tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post24652157553917961..comments2023-05-16T11:33:40.343-04:00Comments on Dialogues On Global Warming: Rejected by the EvidenceTales From The Travelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12155749992445168195noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-90848391559576313942015-01-14T10:23:07.475-05:002015-01-14T10:23:07.475-05:00climate.nasa.gov/evidenceclimate.nasa.gov/evidenceAndrian Gorohovschinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-82098900357553971822015-01-01T13:08:02.947-05:002015-01-01T13:08:02.947-05:00You are correct when you say the challenge is clos...You are correct when you say the challenge is closed. You are incorrect in supposing you did anything to show manmade global warming is not real. I posted your emailed version of this as a guest submission and you can view it, along with my response, here:<br /><br />http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/01/guest-submission-fraud-of-greenhouse.htmlChristopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-90493974292798527832015-01-01T00:42:59.101-05:002015-01-01T00:42:59.101-05:00The Sun sends into the atmosphere 30,000,000 times...The Sun sends into the atmosphere 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth radiates back out. If we put any insulator into the atmosphere, it will block out 30,000,000 times more heat than it will keep in. Clouds for instance. At night clouds reflect heat radiating from the earth back at the earth, but during the daytime, clouds cool the earth by blocking out sunlight and heat. We don't suffer a runaway global warming effect when the sky is covered in clouds. Even with the clouds reflecting back to the earth some heat, the lost heat blocked out by the clouds is far greater than the heat kept in by the clouds and we get a cool day, not a hot day. <br /><br /><br />Just look at the planet Venus. With it's 90 atm atmosphere it radiates only 840 Degrees Fahrenheit. If the Earth had a pressure of 90 atms the earth's temperature would be over 1400 degrees F, far warmer than Venus. When you remove the Pressure heat created by the 90 atms of pressure on Venus, the remaining solar heat is -444.969994 degrees F.<br /><br /><br />I don't think minus 444.969994 is hot do you?Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-6033845790050015082014-12-22T21:44:56.193-05:002014-12-22T21:44:56.193-05:00Forget about the $30000 challenge, if that were tr...Forget about the $30000 challenge, if that were true, you could win the Nobel Prize!<br /><br /><br />Try submitting your work to the Nobel panel. Of course, they'll wreck you even harder than Dr. Keating did here.nc6228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-86349237008074891452014-08-15T04:45:52.789-04:002014-08-15T04:45:52.789-04:00It's a series of unsupported assertions and no...It's a series of unsupported assertions and non sequiturs that don't even touch AGW. At the very least you would have to address the basic physics of GHGs.The burden on you is to offer a proof ... you would first have to have some understanding of what that is.Jim Balterhttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1026609730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-60916436372438247312014-08-15T04:41:40.660-04:002014-08-15T04:41:40.660-04:00I don't know what I said, but I'm sure it ...I don't know what I said, but I'm sure it was true and accurate, quite unlike all the comments from the deniers.Jim Balterhttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1026609730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-28727478760252563322014-08-12T18:12:05.940-04:002014-08-12T18:12:05.940-04:00I am planning on getting up there soon for the sam...I am planning on getting up there soon for the same reason. See em while you can.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-14668951664538904892014-08-11T18:07:52.108-04:002014-08-11T18:07:52.108-04:00They are in serious trouble. I read the long range...They are in serious trouble. I read the long range forecast is for 2015 to be equally dry. They are way past deep do-do out there. Take a look at the US. Drought Monitor:<br /><br />http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-59526710770101805972014-08-11T17:28:54.057-04:002014-08-11T17:28:54.057-04:00http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/our-droug...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/our-drought-is-real_n_5659546.html<br />These images paint a very stark picture of California.Mike Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-39148552008148147172014-08-08T09:28:44.539-04:002014-08-08T09:28:44.539-04:00Jim Balter, I have asked you to tone it down. I de...Jim Balter, I have asked you to tone it down. I deleted this comment and will <br />delete any in the future that are insulting like this. You are not <br />helping by being a troll. You're comments are welcome, but the insults <br />are not.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-320540647285398562014-08-08T07:42:39.371-04:002014-08-08T07:42:39.371-04:00I told you where you were wrong: "This I have...I told you where you were wrong: "This I have done" is wrong. Your post doesn't even begin to disprove AGW. It would help if you knew ANYTHING about climate science.Jim Balterhttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1026609730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-44637972438605235582014-08-05T11:05:56.537-04:002014-08-05T11:05:56.537-04:00I agree. It is not part of the scientific process ...I agree. It is not part of the scientific process and he needs to tone it down. But, if I censor him, I need to censor all of the contrarians that resort to the same thing and that would eliminate half of the people that comment on this blog.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-51388911651472647642014-08-05T11:04:19.589-04:002014-08-05T11:04:19.589-04:00Burl,
