First $10,000 and $1000 Challenges!

I received the first submission to the $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge today. It was submitted as a comment to the challenge page. You can see it there, but I also reproduce it here verbatim:

Here you go:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

Please make your generous donation payable to: The Free Software Foundation (fsf.org). You donation is appreciated and TAX-DEDUCTIBLE…

If you go to the webpage he (forgive me for being sexist. There is no indication of gender. I use the male gender here as a generic reference only.) references you find this:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
Source: WoodForTrees.org

Let’s cut right to the chase because this is a really pathetic example of denier-speak: No, this does not satisfy the challenge. In fact, this doesn’t even qualify as a proof under the scientific method. This is what is known as ‘cherry-picking’ – picking your data to get the results you want.

Since, Mr. Anonymous (I don’t blame him for refusing to identify himself. I would be embarrassed too.) didn’t submit a proof, I am forced to conclude this is not a proof that man made global warming is not real.

However, I will, on my own initiative, submit it as the first challenge under the $1000 Scientific Evidence Challenge. Again, this is not evidence against man made global warming for the following reasons:

Failure #1: The data is cherry-picked, as I said before. It is completely expected to see a large amount of variability in the data. Just look the graph above and you can see how it goes way up and then it goes way down. Comare the year 2008 to 2010. In fact, let’s do that and see what we get:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2008/to:2010/trend
Source: WoodForTrees.org      

Wow! What a difference! See the thin green line going up at an incredible rate? Look at that and tell me there is no such thing as man made global warming! We’re all doomed! DOOMED!

But, if you objected you wold be correct. This is cherry-picking. I selected two data points in order to get what I wanted. Cherry-picking is invalid science, no matter which way you go. I cannot do it any more than Mr. Anonymous can. It is still invalid and only serves to provide someone with a false argument.

If we want to really see what is going on we need to use statistical methods that take out the ‘noise’ of background effects and variability. A long-term average does a better job:

Source: WoodForTrees.org

This plot shows the average data from 1980 to the present with a trend line from 1980 to 2013 (the last complete year). This is a much more valid plot than what Mr. Anonymous provided and shows a seriously different result: there is has been a definite waring trend in the data.

Mr. Anonymous failed on this one point alone. His plot is not scientific evidence against global warming.

Failure #2: If you are able to see the source for all of these plots (shown to the right on the source page for the plots) you should quickly pick out the second fatal flaw in Mr. Anonymous’ argument: The data source is “RSS MSU lower trop. global mean.” This stands for Remote Sensing System Microwave Sounding Units lower troposphere global mean temperature. In other words, this is the satellite measurements of the lower part of the atmosphere. There is the problem with this claim and I have pointed this out many times:

When we say global warming we mean the whole globe, not just one part of it.

Using a limited data set excludes what is happening everywhere else. Where is the data on ocean heating? Or, data on ice melting? Or, data on other parts of the atmosphere? Mr. Anonymous has conveniently left out all of that data. It is a very different story when you include it:

Source: Skeptical Science compiled from data in Church et al. (2011)

Seeing a more complete depicting of the data shows global warming is serious and it continues, despite the false arguments of deniers to the contrary.

So, there is a second fatal flaw in Mr. Anonymous’ claim.

In short, he did not submit a proof, so he failed in the $10,000 challenge and it is not scientifically valid evidence against man made global warming, so it fails the $1000 challenge, as well.

I am sure the deniers will object simply because deniers reject science in favor of their denier-religion. But, if they think I am wrong in my statements here, they are free to both comment below and to make corrections to the submissions and submit them again.

However, I am thankful to Mr. Anonymous for the link. That is a very nice website and it will provide me with some nice graphics to show how deniers cherry-pick the data.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “First $10,000 and $1000 Challenges!

  1. As an aside that has nothing to do with the topic here – I personally have no problem between my scientific beliefs and my religious ones and I have a hard time understanding why others do.

    As for what I'm doing, I am certainly not asking anyone to prove me wrong. You have fallen into the same trap so many others have. All I am doing is providing a venue for deniers to back up their claims that they can prove man made global warming is not real. They do not have to prove me wrong/right. In fact, they do not have to address my stand at all. It is all about what they are saying and claiming.

    I'm sorry if you have misinterpreted this challenge.

