer I've given a detailed, accessible and hyperlinked reckoning over here: http://www.aquarianonline.com/a-cold-winter-in-a-still-warming-world/ The piece starts with a different hook, so if you're in a hurry you can scroll down about halfway to "Something similar has been happening with the recent so-called “pause” in global warming."

      Delete
    4. Syd - Thanks for the link.

      Coefficient of determination, R2= 0.9049 means that 90.49% of the measured average global temperatures since before 1900 are explained by the equation. Everything not explicitly considered (may have been overlooked?), including the things you mentioned, must find room in the unexplained 9.5%. Also, the correlation uses measurements back to before 1900.

      Climate Science’s fixation on CO2 as the cause of GW has resulted in epic fail. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
      Their Global Climate Models that they have so heavily relied on are magnificently complex but fundamentally flawed as described at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com

      The NASA climate guys have become notorious for cooking the books on US temperature measurements (which doesn’t matter much because the US covers less than 2% of the surface of the planet). But this puts their explanation of where the heat is going in question.

      Delete
    5. But have you read the link or the ones to AR5 I posted above?

      I'm looking at your blog with the correlation (http://agwunveiled.blogspot.ca/). First off, someone much more sophisticated than me needs to critique it. If it's as earth-shattering as you say it is, you must submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and get in line for a Nobel prize. Even if you feel the game is rigged, there are some anti-AGW journals that should be delighted to publish it. That said, a few initial observations:

      Why is your graph of the sunspot number trend (#2 of 5) so different than what's suggested by this "no agenda" (if you will) graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn ?

      Second, as you know, correlation doesn't equal causation. More importantly, how does your claim of >90% correlation jibe with the satellite record since ~1979 of total solar irradiance - seen here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/plot/pmod/trend - which clearly has been on a downtrend while the planet's surface temperature has spiked: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/plot/wti/trend/from:1979 ?

      Delete
    6. Here's another graph with a trend line of that long-term sunspot record: http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Sunspot activity since 1700. Again, there's a seemingly falsifying (for your hypothesis) breakdown of any meaningful correlation precisely when it should be strongest. If there were a correlation, you would have to (and perhaps you have somewhere in your paper) show how the very minute changes in solar forcing during this period are sufficient to explain the long-term warming trend compared to the increasingly powerful net positive anthropogenic forcings.

      Delete
    7. Okay, in fairness, here's the long-term linear trend for the entire reconstruction period available in the woodfortrees database: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/plot/sidc-ssn/trend

      Clearly sunspot numbers have risen during this period, and there's an interesting correlation between the ups and downs of the temperature record, just as there is with the AMO (except the AMO oscillates with a flat trend line: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/esrl-amo/trend). I'm in over my head, but is it possible — and I'm addressing this to Christopher, too — that sunspots/TSI have, independently of the increasingly strong and more powerful (in watts per square metre — see "Radiative forcing of climate between 1750 and 2011" on page 54 here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf) anthropogenic forcings, been modulating the waxing anthropogenic warming trend? TSI/sunspots are a direct forcing, like GHGs. The AMO is just internal variability. How it all might add together is beyond me at the moment. TSI fluctuations cause AMO temps fluctuations, perhaps?

      Here's a much longer term analysis of the sunspot record and global temps: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/07/why-i-am-still-skeptical-about-sunspots-and-temperature/ The correlation seems even weaker than since the 1700s.

      Delete
  12. Here is my participation Dr,
    George Carlin on Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4
    i hope it counts
    regards :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. How can you know what temperature and CO2 levels were 800,000 years ago? Were you there? Did they make a time machine with the left over federal grant money that they got from the federal government aka taxpayers money?

    I would guess that answer would be no so all you have is speculation. Which is 99% of what you have when you talk about Global warming or is it the Polar Vortex or wait isn't it climate change this week.

    The whole thing is a scam for people trying to be scientist looking for federal funds to support their lifestyles. Why not to something productive like finding a cure for cancer or Duchenes MD or something easier like Rheumatoid Arthritis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical denier, patiently waiting until you have 10% of the information before jumping to the wrong conclusion. For the record, I am not receiving any grant money from anyone.

      We can determine the climate record in the past by using what are known as proxies. We can determine certain things happen only in a certain temperature range. A chemical reaction, a sea shell or coral, some particular plant, isotope ratios in the atmosphere, growth in tree rings. Scientists collect this data from all over the world and figure the data out very painstakingly and then share and compare with others in order to get a picture.

      If 800,000 years burns you up, wait a few years. They have developed a new technique that will let us measure all the way back to 1.5 million years before the present.

      Delete
  14. And therein lies the problem Chris there are too many variables with too many "scientists" with varying competence and motivation. Scientific Method and Empirical Data are worthless with a corrupt peer review process. You haven't examined all the data from your 200 sources and neither has anyone else, lets not forget the thousands of other sources you chose to leave out because you either don't know about them or the boys down at the club decided not to give them any credibility. OH and by the way don't think you're not pegged too with being part of this problem. How could a "scientist" worth his salt claim even 1 death is attributed to Global Warming let alone millions? What was your Scientific Method did you use for separating "naturally" occurring weather conditions from those produced by Global Warming?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not true. This is the debate and skeptical questioning deniers always demand. Scientists put out their findings then we all discuss it (even argue about it). Over time we can build a picture of what is going on, what ever topic we are talking about.

    As for the cost (and casualties) of climate change today, take a look at the report on this study:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

    Could they be off in their estimates? Sure could. But, they could be too low just as easily as they could be too high. Either way, what we see is that hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year and the world economy is taking a big hit from climate change and it is happening right now, not at some point in future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note that the paper is nearly 2 years old (the Arctic ice area has fully recovered), and was written by people anxious to extract from American prosperity (which is declining thanks to Progressives).

      Nasty weather is natural. It is happening someplace all the time, and always has. Vivid graphics on TV make it look ominous and omnipresent but it is not getting worse. Some mistakenly blame humans for it. There is evidence that the Incas even made human sacrifices to try to prevent it.

      Delete
    2. We're not even close to partial Arctic sea ice recovery: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/trend

      The most recent annual low is still lower than any prior to ~2005. The most recent high looks to be lower than any high before ~2004. What we have is a slight and relatively insignificant (noise) upward fluctuation within a long-term trend that has seen Arctic sea ice extent shrink about 45% since the 1950s/60s following a relatively flat or very gradually declining period (on average) dating back to ~1875, according to the datasets reviewed for the IPCC's latest report (see http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf, figure on p. 38).

      Delete
    3. Play with this — http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ — it's completely up-to-date.

      Delete
  16. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature even though CO2 levels have been up to 18 times higher than today. Veizer and Shaviv conclude that 75% of the temperature variability in the last half-billion years is explained by cosmic ray changes as we move in and out of galactic spiral arms. You are teaching a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  17. From a previous post....

    ''The existence of past cycles is not proof. You are assuming there is only one cause of a trend, and that isn't even true in the historical record.''

    Why wouldn't the reverse be true....because there is warming now, it is man made and not natural?

    ReplyDelete