I have done so repeatedly. You took a th...Burl, <br /><br /><br /><br />I have done so repeatedly. You took a three-dimensional situation and thought that turning it into a two-dimensional was somehow appropriate. I am not at all sure about your math. I did not try to reproduce it because it is irrelevant. The issue is not how big is the source, the issue is how big is the amount of emissions. You did nothing to address that. Somehow, in your mind, you think because you can come up with some kind of math that says all of the emission sources combined makes a pipe only so big, then global warming isn't real. Well, let me ask you something that you even discussed yourself. Volcanoes have the ability to change the climate of the planet in very short order. Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and changed the world climate for years. And, yet, the caldera was only a tiny fraction the size of your pipe. How can you explain that using your logic?<br /><br /><br />It isn't the size of the source, its the volume of the emissions.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-27225877107034312992014-08-04T23:57:09.661-04:002014-08-04T23:57:09.661-04:00No? Please carefully re-read my submission and te...No? Please carefully re-read my submission and tell me where I am wrong, if you canBurl Henrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-26897940683457675352014-08-04T23:57:00.412-04:002014-08-04T23:57:00.412-04:00Wow! Name Calling! How mature of you Jim Balter. *...Wow! Name Calling! How mature of you Jim Balter. *sarcasm*thecanadarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-18755552815536081362014-08-04T20:19:45.761-04:002014-08-04T20:19:45.761-04:00No, my challenge was to people who claim they can ...No, my challenge was to people who claim they can prove man made global warming is not real to come and do just that. You didn't prove anything and it is pretty pathetic that you don't understand that.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-73907177845584523232014-08-04T19:41:10.812-04:002014-08-04T19:41:10.812-04:00No, I had to pay full price.
Do you really thi...No, I had to pay full price. <br /><br /><br /><br />Do you really think your "little list" has gone unanswered? I think I have addressed every single one of your of your questions and I know scientists out there have. <br /><br /><br /><br />As for the Katrinas, do these names mean anything to you: Rita, Sandy, Haiyan, and now Halong?Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-45541554314811964652014-08-04T19:12:36.109-04:002014-08-04T19:12:36.109-04:00Thanks for the talking point response. Did you get...Thanks for the talking point response. Did you get a discount on the playbook. Insult, belittle, dismiss, name call. I have done plenty of homework and every event EVER is possibly or thought to be. Keep drinking the kool aid Mr. Keating. <br />My little list went unanswered by you and everyone else I present it to. Since I can counter any answer you give me with a counter scientific claim or claim by another climate change follower. <br />Like the 17 year and counting pause. Some of your ilk claim lack of sun spots and natural cooling has offset any rise but soon enough it will get back to how the models predict.<br />Yet others claim the the pause has not occurred at all. Instead the heat has gone into the oceans but not all oceans.<br />Why has the Katrina not happened since? We were all told by every talking head that it was going to be the new normal. We better get used to it.<br />You are a kool aid drinker and political and agenda follower. Think for yourself and do your own homework and while you're at it start lobbying for money to remove the plastic from the oceans and poisons from superfund sites.Matthew Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-31612396697971878812014-08-04T15:37:21.845-04:002014-08-04T15:37:21.845-04:00Again you can attempt to lump me in with anyone yo...Again you can attempt to lump me in with anyone you wish but you would fail miserably.... First I do not now nor have I ever Denied Global Warming/Climate Change .. That is an oft repeated red herring you seem to rely on... between 25,000 years ago to around 7000 years ago the planet warmed, between assorted time frames after that the planet warm and the planet cooled... between 1900 and 1940 it warmed, between 1940 and 1975 it cooled, between 1975 and 2000 it warmed, and between 2000 and today it has cooled slightly... So you see I do not and never have denied warming, cooling and periods of static temps... That has Zero to do with the issue at hand... That's why it's called a Red Herring ... <br /><br />The Only Issue, The Only Question is does CO2 Cause climate variation .... Correlations made between CO2 ppm levels and Global Temps are not Evidence as there are periods in time when CO2 levels were Much higher than today and temps were cooler and times when CO2 levels were lower and temps warmer... And if we use plant Stoma counts as an indicator of past CO2 we get a completely different data set on past CO2 concentrations... Where as none of the Ice Core data sets take into account CO2's ability to migrate and leach from containment... <br /><br />Again I am not posting to change your religious Belief in AGW as I have found in past debates with believers in Creationism that such beliefs are not breech-able... It's a issue of Cognitive Dissonance ... I post so that your readers can see that you display intellectual dishonesty in your blogs and do not display the scientific knowledge base you claim expertise in... As a guy once wrote...