    Like

  2. Given the fact that science has spoken and there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion: There are only those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale. Would not the proper approach be to utilize the various laws supporting self-defense when it comes to dealing with those who are trying to murder us?

    Like

  3. This is a misrepresentation of Muller by a denier publication. Muller's record speaks for itself. But, then, so dues Muller:

    In October 2011, Muller wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, concerning his work with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project:

    When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find.

    Like

  4. Christopher,
    As someone who really is trying to stay objective on this issue, I must say it is rather tough to find a reliable source of information and commit to one side of the argument. Primarily my confliction is based on the fact that I feel as if news sources are completely skewed based on overarching political positions.

    I ask your feedback on the following:
    Are there any elements of the climate change rhetoric being expressed that as a credible SME you feel are exaggerated? Things like “the hockey stick diagram” or projected global catastrophe scenarios that would likely be overblown.

    Do you know of any colleagues that have a differing opinion that you would deem respectable or credible?

    Are there any forces outside of man made causation that you would lend credibility to in impacting our global temperature?

    If this is a closed debate, what tangible things can be pointed to that show the negative impact of man made global warming (instead of what is to be expected in the future)?

    Sorry to seem one sided, but again it has just been troubling to develop an objective position on this. While I generally am in alignment that man is having a negative impact on global climate, I feel as if there is somewhat of a converse position to merit this not being an “open and shut” debate, and would love to see it be not as politicized.

    Thanks.

    Like

  5. So let me get this right.. You want to make a claim that no one can disprove with data that doesn't prove that you're correct about it having any sort of catastrophic impact on the planet.

    You guys went from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” as a matter of not being able to continue to prove warming temperatures.

    NASA posts that temps on all planets in the solar system were rising at about the same rate at the time this whole Global Warming nonsense pops up in the first place. Explanation: rise in solar flare activity.

    At the time it was comical to point out that there is no such thing as Global Warming because the planet has been in a constant state of cooling for billions of years to which no global warming nut could deny even if they tried.

    I'm in no way a scientist but rather an IT Systems Engineer with 25 years under my belt designing and building the systems clowns like you use to project all of your models. The one thing I have learned over the last 25 years is that science is nonsense on many levels because it's disproven or only partially correct as we find new evidence to support new views all the time which change basic things in very big ways sometimes.

    I also have learned the hard way that many times data is intentionally skewed by those trying to come up with a result and end up not getting the outcome they had hoped for so then it becomes the fault of guys like myself for our systems being faulty.. Trust me, I've heard that too many times when it's actually the moron behind the keyboard putting the data in that is incorrect.

    Scientific methods are not absolute contrary to what you might want to tell people. If they were so absolute then disputes and changes in discoveries would never happen at all. So I offer this up as a bit of insight to someone that isn't grasping reality very well.

    Man has an impact on the planet, of that there can be no doubt. To say that carbon emissions by mankind are effecting that negatively is rather absurd considering that the oceans put off far more CO2 than any source combined by man. That's just a simple fact that you cannot run away from no matter how hard you try.

    We had to listen to you guys whine about the polar caps melting..

    And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

    533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

    In the 80's we were told we were on the way to an ice age by guys just like you who used scientific methods just like you do to tell the country that we were heading for a time when we would have to learn how to deal with the extreme cold temps and that half of the country would likely be going through harsh winters and extreme freezing temperatures for a much greater period of time in my lifetime.

    That was ABC's In the News that was broadcast to kids during Saturday Morning cartoons back then.

    So what's changed? Profits, that's what. You're doing little more than trying to stir up something because no on can anymore disprove what you're saying than you can prove beyond a doubt that what you are saying is true as well.

    So instead of acting the ignorant fool you are here, maybe you should delete this, go back to not trying to get so much attention because you're no one of any importance, and get a hobby instead of trying to create alarm and controversy where there is no story at all.

    You're just seeking attention and now that you have it you'll likely act like a wild animal defending your food source and continue to defend even to the point of making a fool of yourself.. oh wait.. too late.. You did that time and again already with the number of replies to posts that have upscaled you time and again.

    I won't be bothering to read a reply as I can't care what someone like you with so little going on in their life that they scream out for attention like a child as you're doing here.

    Like

  6. What you scientists really need to do is start communicating, in the strongest possible way, that there is no difference between someone claiming to deny AGW, and someone claiming as a defense in court that just because they shot someone in the head there is no proof that the person they shot is actually dead and that it only the opinion of medical examiners.

    The only difference between al-Qaeda members sitting around a Hamburg apartment planning to hijack passenger jets and crash them into office towers and the people claiming that AGW is an opinion, is that the al-Qaeda members are a better class of Hominid because at least they do not lie about wanting to murder us.

    Like

  7. Given that Earth's atmosphere has much more nitrogen and oxygen than CO2, and Mars has much more CO2 than Earth but not even the slightest greenhouse effect, it is obvious that the vast majority of Earth's greenhouse effect derives from N2 and O2 rather than CO2.
    Should we make of research showing recent warming on Mars and Pluto, planets without power plants or automobiles? Is planetary warming simply a natural phenomenon? A better understanding of the issues surrounding these and similar questions is needed.
    We cannot make assumtions that greenhouse gasses caused by mankind are the contributing factor of global warming. In my own opinion the sun exites the earths atmosphere charging the plant like a battery. This battery is weak it gets warmer letting more solar radiation bypass into our atmosphere.

    Like

  8. Isn't the onus on Scientists to PROVE their assertions, supply all the raw data for everyone to see; not on observers and politicians to prove them wrong?

    Every scientist I have ever met, has always been eager to share their raw data, to validate their conclusions. Why not with climate science?

    Deny this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

    Why does Phil Jones need to be secretive with his data?

    Christopher Keating, every scientist at the IPCC, CRU; I am claiming that you are, in fact – politically motivated scientists. Therefor, without your raw data, you are not to be believed.

    Too many dissenting views of man made climate change are met with smear campaign and attacks from the Left. That is what the left does – ask Richard Tol.

    FOIA request for data denied.

    So I will end with this. Until the IPCC, CRU, Phil Jones, and everyone involved with the initial hypothesis and observation of raw data comes clean and provides the public with the transparency that ALL SETTLED SCIENCE does, your conclusions are not settled. You are merely – to use your words Christopher Keating, “cherry picking”

    Like

  9. The main problem is your assumption that we are dealing with large amounts of typical matter, but we are dealing with large amounts of plasma that has a unique nature and behavior. Plasma does not behave like any of the other three states of matter. It is highly energetic and dynamic, constantly changing and redistributing charge based on variations in its energy input. In more energetic states it self-organizes creating glows, toruses, filaments and complex discharge patterns with electromagnetism as the acting primal force. I know that plasma physics is a scientific discipline. I just believe that the role of plasma is not well understood and its significance highly underestimated at the least.

    The electrical nature of plasma cannot be ignored. Plasma is a collection of charged particles that responds collectively to an electromagnetic force. It is conductive and if you apply a voltage, an electric current will be induced in it causing charge separation into anode and cathode field-aligned current sheaths or double layers. Given increased energy these layers can transform into spiral tubes or vortexes of conducting charged particles (Birkeland currents), creating magnetic fields around the current paths.

    The electric current excites the ions and electrons in the plasma making them move rapidly toward the opposite charged sheath. The frenzied particle movement produces collisional energy photons that cause the plasma to glow in the visible range. As the input electric energy increases, the plasma goes from dark glow mode to glow mode to arc or spark discharge mode, as in the cases of the solar wind, the polar auroras and lightning, respectively. Input energy variability can effect an instability in the sheaths causing their magnetic fields to pinch down toward each other and discharge energy at the “Z-pinch”. This is what is defined as a star in the electric universe theory.

    In this theory our star, the sun, is a plasma discharge phenomenon that is connected electrically to all the planets and other stars in our galaxy. Given we can now detect and observe electrical tornadoes impinging at earth’s poles originating from the sun, then electric currents and accompanying magnetic fields flow between the earth and the sun. Larger currents flow between the sun and the galaxy.

    Why this matters is because this electromagnetic link between the sun and the earth is highly energetic and variable. The earth reacts to the sun’s electromagnetic variations with changes in its electromagnetic environment that influence temperature, weather, lightning and climate. Sure, certain gases like carbon dioxide and methane have heating effects on earth’s atmosphere and surface, but one significant solar event can accelerate or reverse these effects.

    This is not about those that believe in anthropogenic climate change versus the deniers. This is about seeking and knowing the truth, the primary function and goal of science. Let the evidence lead you to the truth wherever it may take you, not based on consensus, but on observational facts.