<br /><br />B'Levers Believe... Praise Gaia !!!... B'Levers Believe......Quantummistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-15821871319655450162014-08-04T08:22:26.287-04:002014-08-04T08:22:26.287-04:00You won't prove me wrong. Even with all the me...You won't prove me wrong. Even with all the media on your side you will still be wrong. In science you only need one man to be right. In fact, you donot even want to know that you could be wrong, as you could easily investigate for yourself to see if you get the same results. I am gone. Sorry for wasting your time.Henry Poolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-9736461093910838142014-08-04T08:00:33.394-04:002014-08-04T08:00:33.394-04:00Only if you'll promise to pay me $10,000 for w...Only if you'll promise to pay me $10,000 for wasting my time when you continue to be wrong.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-56958122569523294592014-08-04T03:17:11.612-04:002014-08-04T03:17:11.612-04:00I accept your point that you have already addresse...I accept your point that you have already addressed many issues in other places and I should look first to what you have already said about the solar evidence, so I took a look at your "challenge submissions" page and I did find a post where you talk about "natural cycles," including variation in solar activity: <br /><br />http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/naturally-occurring-cycles-are-not.html<br /><br />But what you say there about solar activity seems opposite of the known facts. You write: <br /><br />"Two very influential cycles are the AMO and solar activity. Both of these give a lot of correlation to global average temperature. Unfortunately, both of these were in a negative phase throughout the warming trend of the 1980s and 1990s. The AMO has turned positive (warming), ironically during the same period deniers claim global warming has stopped (not true), but the solar activity has continued to be in a negative phase."<br /><br />The 80s and 90s were the last two decades of what several leading solar physicist have labeled an 80 year "grand maximum" of solar activity. See p. 304 here:<br /><br />http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf<br /><br /><br /><br />So I'm wondering what you mean when you label these decades of unusually high solar activity as a "negative phase" of solar activity? Are you denying that solar activity was unusually high over the 80s and 90s? Cycles 21 and 22 would seem to have been quite strong by any measure.Alexander Rawlsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-66457511592327518802014-08-04T01:43:55.444-04:002014-08-04T01:43:55.444-04:00Well, when my report turns out to be correct, as I...Well, when my report turns out to be correct, as I am sure it will, in due time, you owe me the $30000 to the benefit of orphans and abandoned children. I leave it to you, Mr. Keating, to chose the specific charity that relates to this that you want to donate the money to. God bless you all. HenryHenry Poolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-61312835481355894302014-08-03T21:28:09.341-04:002014-08-03T21:28:09.341-04:00Sorry, no.Sorry, no.Christopher Keatinghttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581891759488770965.post-6329170602011839182014-08-03T21:05:14.599-04:002014-08-03T21:05:14.599-04:00Again... You claim expertise and run from debate ...Again... You claim expertise and run from debate ...<br /><br />CO2 in the atmosphere is today .038% .... You know that... It's the numbers used in NOAA, NASA and IPCC data sets.... of that .002% is attributed to human activities based on the C12/C13 isotope ratios... Anyone can look those numbers up... <br /><br />You seem to fluff of the hallmarks of science with the claim of science... I would say that from what I have seen you tend to more of the Alchemical method of Theory production versus even coming close to sowing any understand of the scientific method... If you did you would answer the simple question put to you... It's a requirement for any valid scientific hypothesis to rise to the level of theory... <br /><br />So again...<br /><br />Please provide a method to falsify the hypothesis that the .02% of atmospheric CO2 attributed to human activity is the cause for climate variation... <br /><br />Or even simpler...<br /><br />Please provide a method to falsify the hypothesis that the .038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is the cause for climate variation..<br /><br />That should be a simple question if the hypothesis is scientifically valid ..<br /><br />And yes your "AGW is real, prove it's not" posting you made is religious in nature.... You may not have the intellectual honesty to admit it but it is the exact same statement made by ever religious fanatic and Believer for centuries.... "My God is Real, Prove he's not" as been the cry of every religious based argument since the first religions... <br /><br />Even the use of the the request for Proof highlights your religious Belief is AGW just as surely and the Southern Baptist's request for Proof there is no God.... <br /><br />And I'm no where near done... When someone claims expertise and falls to Belief and Dogmatic adherence to pseudoscience while attempting to cash in on those without scientific understanding using fear and bulling tactics I tend to make them a on going project ... Not because I think I will get them to be intellectually honest but so when they are challenged their viewing public can see them for the frauds they are....Quantummistnoreply@blogger.com