    And I believe I can prove that your stated position is wrong, because it is based on incorrect assumptions about the nature of the earth’s atmosphere, temperature, weather and climate, and what drives and influences them: the sun.

    Some recent evidence (about an hour total):

    Like

  10. This is nothing more than a lame attempt to prove your theory by pretending it must be correct if no one can disprove it, with you being the sole judge. You blather on about Science!!! , Consensus!!! while quoting blogs and disproven surveys? You, sir, are a fraud.

    Like

  11. Are there elements I think are being exaggerated? Certainly. The hockey stick is not one of them, though. I know how much deniers hate it, but I figure that is just a good indicator of how accurate it is. If it was wrong, they would just ignore it. But, there are things I wonder if they might have it exaggerated.

    I don't know why people think scientists all agree on everything. There are always some good debates going on when scientists get together. But, understand the debate might be over whether the average temperature in May was .14 degrees higher of .16 degrees higher than average. Generally speaking, I expect, when I'm with a group of my colleagues, that there will be someone there that doesn't agree with me. That does not make that person any less credible in my eyes.

    Yes, there are lots of forces outside of man that are affecting our climate. Just because we are changing the climate doesn't mean the natural forces have stopped. This is one of the reasons it takes so much work to figure it out. Which factor is natural and which is man made?

    It is not a closed debate. That is a denier myth.

    See this article on the current cost of climate change:

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

    Like

  12. You really haven't bothered to read what the challenge is all about. I am not trying to prove anything and I am not demanding anything from anyone. I have provided a venue for deniers to make good on their claim that man made global warming is not real. If you don't fall in that camp, then I guess the challenge isn't for you.

    Like

  13. Why would you say Mars doesn't have a greenhouse effect? It certainly does. Even with its extremely thin atmosphere (about the same as being at 100,000 feet in our atmosphere), it still retains heat. As cold as it is on Mars, it wold be even colder without it.

    O2 and N2 do not contribute to the greenhouse effect, although CO2 is not the only one that does.

    Like

  14. Raymond Pierrehumbert in his textbook gives Mars' greenhouse effect at about 6 K. (The difference is pressure broadening.)

    But, with very little atmosphere, the temperature swings on Mars are large.

    Like

  15. I am not trying to prove anything or demanding anyone else prove anything. I am providing a venue for deniers to make good on their claims that man made global warming is not real.

    You do not need to ask anyone for data. It is free for anyone with a computer at the National Climatic Data Center. What deniers have been trying to force climate scientists to turn over is their software they have written and developed themselves. That is proprietary material and they don't have to share that. I wrote my own software years ago and I still won't share it.

    Like

  16. I am not trying to prove my theories here. I did that in my book. What I am doing here is providing deniers a venue to prove their claims, if they want to, that man made global warming is not real. If they do not fall in that camp, then the challenge is not for them.

    Like

  17. I think it is an interesting thought that someday, people that suffer because deniers blocked attempts to fix the climate will be held accountable for their actions. If someone were to charge them in a court of law for their actions it would be worth following. We have already done that when we found out the tobacco companies were blocking all attempts to protect people. Look at how much they got punished.

    Like

  18. Then you can easily understand what is being presented and its implications to planetary climate. I would be interested in knowing how you view this perspective relative to your position since it challenges your assertions that human activity is the primary driver of the present climate change.

    One final piece of evidence for you to view:

    https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/04/07/ben-davidson-the-variable-sun-and-its-effects-on-earth-eu2014/

    Like

  19. Hi. My name is Mike.

    When CO2 levels were
    over 4000 ppm during the late Ordovician Period, which was also an Ice Age, shouldn't it have been hotter then if CO2 was & is our planet's heat driver/thermostat?

    The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    Like

  20. In what universe is advocating defending ones family and fellow countrymen from those who are trying to murder them, “mass murder”?

    Science has spoken: There is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is not opinion; there are only those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with global warming, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale.

    Like

  21. The Sun was cooler back then — solar irradiance decreases by about 1% for every 110 M years back.

    The continents were in different places and of different sizes, so the planet had a different albedo.

    Our knowledge of CO2 levels back then is sparse, with few proxies that are on average about 10 M years apart. (The O-Silurian ice age lasted 0.5 M years.) The plots of CO2 you see come from (uncertain) carbon models.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s